Judgment Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15-01-1999 passed by Special Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No. 119/91 whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge after holding the appellant guilty for taking illegal gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of official act being a public servant and thereby committing criminal misconduct convicted him under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC) and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act, 1947') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, respectively, with a direction to run both the substantive jail sentences concurrently. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence the Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 2. As per case of the prosecution, on 27-11-1987, complainant Balakram (PW-4) approached Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Raipur and gave a written complaint (Ex.-P/5) stating that he is resident of Gouriya, P.S. Basna. The settlement department conducted the land settlement in his village. All the agriculturists received lease ¼iV~Vk½ by the Settlement Inspector Chandrakar. His land is situated at Village Matidarha, P.S. Basna. For providing lease ¼iV~Vk½ , Inspector Chandrakar demanded Rs. 600/- as bribe and asked him to come along with Rs. 600/- on 27-11-1987. As the complainant did not want to give bribe and wanted to catch hold him, he reached to the authority along with Rs. 600/- and prayed that legal action may be taken. As he was not educated person and does anyhow signature of himself, hence he managed to write complaint from other people and submitted it before the concerned authority. The concerned Superintendent directed Inspector, Police, Jeevan Malekar (PW-14) for doing needful. Thereafter, he called the panch witnesses M.L. Matiyara (PW-6) and P.M. Lal (PW-8) through District Magistrate. As he was not educated person and does anyhow signature of himself, hence he managed to write complaint from other people and submitted it before the concerned authority. The concerned Superintendent directed Inspector, Police, Jeevan Malekar (PW-14) for doing needful. Thereafter, he called the panch witnesses M.L. Matiyara (PW-6) and P.M. Lal (PW-8) through District Magistrate. When the panch witnesses appeared in the Lokayukt office, the Investigating Officer submitted the complaint (Ex.-P/5) and also introduced the complainant to those panch witnesses. Both the witnesses inquired from the complainant and when the complainant corroborated the contents of the application, both the panch witnesses duly signed on Ex.-P/5. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer formed the trap party. The complainant submitted those currency notes of Rs. 100/-. Head Constable Koshalesh Singh applied phenolphthalein powder over the said notes. Thereafter, his hands were washed in a sodium carbonate solution, then the solution turned pink which was sealed in a bottle. He treated the hands of the members of the trap party in a fresh sodium carbonate solution, the solution did not change colour, the said solution was thrown out as being unnecessary. Thereafter, the said phenolphthalein coated currency notes were kept in the pocket of complainant Balakram (PW-4). No other articles left with the complainant and he was advised to give those currency notes upon demand from the accused. Thereafter, to give signal to trap party initial panchnama was prepared vide Ex.-P/7 in which signature of the complainant and the panch witnesses were taken on each of the pages. On 3.00 p.m. they proceeded towards Pithora. Before this, he obtained signature of the complainant and the panch witnesses in the sealed bottle prepared during exhibition. At about 5.00 p.m., they reached to Pithora and they asked the complainant to go ahead. The trap members and the panch witnesses were standing 10 to 20 meters away from the complainant. The appellant was playing carom near the settlement office. The complainant reached near the appellant, he talked to him and thereafter both went side of the wall and after about 5 minutes both reached to the spot. Thereafter, the complainant gave prefixed signal, then immediately the Investigating Officer and other members of the trap party reached near the appellant. They gave their identity to the appellant and also asked for the notes given as bribe. Thereafter, the complainant gave prefixed signal, then immediately the Investigating Officer and other members of the trap party reached near the appellant. They gave their identity to the appellant and also asked for the notes given as bribe. The appellant informed that the currency notes are in his left pocket of full pant. Then sodium carbonate solution was prepared and hands of M.L. Matiyara (PW-6) were treated but the solution remained colourless, then the solution was sealed. Thereafter, panch witness M.L. Matiyara (PW-6) searched the appellant in the left pocket of his full pant, he took out 6 notes of 100-100 rupees. One more 100 rupees note and a 10 rupees note in addition to the bribe money were recovered from the packet of the appellant. The recovered 600 rupees' numbers tallied with the numbers of notes mentioned in the initial panchnama which were found the same. Thereafter, those notes were treated in solution of sodium carbonate, the solution turned pink, the same solution was also duly sealed. In addition to these currency notes other 100 and 10 rupees notes were also treated in the sodium carbonate solution, the solution again turned pink, that solution was also sealed. Thereafter, when the full pant of the appellant was treated with sodium carbonate solution, the solution turned pink, the same was also duly sealed. Fingers of the appellants were dipped into sodium carbonate solution, the solution again turned pink, the same was also sealed duly. Thereafter, the complainant's hands were also dipped into sodium carbonate solution, then the solution again turned pink, the same was also sealed separately. Seizure panchnama was prepared for the seized notes and trap panchnama Ex.-P/8 was prepared at the spot. The seizure memo of the currency notes is Ex.-P/9 which was duly signed by the panch witnesses and the appellant. Additionally seized 100 and 10 rupees were seized through seizure memo Ex.-P/10. The full pant was seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/11. Boric powder kept in the carom room was also seized through Ex.-P/2. Thereafter, the posting order of the appellant was seized through seizure memo Ex.-P/12. The application given by the complainant for settlement was also seized along with concerned register vide Ex.-P/12A. Mutation file was seized through Ex.-P/13A. The Investigating Officer lodged an unnumbered FIR (dehati nalishi) at the spot vide Ex.-P/14. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their submission. The application given by the complainant for settlement was also seized along with concerned register vide Ex.-P/12A. Mutation file was seized through Ex.-P/13A. The Investigating Officer lodged an unnumbered FIR (dehati nalishi) at the spot vide Ex.-P/14. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their submission. _.k iqfLrdk of the complainant No. 1 and No. 2 were also seized from the complainant vide seizure memo Ex.-P/15. The First Information Report which was registered from the Special Police Establishment, Bhopal is Ex.-P/16. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer received the chemical analyst report Ex.-P/17 from Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. Seized material and solutions were marked as article 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. After necessary sanction for the prosecution, the charge sheet was duly submitted for cognizance and trial before the Court of Special Judge competent to try the case under Section 5 of the Act, 1947 who conducted the trial. The appellant was charged under Section 161 of the IPC and under Section 5(1)(d)/5(2) of the Act, 1947. The accused/appellant denied the charges leveled against him and prayed for trial. 3. In order to prove guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') wherein he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution's case and pleaded innocence and false implication in crime in question. In his defence the appellant examined Kushal Ram Chandrakar (DW-1). As per this witness, the appellant was allotted work for giving dates to villagers and this witness was entrusted with the job of distribution of lease ¼iV~Vk½ and much before the date of Incident the complainant was not found eligible for iV~Vk and the prayer for iV~Vk by the complainant was under dispute. 4. In the statement under Section 313 of the Code, the appellant had taken the defence that forcibly the complainant put notes in his pocket, he was not authorized to give iV~Vk . He is innocent and he was falsely implicated. 5. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as aforementioned. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 7. He is innocent and he was falsely implicated. 5. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as aforementioned. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted written synopsis and mentioned therein the grounds on the basis of which the appellant is liable to be acquitted. The learned counsel also submitted oral argument on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the appellant was not entrusted with the work. There was one more Chandrakar whose name was Kushai Ram working also as Settlement Inspector with the appellant in the same office. At Ex.-P/5, the complainant not mentioned the name of the appellant, only Chandrakar is mentioned. If there would have been only one Chandrakar as Settlement Inspector, then the case would have been different, but in the present case there was two Chandrakar, both working as Settlement Inspector in the said office. Ex.-P/5 is not bearing the name of the appellant. As per statement of Mahendra Kumar Sharma (PW-3) who was working at the time of incident as Assistant Settlement Officer, at para 2, the appellant was entrusted with the work of giving date only in his absence and the settlement job was with Inspector K.S. Chandrakar. It is submitted that it is required that the panch witnesses should hear conversation and see giving and acceptance of money. The appellant was not present in his office, there should be some time and date for acceptance of demand. Omprakash (PW-2), owner of the carom club, deposed that initially the appellant refused to go out with the complainant, if there would have been some illegal demand then in a natural reaction the accused would have been immediately come out along with the complainant or he would have been present in the office. As there was no fixed time for giving and acceptance of bribe money, hence, the entire story of the prosecution is unnatural and the incident was highly suspicious. As the panch witnesses not heard any conversation or they not saw the appellant accepting the money, it creates a suspicion in the prosecution's story. The learned counsel further submitted that the complainant reached where the appellant was. As the panch witnesses not heard any conversation or they not saw the appellant accepting the money, it creates a suspicion in the prosecution's story. The learned counsel further submitted that the complainant reached where the appellant was. In para 5 panch witness M.L. Matiyara (PW-6) stated that he had not heard the conversation of the appellant and the complainant. P.M. Lal (PW-8), another panch witness, deposed in para 4 of his statement that he was not along with the complainant at the time of acceptance of money by the appellant. He admitted in para 14 that he did not know what transpired at the time of dealing. As per para 10, he was not knowing at which place the bribe money to be given. As per this witness the bribe money should be given in the office. Nand Kumar (PW-13) who wrote the complaint (Ex.-P/5), as per evidence of this witness, at para 7, in about 15 to 20 cases he wrote complaint on behalf of complainant, this witness also admitted that the complainant not told the name of the accused only surname Chandrakar was stated; as two Chandrakar are working in the office, it is suspicious for whom the complainant wanted to make the complaint. As per para 10 of this witness i.e. Nand Kumar (PW-13), he was standing about 20 to 25 pace from the carom club and he was along with the Investigating Officer Jeevan Malekar (PW-14). Jeevan Malekar (PW-14) in his para 15 admitted that he had not asked the complete name of the accused at the time of making complaint; he also admitted that he did not know whether during settlement proceeding some other Chandrakar demanded the money from the complainant At para 16, Investigating Officer Jeevan Malekar (PW-14) admitted that question of giving lease ¼iV~Vk½ was under dispute; at para 18, this witness again admitted that which Inspector Chandrakar demanded the money, the name was not disclosed by the complainant at the time of making complaint; at para 19, this witness admitted that the accused was not available in the office but the complainant had not immediately informed him regarding this fact. The learned counsel submitted that when the accused was not available in the office, then the complainant thought that he will be misunderstood because he by making complaint put the Special Police Establishment in motion that is why instead of informing this fact to the Investigating Officer he himself started searching the accused. At para 20 of his evidence, Jeevan Malekar (PW-14) admitted that bribe money is to be given in the office. The learned counsel further submitted that Jeevan Malekar (PW-14) admitted that at point No. 6, he along with one panch witness was standing; this witness admitted that from the place where he was standing, he had not seen the money accepted by the appellant. He also admitted that he had not heard the conversation between the complainant and the appellant; at para 22, this witness admitted that he is not in a position to deny this fact that the complainant forcibly put the money in the pocket of the appellant. As per this witness, the complainant went all alone. As statement of Balakram (PW-4)/complainant, the appellant demanded money in the carom club. Omprakash (PW-2) specifically stated that initially the appellant refused to go with the complainant and he went along with the complainant after advice of other persons. The complainant told the appellant that he had an urgent work and he wanted to talk to the appellant. The learned counsel further submitted that the facts appeared in para 2 of the statement of complainant Balakram (PW-4) that the appellant demanded the money and the same was a single line demand, and the demand for the first time, before this there was no demand from the appellant. As per settled law if there is even a slightest doubt, benefit should be given to the appellant. Two persons of the same surname and same position are working; there is no mention of name of the appellant in Ex.-P/5, the complaint; the appellant was not authorized to disburse lease ¼iV~Vk½ . The Investigating Officer admitted the possibility that other Chandrakar may have demanded the money. With this, due corroboration is required by the other witnesses which is lacking in the present case; other witnesses are in contrast with the complainant. Learned counsel further submitted that as per P.M. Lal (PW-8), para 4, when hands of the appellant was treated in the sodium carbonate solution, the liquid remained colourless. With this, due corroboration is required by the other witnesses which is lacking in the present case; other witnesses are in contrast with the complainant. Learned counsel further submitted that as per P.M. Lal (PW-8), para 4, when hands of the appellant was treated in the sodium carbonate solution, the liquid remained colourless. This creates doubt which was duly discussed by the trial Court at para 21 of the judgment that there is contradictory facts regarding the solution turned pink while the hands of the appellant was dipped in the solution. If money was forcibly put in the packet then pocket will turn the solution pink if treated, but not the hand. Even the hands may receive phenolphthalein powder by hand shake and as there was dispute for the lease ¼iV~Vk½ , hence the statement of the complainant is not admissible. If we combine the statements of Omprakash (PW-2), Mahendra Kumar Sharma (PW-3) and Kushal Ram Chandrakar (DW-1), the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond doubt. Demand part is suspicious, hence, the appellant may be given benefit of doubt and may be acquitted of the charges. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 4 SCC 526 , wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court held complainant to be regarded as an accomplice, to be corroborated in material particulars before being relied upon - the demand of bribe money was not corroborated. Then by offering benefit of doubt to the appellant, Hon'ble the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant. Reliance is also placed on behalf of the appellant on the matter of P. Parasurami Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011)12 SCC 294 , wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that if there is no fixed time and place to receive bribe money, panch witnesses not accompanied complainant and noted the conversation between complainant and accused, raiding party of 9 persons not able to recover treated currency notes thrown away by accused in open space and which were allegedly taken away by members of public, While recording the finding that judgment of court below relying upon sole evidence of fingers being soiled in sodium carbonate turning pink is not sufficient to convict accused and the circumstances creates doubt, Hon'ble the Supreme Court granted benefit of doubt to appellant. Reliance is also placed on behalf of the appellant on the matter of M.O. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala, (1995) 3 SCC 351 , in which Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that evidence must be scrutinized carefully and whether the evidence of a forced bribe-giver requires corroboration or not would be within the discretion of the court depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Further reliance is placed upon the matter of C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI Cochin, (2009) 3 SCC 779 . wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charges of prosecution against the accused in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that accused voluntary accepted money knowing it to be bribe and Hon'ble the Supreme Court while allowing the appeal acquitted the appellant as the charges were not proved against him. Learned counsel for the appellant further placed reliance on the matter of Subash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 5 SCC 86 , wherein the complainant gave something from his pocket which accused put in his pocket as deposed by panch witnesses and it was held from this evidence that it cannot be inferred that accused had demanded any amount from the complainant or that he had obtained the same. Panch witnesses never stated that accused had demanded any amount from the complainant, nor the complainant had in his cross-examination supported the prosecution version of demand and acceptance of the amount by accused and Hon'ble the Supreme Court holding that conviction is not proper set aside the conviction. Reliance is also placed on behalf of the appellant on the matter of Bal Krishan Sayal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 689 : (1987) 2 SCC 647 , wherein prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 100/- to obtain an order of waiver of the penal rent of Rs. 102/-. Looking to the unsatisfactory character of prosecution evidence, Hon'ble the Supreme Court awarded benefit of doubt to the appellant. 100/- to obtain an order of waiver of the penal rent of Rs. 102/-. Looking to the unsatisfactory character of prosecution evidence, Hon'ble the Supreme Court awarded benefit of doubt to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance in case law of Criminal Appeal No. 2619 of 1998 (Dinesh Kumar Kannoje v. State of Madhya Pradesh) decided by single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17-02-2012. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed that on the basis of cited case laws the facts and circumstances of the present case is also identical and looking to the principles reiterated in the cited case laws, the appellant of the present case while giving him benefit of doubt may also be acquitted of the charges framed against him. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and submitted that judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is well founded. Complainant Balakram (PW-4) admitted that he knew the accused; there Was demand from the accused; there was motive and the bribe money given by the complainant was seized; the money was demanded for giving lease ¼iV~Vk½ there was demand by the appellant himself, hence, there is no doubt that against which Chandrakar the complainant made the complaint. Learned State counsel further submitted that Omprakash (PW-2) corroborated the prosecution's story that the appellant went out from the carom club and thereafter after some time he again came back and started playing carom. Immediately after this, CID people came, they caught the appellant and some money seized from the pocket of the appellant which goes to show that he had received the money and then started playing again carom. Hence, the money was forcibly put in his pocket is not acceptable. Demand of bribe was made in the name of issuance of lease ¼iV~Vk½ . The same currency notes recovered and the numbers thereof were tallied from the initial panchnama. The Investigating Officer, the complainant and other panch witnesses corroborated the change of colour while treating the hands of the appellant in the sodium carbonate solution; the FSL report (Ex.-P/17) also confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein in the said solution bottle. Kushal Ram Chandrakar (DW-1) also admitted that the appellant was assigned the job of giving dates to villagers. The Investigating Officer, the complainant and other panch witnesses corroborated the change of colour while treating the hands of the appellant in the sodium carbonate solution; the FSL report (Ex.-P/17) also confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein in the said solution bottle. Kushal Ram Chandrakar (DW-1) also admitted that the appellant was assigned the job of giving dates to villagers. In all, the learned counsel for the State/respondent submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant, hence, there is no scope in the appeal and as such the appeal may be dismissed. 9. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I have examined the evidence available on record. 10. Much said regarding the non-mentioning the name of the appellant in Ex.-P/5. The complainant is a person who anyhow makes his signature that is why the complaint was got written by Nand Kumar (PW-13). A person who was just able to make his sign cannot be expected to know the complete name of the appellant but in Ex.-P/5 he got written his designation and surname correct and Balakram/complainant (PW-4) in his court evidence identified the appellant and deposed that the appellant was working as Settlement Inspector and he was the man who demanded the money for issuance of iV~Vk and thereafter the same appellant was trapped and the appellant facing trial. The complainant did not state that it was Kushal Ram Chandrakar (DW-1) who demanded the money and Kushal Ram Chandrakar (DW-1) also not said that he demanded the money from the complainant, it goes to show there was no inability for not knowing the complainant the name of the appellant. On the other hand, identification of the appellant is well established by the evidence of the complainant that the money was demanded from him and he gave bribe to the appellant, it goes to show that the appellant was the person who demanded the bribe and ultimately the bribe was given on duty to the appellant thereby it eliminates the confusion or suspicion regarding the identification of the appellant, it is therefore proved by the prosecution witnesses that it was the appellant who demanded Rs. 600/- as bribe from the complainant and thereafter the complainant gave a written complaint before the Lokayukt and the authority conducted the trap. 11. 600/- as bribe from the complainant and thereafter the complainant gave a written complaint before the Lokayukt and the authority conducted the trap. 11. It is said that P.M. Lal (PW-8) deposed that when the hands of the appellant was treated in the sodium carbonate solution then the solution remained colourless that is why the trial Court in his judgment paras 19, 20 and 21 discussed this contradiction, on the basis of this it is argued that hands of the appellant turned pink while washing in the sodium carbonate solution is not proved beyond doubt. As per the statements of complainant Balakram (PW-4), Investigating Officer Jeevan Malekar (PW-14) and the other panch witness M.L. Matiyara (PW-6), when the hands of the appellant washed with sodium carbonate solution the solution turned pink, this also corroborated by the FSL report (Ex.-P/17) that the said solution turned pink. When all other witnesses including the chemical analysis report are for the fact that hand washing solution turned pink, it cannot be held that there is material contradiction. The evidence are corroborated by chemical analysis test, the report Ex.-P/17 corroborates the oral evidence of the Investigating Officer, the complainant and M.L. Matiyara (PW-6) that is why the trial Court also held at para 21 of its judgment that on the basis of the, entire evidence it is proved that the money was recovered from the possession of the appellant. It is also the defence of the appellant that the complainant forcefully put currency notes in his pocket, but as Omprakash (PW-2), the Manager of the carom club deposed that after some time the appellant returned back and started carom playing which goes to show that there was no forceful entrusting of the currency notes in the pocket of the appellant which eliminates the defence of forceful thrusting of notes by the complainant inside the pocket of the appellant. There was no story that the complainant did hand shake with the appellant, in the absence of this suggestion, it goes to show that the money was received by the appellant from his hand and thereafter he put it inside his pocket. On the basis of the above mentioned oral and scientific evidence it is clear that both the hands and the pocket of pant turned pink while treating with the sodium carbonate solution. On the basis of the above mentioned oral and scientific evidence it is clear that both the hands and the pocket of pant turned pink while treating with the sodium carbonate solution. It is argued that as time and place not fixed, hence it is suspicious that whether the demand was made or not. In the present case, as per the complaint Ex.-P/5, 27-11-87 date was fixed by the appellant for the acceptance of bribe, on the same date this trap was conducted and the appellant was caught red-handed, he was working as Settlement Inspector and was playing carom in the nearby building of his office where the entire incident for acceptance of money are done. As the date was fixed and it is not mandatory that if bribe is accepted outside the office no offence is made out, in the considered view of this Court, the whole incident happened near his office; as the time of the office was closed and the appellant was playing carom, therefore, outside the said building the appellant accepted the money behind a wall which cannot be held suspicious; wherever the complainant met the appellant, according to previous demand he accepted the bribe and the incident happened; as such the defence regarding place of the incident and time is not relevant looking to the entire facts and circumstances. 12. It is argued that the appellant was not entrusted with the work of disbursing of iV~Vk , on the other hand he was entrusted the work of giving dates to villagers; but he was working in the same office and duly connected with the villagers for giving dates, in natural course, the complainant asked him for issuance of iV~Vk , for the same the appellant demanded Rs. 600/-, it goes to show that as he was in the same office giving dates to villagers and the complainant was one of them whose iV~Vk was not issued, in normal course, the person who was giving dates was contacted by the complainant and whom he asked for the iV~Vk on the basis of this the learned trial Court also in para 26 of its judgment held that the position of the appellant in the office was such that he may give assurance to any outsider person for the job and may demand money from him and thereby looking to the job entrusted to him, it may not be said that as the appellant was not entrusted with the job of issuance of iV~Vk , demand for such issuance is doubtful. I agree with the assessment which is normal and as per the entire evidence adduced. It is said that initially the appellant was reluctant to go with the complainant outside, but when the persons present in the carom room advised him, the appellant went outside along with the complainant, it is argued that this story creates suspicion, if the appellant demanded money and the complainant met him with money, in normal course, the appellant would have to immediately go outside to accept the money and then come back. But his reluctance is a double edge fact there may be many reasons for immediate reluctance, one is that the appellant was in commanding position, the complainant was a petty farmer and under control of the appellant for benefit of iV~Vk and if the complainant shown his presence then he was to wait till the appellant completed his carom playing because the complainant could wait and the money was safe and available with the complainant where the money would go? But as the other persons advised him because they did not know what was fixed between the appellant and the complainant and the other players may be of the view that let the appellant dispose of the stranger and thereafter they can concentrate on carom playing; in the view of this Court, the trial Court also rightly held this as natural and admissible that the appellant accepted the bribe from the complainant and as discussed above in the light of the fact that hands of the appellant turned pink when treated in sodium carbonate solution, it eliminates the defence of forcible thrusting of the money in the pocket of the appellant by the complainant. It is also a point to note that when the complainant met the appellant then if some conversation in low voice or with any indication the complainant informed the appellant that he is with money, it is difficult for others to notice this thing because they were not aware of the previous demand and conversation, but Omprakash (PW-2) corroborated and supported the story of the prosecution while stating his entire evidence, which goes to show that the appellant went out along with the complainant and after some time he returned back and started playing carom and after some time CID people came, they caught hold the appellant and seized some money from the pocket of the appellant. This Court is of the view that Omprakash (PW-2) has supported the prosecution story not the defence version. 13. Much said that panch witnesses not accompanied the complainant; when we appreciate the evidence of Balakram (PW-4)/complainant, M.L. Matiyara (PW-6) and P.M. Lal (PW-8), it would go to show that the panch witnesses also accompanied the complainant, but they were at a certain distance because it is quite probable that in the presence of other witnesses the appellant may not accept the money, so these panch witnesses were as far as possible remained at some distance from the complainant and when they saw the giving and acceptance of the money and when the complainant made the prefixed signal, they along with the trap party reached near the appellant and thereafter they took part in the post proceedings, though the panch witnesses not heard the conversation, but they were near the complainant and also they put on villagers dress so that they may not be identified as some suspicious persons. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances, if they have not heard the conversation, the case of the prosecution does not become suspicions because conversation being heard is not a thumb rule, but if possible conversation should be heard by panch witnesses. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances, it goes to show that though they have not heard the conversation, but they saw the giving and acceptance of the money and they followed the complainant at a safe distance also in a camouflaged condition. Therefore, the argument submitted on behalf of the appellant does not create any doubt for the evidence of panch witnesses and the complainant. It is said that the Investigating Officer while asking the presumptive question not denied the suggestion of the defence, on the basis of any presumptive question, the case of the prosecution neither proved nor disproved, as the statements of the witnesses is assessed on their strength and then it may be held proved or disproved. In imaginary question asked from Jeevan Malekar (PW-14), in no way, can ruin the prosecution case, in view of this Court, the argument regarding the said suggestion of the defence may not be acceptable and the presence thereof, being improbable, may not falsify the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel also argued that the complainant was not competent to take iV~Vk that is why the case of the prosecution is suspicious. In the present case, the documents seized by the Investigating Officer regarding _.k iqfLrdk and other documents go to show that there may be or may not be any dispute as to iV~Vk may be issued in whose name, but the complainant was making efforts for issuance of iV~Vk in his name and during this if the appellant assured him that he will give iV~Vk to him after taking bribe of Rs. 600/-, he was working in a position where he can demand and one can trust over him because he was working in the same office and was in public contact for giving dates to villagers, thus, in view of this Court, competency or incompetency for obtaining iV~Vk is not relevant in the facts of this case which is a separate issue and is of no help for the defence. 14. The appellant was a public servant engaged in the aforesaid duties is not in dispute. 14. The appellant was a public servant engaged in the aforesaid duties is not in dispute. There is no argument regarding validity for sanction, hence, the same is not material for the purpose of present appellant. 15. The cited case law Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra (1979) 4 SCC 526 (supra) is of no help to defence because in the present case, story of the complainant corroborated by the other witnesses, as there was demand duly corroborated by the post act which was witnessed by the panch witnesses and the Investigating Officer. The cited case law M.O. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala (1995) 3 SCC 351 (supra) is also of no help because in the present case it is proved by the evidence that the complainant was not a forced bribe- giver, on the other hand, it is proved that voluntarily the appellant accepted the bribe in his hand and thereafter put it in his pocket. The other case law cited of P. Parasurami Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011)12 SCC 294 (supra) is based on different facts, on the other hand, in the present case, money was duly seized from the possession of the appellant and for which oral and scientific evidence corroborated each other, there is no doubt for the recovery and other facts, hence, this case law is also distinguishable as the facts are different. The case law cited of C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI Cochin (2009) 3 SCC 779 (supra) is based on defence that amount in question was for repayment of loan taken from his assistant, but in the present case, this is not the defence of the appellant. On the basis of different facts, this cited case law is also distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Another case law Subash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat (2002) 5 SCC 86 (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is also distinguishable, in this cited case law complainant followed the appellant, gave him something from his pocket which accused put in his pocket, but in the present case, this is not defence of the appellant that he is unknowingly put the currency notes in his pocket, hence, this cited case law is also distinguishable and of no help to the appellant. The cited case law Bal Krishan Sayal v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 689 : (1987) 2 SCC 647 (supra) is for the facts that appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 100/- to obtain an order of waiver of the penal rent for Rs. 102/-, Hon'ble the Supreme Court on the basis of unsatisfactory character of prosecution evidence gave benefit of reasonable doubt, but in the present case, there was no any waiver of penal rent or some other money, in the present case the bribe was demanded for issuance of lease ¼iV~Vk½ hence, this case law is also distinguishable from the present case. The learned counsel for the appellant also cited an unreported Criminal Appeal No. 2619 of 1998 (Dinesh Kumar Kannoje v. State of Madhya Pradesh) (supra) in which appellant was acquitted by a coordinate Bench of this High Court as the recovery is not proved against the appellant as the appellant had not voluntarily accepted the money, but in the present case, there is admissible evidence that the appellant voluntarily accepted the bribe for which he already made the demand. 16. To part with, upon considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in view of this Court, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court holding that it was the appellant who made illegal demand as bribe money other than the legal remuneration from complainant Balakram (PW-4) for issuance of lease ¼iV~Vk½ which was not lawful and was other than the legal remuneration thereby the appellant/accused committed offence of criminal misconduct in discharge of his official duty and committed act for which he was charged by the trial Court. The trial Court was just and proper to hold guilty and convict the appellant. There is no scope for interference in the judgment impugned. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. As the appellant is reported to be on bail. He is directed to surrender immediately before the trial Court. The trial Court is also directed to ensure that the appellant serves the remaining sentence.