JUDGMENT : The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the appellant accused against the judgment dated 05.08.2006 passed by Special Judge (Anti Corruption Cases), Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 4/2004 whereby the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant for the offences under 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’) and punished the appellant-accused for one year rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 500/- for Section 13 (2) and six months rigorous imprisonment alongwiht fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 7 of the Act of 1988 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three month simple imprisonment. As per brief facts of the case, a written complaint (Exhibit-P1) was submitted by complainant Ashu Ram (PW-1) before Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jodhpur wherein it was alleged that he wanted to purchase Mine No. 2210 situated in Keru Area from one Labhu Ram Meghwal and for this purpose, the complainant and one Kishore Singh (PW-16) meet the accused appellant on 12.04.2001 who gave a slip in his writing showing an expenditure of Rs. 6800/-. Out of which, Rs. 1100/-were paid and remaining Rs.5700/-were demanded for which the complainant PW-1 Ashu Ram was directed to deliver the money on 16.04.2001. As per the prosecution case, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Jodhpur after having been satisfied with regard to demand of bribe conducted a trap on 16.04.2011 by calling witnesses Jugal Kishore and Sukh Ram. Eleven currency notes of Rs.500/-each and two notes of Rs. 1000/-each were powered with phenolphthalein. After giving all relevant instruction to the complainant, the trap party alongwith Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Jodhpur reached the Mines and Geology Department on 16.04.2001 and after getting signal from the complainant PW-1 Ashu Ram, the currency notes were alleged to be recovered from the certain files lying on the office table of the accused appellant not from his physical possession. As per the prosecution case, the complainant Ashu Ram handed over the currency notes to one Hazi Khan (PW-2) who was present in the room as per instruction of appellant accused. After completing trap proceedings, the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jodhpur registered an FIR No. 165/2001 on 18.04.2001 which is on record as Ex.P-25. As per the prosecution case, the complainant Ashu Ram handed over the currency notes to one Hazi Khan (PW-2) who was present in the room as per instruction of appellant accused. After completing trap proceedings, the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jodhpur registered an FIR No. 165/2001 on 18.04.2001 which is on record as Ex.P-25. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Jodhpur prepared the whole trap proceedings upon the complaint filed by the complainant Ashu Ram (PW-1) which is on record as Exhibit P-1. In the investigation, the accused appellant was arrested and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 in the court of Special Judge, (Anti Corruption Cases). In the trial court, charges were framed against the accused appellant but the accused appellant denied the charges leveled against him and claimed for trial. In the trial, statement of 16 prosecution witnesses were recorded in support of its case which are PW-1 Ashu Ram (complainant), PW-2 Hazi Khan, PW-3 ASI Kalyan Singh, PW-4 Ct. Razzak Mohd., PW-5 Virender Singh, PW6 Bhanwar Lal, PW-7 O. P. Saini, IAS, PW-8 Jugal Kishore (Motbir) and PW-9 Sukh Ram (Motbir), PW-10 HC Arun Boda, PW-11 Smt. Nirzo Devi Sarpanch, PW-12 Addl. S.P Chatur Sen, PW-13 Mining Engineer Moti Lal Verma, PW-14 IO Narendar Pal Singh, PW-15 Parvwat Singh Dy. SP, PW-16 Kishore Singh and 41 documents were exhibited. After recording statements of prosecution witnesses, the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein it is submitted by the accused appellant that he neither demanded any bribe inspite of that falsely implicated in this case. In defence, three witnesses were produced by the accused appellant namely DW-1 Banshidhar, Retired Superintending Engineer, DW-2 Mahesh Kalla, LDC and accused himself by seeking permission under Section 315 Cr.P.C. After recording of the evidence of both the sides, the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Jodhpur finally heard the arguments and vide impugned judgment dated 05.08.2006 convicted the accused appellant for the offences under Section 7 & 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(1) (2) of the Act of 1988 and passed sentence as mentioned above. The instant appeal has been filed by the accused appellant to challenge the judgment dated 05.08.2006 whereby he was convicted for the offences under Section 7, 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(1)(3) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the judgment impugned is erroneous because learned trial Judge has neither appreciated the evidence nor applied the law correctly, therefore, the impugned judgment suffers from gross error of facts and law. Attacking upon the evidence, it is argued that the ingredients of the demand of bribe by the accused which is the basic ground of initiation of the proceedings against the appellant is based upon three witnesses which are complainant Ashu Ram (PW-1), Hazi Khan (PW-2) and Kishore Singh (PW-16) and also based on written slip (Ex.P-4) which is alleged to be written by the accused appellant himself and Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Jodhpur who before initiating proceedings believed that there is demand of bribe by the appellant. It is vehemently argued that the whole foundation of the prosecution case is not in existence because complainant PW-1 Ashu Ram turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Further, PW-2 Hazi Khan and PW-16 Kishore Singh witness of demand of bribe also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Similarly the hand written slip ExP4 has not been proved by the prosecution so also there is no iota of evidence to connect the appellant accused with the so called written slip Ex-P4 because during trial, an application was filed by the accused appellant under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act requesting the trial judge to verify the writing of Ex. P-4 by sending the specimen writing to the hand writing expert for which accused appellant is ready to give his writing and to bear the expenses but the learned trial judge did not consider it necessary to get opinion of handwriting expert, therefore, it can be presumed that there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the so called written slip Ex. P4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of no evidence as far as ingredient of demand of bribe is concerned because the complainant PW-1 Ashu Ram, PW-2 Hazi Khan and PW-16 Kishore Singh turned hostile and categorically stated that accused appellant never demanded any bribe from the complainant. P4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of no evidence as far as ingredient of demand of bribe is concerned because the complainant PW-1 Ashu Ram, PW-2 Hazi Khan and PW-16 Kishore Singh turned hostile and categorically stated that accused appellant never demanded any bribe from the complainant. The complainant PW-1 Ashu Ram has gone further and admit that the accused appellant has falsely been implicated in this case, therefore, it is a case in which although the prosecution has failed to prove its case, the trial judge convicted the accused appellant without any evidence, therefore, judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. The learned counsel for the appellant invited attention of this Court that the finding of learned Judge on the issue of recovery of notes is perverse because trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that currency notes were not recovered from the physical possession of the accused appellant, therefore, the learned Judge ought to have acquitted accused appellant, therefore, the learned Judge ought to have acquitted the accused appellant from the charges leveled against him. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently held in the case of M.r. Purushottam Vs. State of Karnataka (2014 AIR SCW 5748) that in absence of evidence of demand of bribe, no person can be convicted only on the basis of recovery of notes but herein in this case ignoring the fact that the prosecution witnesses PW-1 Ashu Ram, PW-2 Hazi Khan and PW-16 Kishore Singh turned hostile and currency notes were not recovered from conscious possession of the accused , the leaned trial Judge erroneously convicted the accused appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the motive and purpose of the alleged demand of bribe was to transfer the mine No. 2210 situated in Keru area in favour of complainant Ashu Ram from one Labhu Ram Meghwal. Admittedly, the accused appellant being LDC, was not having any jurisdiction or power to transfer mines. More so, even the Executive Engineer or the Director, Mines could not transfer the said mine No. 2210 situated in Keru area from said Labhu Ram Meghwal in the name of complainant because as per the evidence on record it was a case of purchase and as per facts, the complainant purchased the said mines in Rs. More so, even the Executive Engineer or the Director, Mines could not transfer the said mine No. 2210 situated in Keru area from said Labhu Ram Meghwal in the name of complainant because as per the evidence on record it was a case of purchase and as per facts, the complainant purchased the said mines in Rs. 30,000/-from Labhu Ram Meghwal but in absence of provisions of law, the mine cannot be transferred, the said position is clarified by the prosecution witness PW-13 Moti lal Verma as well as defence witness DW -1 Banshidhar that LDC is not having any authority to transfer the mine, therefore the allegations of demand for the purpose of transfer of mine is totally unfounded because there is no evidence on record to prove that accused appellant was having power or jurisdiction to transfer the Mine No. 2210 situated in Keru area in favour of the complainant Ashu Ram. It is also argued that the said labhu Ram Meghwal was not examined in the trial. More so, PW-11 Nirzo Devi Sarpanch of the area gave her statement in the trial that there is no such person in the name of Labhu Ram Meghwal dead or alive in her area, therefore, it is a case in which the appellant accused has been implicated falsely by the prosecution. While inviting attention towards the statement of defence witnesses DW-1 Banshidhar, Retired Superintending Engineer, DW-2 Mahesh Kalla, it is argued that on the basis of these two defence witnesses it emerges that the LDC of the Mining Department cannot transfer any mine because there is no jurisdiction left with the employee working on the post of LDC, therefore, the finding given by the Special Judge to convict the accused appellant is totally erroneous and accused appellant is entitled for acquittal. With regard to recovery of currency notes, it is submitted that as per the prosecution, the currency notes were not recovered from the physical possession of the accused appellant but the same were recovered from certain files lying on the table of the accused appellant and in the proceeding, the accused immediately denied to receive any bribe money before investigating officer and this fact is clearly admitted by PW-12 Addl. Superintendent of Police, Chatur Sain in his statement before the Court that none of the person of raiding party saw the passing of the bribe money to the accused appellant nor could hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused appellant regarding alleged transaction of the bribe money. Further submitted that the prosecution case is based upon the evidence of PW 1 Ashu Ram, PW-2 Hazi Khan and PW-16 Kishore Singh but all these three witnesses who first entered in the Office before trap party did not support the prosecution case and proved the fact of demand of bribe by the accused appellant, therefore, the finding of Special Judge so as to convict the accused is totally erroneous whereby he has convicted accused appellant for the alleged offences. The learned counsel for the appellant lastly argued that during investigation, the statement of complainant PW-1 Ashu Ram and PW/2 Hazi Khan were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. after completion of trap proceedings on 01.06.2014 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur which is on record as Ex.D-3 and Ex. D/2, but no allegation was made by them for demand of bribe. The complainant Ashu Ram disclosed in his complaint that Laxmi Babu of Mining Department demanded bribe but in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 01.06.2001 he has narrated altogether different story. In the complainat filed on 15.04.2001, the complainant disclosed that Laxmi Babu of Mining Department demanded bribe of Rs. 6800/-but in the statement recorded during investigation on 01.06.2001 under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is stated by the complainant that one class IV employee of Mining department demanded Rs. 1100/-for transfer of mine which he has already paid to the class IV employee of the department and further the said Class IV employee demanded Rs. 5,000/-upon which complaint was made to the Anti Corruption Bureau. Meaning thereby a totally false proceedings were initiated upon the so called complaint Ex.P-1 filed by the complaint Ashu Ram who turned hostile in the trial before the court, therefore it is a case in which finding given by the trial court against the accused is totally baseless because trial court has erroneously relied upon the witnesses of Anti Corruption Department only while disbelieving the independent witnesses whose statements were also recorded in the trial. It is also argued that accused appellant has been convicted upon the baseless finding which is not supported by any independent witness, therefore the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed and set aside. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant invited attention of this Court towards the judgment of M.R. Purshottam vs State of Karnataka reported in 2014 AIR SCW Page 5740 in which it has been held that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand would not attract offence under Section 13(1) (d) of the Act and while giving such finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is pray ed that judgment impugned may be quashed. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor Deepak Chaudhary vehemently argued that no error has been committed by the trial court in convicting the accused appellant for the alleged offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act. It is further submitted that although the complainant PW-1 Ashu Ram, PW-2 Hazi Khan and PW-16 Kishore Singh turned hostile but only for that reason it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt because the proceedings of trial conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau is supported by the independent witnesses PW-8 Jugal Kishore and PW-9 Sukh Ram in whose presence the trap proceedings were conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau so also the witnesses of investigation PW/10 Arun, PW/14 Narendra Singh, Investigating Officer and PW/12 Chatur Sain Dy. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau proved the fact that in the trap proceedings, the currency notes of Rs. 5700/-were recovered from the files lying on the table of the accused appellant therefore, although the complainant stated that the amount of bribe was not taken by him but it was asked by the accused appellant that the said money may be given to Hazi Khan who was standing in the Office and later on the said notes were taken by the accused and put in the files therefore when the hands of the accused appellant were washed, the colour was found upon the hands of the accused appellant. In view of above fact, it is submitted that the petitioner has not been falsely implicated or trial court committed any error to convict the accused appellant for the alleged offences. In view of above fact, it is submitted that the petitioner has not been falsely implicated or trial court committed any error to convict the accused appellant for the alleged offences. The learned Public Prosecutor further argued that there is evidence on record with regard to demand of bribe, upon which the trial judge has relied upon to convict the accused appellant for the alleged offences, therefore, there is no error in the judgment impugned. With regard to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no jurisdiction left with the accused appellant who was working on the post of LDC to transfer the mine, it is submitted that the said argument is not sustainable in law because the demand can be raised by any employee of the department so as to done the work as per desire of any person, therefore, there is no strength in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that evidence of demand is not on record or on the basis of mere recovery of currency notes, the accused appellant cannot be punished as per argument of learned Public Prosecutor the appellant can be punished if it emerges from the evidence that fair investigation is conducted, therefore, in this case the prosecution has proved that there was demand of bribe and recovery of notes was made from the files lying on the table of the accused appellant, thus it cannot be said that prosecution has failed to prove its case more so the trial court considered the entire evidence in right perspective and gave reliable finding so as to convict the accused appellant for alleged offences, therefore, this appeal may be dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I have perused the entire evidence and finding given by the learned trial court to convict the accused appellant for alleged offences. Upon perusal of entire evidence the following questions emerge for consideration: (i) Whether the prosecution has proved the case against the accused appellant for demanding money to transfer the mine No.2210 of Keru Area in favour of the complainant? (ii) Whether the prosecution has proved its case that currency notes were recovered from conscious possession of the accused appellant? (iii) Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt? (ii) Whether the prosecution has proved its case that currency notes were recovered from conscious possession of the accused appellant? (iii) Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt? With regard to question of demand of money by the accused appellant, first of all it is very important to observe that complainant Ashu Ram PW—1 who lodged the FIR turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Similarly, PW—2 Haji Khan to whom the money was alleged to be given also turned hostile. PW—16 Kishore Singh who was said to be eye witness of demand of money by the accused appellant turned hostile. It is also admitted fact that during investigation the statements of Ashu Ram complainant and Haji Khan were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C on 1.6.2001 by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offences, Jodhpur, upon request of investigating officer which is Ex.P/3 and P/2. It is also admitted fact that during investigation the statements of Ashu Ram complainant and Haji Khan were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C on 1.6.2001 by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offences, Jodhpur, upon request of investigating officer which is Ex.P/3 and P/2. The information Ex.P/1 given by the complainant Ashu Ram PW/1 made following allegation for demand against the accused appellant which reads as under :- ^^fuosnu gS fd ykcqjke esxoky fuoklh f[kjtk ls [kku u- 2210 ds: =sK esa 12 fey ij ;s [kku esjs uke djkus ds fy, QkbZy Hkjh gS blds fy, eSa vkSj fd’kksj flag th 12-4-2001 dks y{eh ckcq [kku foHkkx ls feys rks mlus dqy [kpkZ 6800@& :- crk;k ogka vius gkFk ls [kpsZ fd iphZ cukdj nh mlus 1000@& :- jlhn ds ogka 100@& :- pijklh mlh le; ys fy, ckdh 5700@& :- ysdj fnukad 16-4-2001 cqyk;k gS eSa uktk;t :- ugha nsuk pkgrk gw¡ fjiksVZ is’k gS** The above complaint was filed on 15.04.2001 and during investigation, his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/3) were recorded by the Magistrate before filing challan on 1.6.2001 in which it is stated that demand was made by Class IV employee, the relevant part of statement is as follows :- ^^eSaus ykHkwjke ls ,d [kku rhl gtkj esa yh FkhA eSa mls vius uke djokus ekbZfuax vkfQl x;kA eSa ckjg vizSy dks dkxt rS;kj djds ykHkwjke ds lkFk ekbZfuax vkfQl vk x;kA mUgksaus X;kjg lkS :i;s fQj dgk pijklh us X;kjg lkS :i;s ekaxsA eSaus X;kjg lkS mls ns fn;s o dkxt ns fn;sA pijklh dk uke eq>s ekywe ughaA fQj ml pijklh us dgk ikap gtkj ls Åij :i;s yxsxsA eSaus dgk eSa lkseokj dks :i;s ysdj vkÅaxkA eSa Hkz”Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks ds dk;kZy; esa vkdj o lkjh crk;hA Hkz”Vkpkj fujks/kd foHkkx us dgk vki izkFkZuk&i= nks ge vkidk dke de iSlksa esa djok nsxsaA fQj Hkz”Vkpkj fujks/kd foHkkx ds dgus ls eSaus mUgsa nj[kkLr ns nhA** In the trial the comlainant PW/1 Ashu Ram turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Similarly, PW— 2 Haji Khan who turned hostile gave following statement in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which reads as under: ^^eSa rkjh[k ;kn ugha lkseokj dk fnu Fkk djhc eghus nks eghus igys [kku dk fdjk;k Hkjus [kku vkfQl x;kA brus esa vklwjke vk x;kA eSaus dgk vki [kku VªkalQj djok jgs gksA esjs cdk;k ikap gtkj :i;s ns nksA vklwjke us euk fd;kA fQj le>kus ij vklwjke iSls nsdj ckgj pyk x;kA eSaus iSls fxus tks T;knk FksA eSaus iSls Vscy ij j[k fn;sA eSaus ckcw dks dgk fd vki esjs fdjk;s ds iSls tek dj yksA ckcw th fdjk;k iwNus o vklwjke dks cqykus ckgj pys x;sA okfil vkus ls igys lknk diMks esa ‘kk;n iqfyl okys vk x;s rFkk eq>s [kMs jgus dks dgkA mUgksus ?ksj dj esjs o ckcw ds gkFk /kqyok;s ftu ij jax vk x;kA eq>ls vksj dqN ugha iwNkA fQj esa vk x;kA ml ckcw us dksbZ iSls ugha ekaxsA mDr ckcw dk uke eSa ugha tkurkA Upon perusal of both above recorded statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is abundantly clear that although complainant stated in the complaint (Ex.P/1) that for transfer of mine no.2210 the accused appellant demanded money but in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it is stated by him that money was demanded by Class IV employee. The said complainant further turned hostile in the trial and did not support the prosecution case. Meaning thereby, the prosecution has failed to prove its case with regard to allegation of demand of bribe by the accused appellant because in hand written complaint lodged on 15.4.2001 (Ex.P/1) the complainant stated that Laxmi Babu asked to give Rs.6800/-and gave one slip for the said amount but in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 1.6.2001 during investigation which is Ex.D/3 made allegations of demand against Class IV employee. Meaning thereby, the complainant has completely denied the allegation of demand of bribe against the accused appellant because he turned hostile in the trial court. Similarly, in the trap proceedings conducted by the ACB a recovery memo Ex.P/6 was prepared in which it is observed that after receiving signal from the complainant, the Investigating Officer Dy. Meaning thereby, the complainant has completely denied the allegation of demand of bribe against the accused appellant because he turned hostile in the trial court. Similarly, in the trap proceedings conducted by the ACB a recovery memo Ex.P/6 was prepared in which it is observed that after receiving signal from the complainant, the Investigating Officer Dy. Superintendent of Police alongwith witness of trap party entered in the room no.108 of Mining Office, Jodhpur in which one person was sitting to whom Ashu Ram complainant identified that he is Laxmi Babu and as per his instructions, Rs.5700/-ahs been given to the person standing near him and upon asking the name the said person he said that his name is Haji Khan S/o Ramjan Khan, resident of Jodhpur. Further, upon investigation it is found that Haji Khan was not employee of the Mining Department . The statement of Haji Khan PW/2 were recorded in the trail but the said witness denied the allegation of taking money from Ashu Ram and did not support the prosecution case. The witness Haji Khan PW—2 said in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that Rs.5,000/-were given to him which was due against mine no.2210 for which the complainant was claiming transfer. Meaning thereby the said witness Haji Khan PW—2 turned hostile in the court did not support the prosecution allegation that money was taken by him from accused appellant. Meaning thereby, the so called witness PW/2 Haji Khan whose name is mentioned in the recovery memo of bribe money (ExP/6) dated 16.4.2001 is not supporting the prosecution case because he turned hostile. Similarly, in the complaint (Ex.P/1) a specific assertion was made by the complainant that for transfer of lease no.2210 of Keru area, he met the accused appellant alongwith Kishore Singh on 12.4.2001 but the said witness PW—16 Kishore Singh turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Upon above facts, it is clear that the allegation of demand of money by the accused appellant has not been proved by the prosecution. More so, it emerges from the evidence on record that the complainant concocted a story so as to implicate the accused appellant in the false case. Upon above facts, it is clear that the allegation of demand of money by the accused appellant has not been proved by the prosecution. More so, it emerges from the evidence on record that the complainant concocted a story so as to implicate the accused appellant in the false case. It is also worthwhile to observe that Nijaro PW—11, Sarpanch stated in her statement recorded in the trial that there is no such person in the identity of Labhu Ram S/o Dhola Ram Meghwal in the village Khijarakhas. It is also state by her upon seeking information from her while giving notice whether Labhu Ram is residing in village Khijarakhas or not, in the reply (Ex.P/24) it is stated by her that no such person is residing in the village Khijarakhas. Meaning thereby, the allegation of prosecution that for transfer of mine no.2210 in the name of complainant Ashu Ram, money was demanded by the accused appellant, has not been proved. Further this court cannot lose sight of the fact that accused appellant was working on the post of LDC and, there is no jurisdiction or power to the LDC to transfer any mine in favour of any person. In the trial, statement of Moti Lal PW—13 working on the post of Executive Engineer in the Mining Department were recorded. The said witness stated in cross-examination that the mine No.2210 was allotted in the name of Ladhu Ram S/o Ganesh Ji and one Labhu Ram earlier filed an application for transfer of mine in his name and in that proceeding the mine no.2210 was transferred in the name of Labhu Ram. Thereafter, an application was filed by the complainant for transfer of mine but at that time of filing such application, Labhu Ram did not appear before him but as per application (Ex.P/9), the said application was filed by Labhu Ram. Thereafter, an application was filed by the complainant for transfer of mine but at that time of filing such application, Labhu Ram did not appear before him but as per application (Ex.P/9), the said application was filed by Labhu Ram. He has specifically said in the statement that ^^nj[okLr izn’kZ ih 9 ds vuqlkj ykcwjke us Lo;a us mifLFkr gksdj nj[okLr is’k dh FkhA esjs lkeus ykcwjke dHkh mifLFkr ugha gqvkA [kku dk gLrkarj.k vkns’k esjs }kjk gh tkjh fd;k tkrk gSaA ykcwjke dks 1992 esa esjs }kjk [kku vkoafVr ugha dh x;hA** The aforesaid statement clearly speaks that there was no power left with the accused appellant who was working on the post of LDC to transfer any mine in favour of complainant, therefore, it is a case in which prosecution has failed to prove that any demand was made by the accused appellant to transfer the mine No. 2210 in favour of complainant. More so, as per the prosecution case the currency note were found in the file lying on the table and as per the statement of PW/2 Haji Khan and as per Ex.P/6 recovery memo of currency note the notes were found in the file lying upon the table of the accused appellant and as per the statement of PW/2 Haji Khan recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. those notes were put by him in the files. In view of above facts, it is a case in which prosecution has completely failed to prove the fact that any demand was made by the accused appellant from the complainant. In the case of M.R. Purshotham Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2014 AIR SCW 5740 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that merely possession and recovery of the currency note from the accused without proof of demand would not attract offence under Section 13(1)(d) and while giving aforesaid finding the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the accused of that case. In the present case as per above discussion upon the evidence on record it is transparent that the prosecution has failed to prove demand of money by the accuse appellant, therefore, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove the fact of demand of money (bribe) by the accused appellant from the complainant Ashu Ram. In the present case as per above discussion upon the evidence on record it is transparent that the prosecution has failed to prove demand of money by the accuse appellant, therefore, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove the fact of demand of money (bribe) by the accused appellant from the complainant Ashu Ram. Now I have examined the question whether the currency notes were recovered from the conscious possession of the accused appellant or not. In this regard first of all I have perused (Ex.P/6) recovery memo dated 16.04.2001 prepared by the investigating officer at the time of trap which reads as under:- ^^bl le; ifjoknh Jh vklqjke ds [kfu vfHk;ark tks/kiqj ds dk;kZy; ds ckgj vkdj iwoZ fu/kkZfjr xksiuh; b’kkjk viuk nkfguk gkFk flj ij Qsj dj b’kkjk fd;kA ftl ij eu~ Dy. S.P. e; xokgku rFkk Vªsi ikVhZ ds lnL;ksa ds [kfu vfHk;ark dk;kZy; tks/kiqj ds dejk uEcj 108 ij ig¡qpsA dejk uEcj 108 esa dqlhZ Vscy ij cSBs ,d O;fDr dh vksj ifjoknh us bZ’kkjk dj crk;k fd ;gh Jh y{eh ckcqth gS ftudks ekaxus ds vuq:i eSaus vHkh&2 5700 :i;s Jh y{eh ckcqth ds dgs vuqlkj muds ikl [kM+s O;fDr dks fn;s gSa ftl ij eu~ Dy. SP us viuk ifjp; i= fn[kkrs gq, viuk] xokgku rFkk Vªsi ikVhZ dk ifjp; nsdj dqlhZ ij cSBs O;fDr dk uke irk iqNk rks ml O;fDr us viuk uke y{eh/kj O;kl iq= tsBey tkfr czkge.k gky dfu”B fyfid dk;kZy; [kfu vfHk;ark tks/kiqj gksuk crk;kA Jh y{eh/kj O;kl ds ikl [kM+s O;fDr dk ifjp; iwNus ij mlus viuk uke gkth [kk s/o Jh jetku [kk¡ tkfr eqlyeku fuoklh xzke Qyklh;k rglhy tks/kiqj gksuk crk;kA Jh y{eh/kj O;kl ls ifjoknh Jh vklqjke ls vHkh&vHkh fdl ckr ds :i;s ysus ckcr iwNus ij Jh y{eh/kj O;kl d- fy- us crk;k fd mlus Jh vklqjke ls dksbZ jk’kh izkIr ugha dh gS rFkk u gh fj’orh jk’kh ds gkFk gh yxk;k gS ftl ij ikl gh [kM+s ifjoknh Jh vklqjke us rqjUr [k.Mu djrs gq, crk;k fd eSaus Jh y{eh ckcqth ds ekax rFkk iphZ esa fy[ks :i;s ysdj buds dk;kZy; esa vk;kA Jh y{ehckcq th dks fj’orh jk’kh 5700@& :i;s fudky dj is’k fd;s rks ckcqth us ikl [kM+s bl O;fDr dks nsus ds fy, dgk ftl ij eSaus Jh O;klth ds dgs O;fDr dks :i;s ns fn;sA ml O;fDr us ftldk eSa uke ugha tkurk g¡w dks 5700@& :i;s ns fn;sA ml O;fDr us :i;s gkFk esa ysdj Jh y{eh ckcqth dks ns fn;s rFkk y{eh ckcqth us :i;s ysdj fxus Hkh FksA eSaus ftl O;fDr dks :i;s fn;s ml O;fDr us igys rks dgk fd :i;s eSa fdl fy;s ysÅ¡ rc y{eh ckcqth us dgk fd :i;s rw ys ys ckn esa eSa ys ywxka rc ml O;fDr us :i;s ys fy;sA bl ij Jh y{eh/kj O;kl us iqu% dqN nsj :d lksp dj dgk fd Jh vklqjke esjs dejs esa vk;k Fkk og eq>s tcjnLrh :i;s nsus yxk rks eSaus euk fd;k FkkA bl ij ikl esa [kM+s O;fDr Jh gkth [kk¡ ls ifjoknh Jh vklqjke dks igpkuus ckcr iwNus ij Jh gkth [kk¡ us vklqjke dks ugha tkuuk crk;k rFkk Jh vklqjke ls :i;s ysus ckcr iwNus ij Jh gkth [kk¡ us crk;k fd esjs uke ls [kku gS ftlds fdjk;s ds ckjs esa Jh y{eh/kj ckcqth ds ikl vk;k FkkA Jh vklqjketh Hkh x;s Fks mUgksaus ckcqth dks :i;s nsus yxk rks ckcqth us dgk fd [kk¡th dks ns nks rks eSaus euk fd;k fd eSa D;ksa ys yw rks y{eh ckcqth us dgk fd [kk¡th vki :i;s ysdj fxu yks] eSa ckn esa ys yw¡xk ftl ij eSaus :i;s gkFk esa ysdj Jh y{eh ckcqth dks ns fn;s rFkk y{eh ckcqth :i;s fxuus yxsA rFkk fxudj Vscy ij dkxtksa esa j[k fn;s FksA mlds i'pkr~ dk¡p ds ,d fxykl esa lkQ ikuh Hkjokdj mlesa ,d pEep lksfM;e dkcksZusV ikoMj Myokdj ?kksy rS;kj fd;k rks dk¡p ds ?kksy ds jax esa dksbZ ifjorZu ugha gqvkA fxykl ds bl jaxghu ?kksy esa Jh y{eh/kj d- fy- ds nkfgus gkFk dh vaxqyh;ks dks Mqcksdj /kqyok;k x;k rks fxykl ds ?kksy dk jax jaxghu ls ifjofrZr gksdj xqykch gks x;kA fxykl ds bl ?kksy dks dk¡p dh nks lkQ f’k’kh;ksa esa vk/kk&vk/kk Hkjokdj fly eksgj fd;k rFkk f’k’kh;ksa ij ekdZ RH-1 and RH-2 vafdr fd;sA blds i'pkr~ dk¡p ds nwljs fxykl esa lkQ ikuh Hkjokdj fxykl esa ,d pEep lksfM;e dkcksZusV Myokdj ?kksy rS;kj djok;k x;k rks dk¡p ds fxykl ds ?kksy ds jax esa dksbZ ifjorZu ugha gqvk dk¡p fxykl ds bl jaxghu ?kksy esa Jh y{eh/kj O;kl ds cka;s gkFk dh vaxqyh;k dks Myokdj /kqyok;k x;k rks fxykl ds ?kksy dk jax ifjofrZr gksdj xqykch gks x;kA fxykl ds bl ?kksy dks Hkh dk¡p dh nks lkQ f’k’kh;ksa esa vk/kk&vk/kk Hkjokdj lhy eksgj dj ekdZ LH-1 LH-2 vafdr fd;sA blds i'pkr~ dk¡p ds lkQ fxykl esa lkQ ikuh Hkjokdj mlesa ,d pEep lksfM;e dkcksZusV ikoMj Myokdj ?kksy rS;kj djok;k rks dk¡p fxykl ds ?kksy esa dksbZ jax ifjoZru ugha gqvkA fxykl ds jaxghu ?kksy esa Jh gkth[kk¡ ds nkfgus gkFk dh vaxqyh;ksa dks Mqcksdj /kqyok;k x;k rks fxykl ds ?kksy dk jax ifjorZu gksdj xqykch gks x;kA fxykl ds bl ?kksy dks Hkh dk¡p dh nks lkQ f’k’kh;ksa esa vk/kk&vk/kk Hkjokdj lhy eksgj dj ekdZ RH-1 and RH-2 vafdr fd;sA blds i'pkr~ dk¡p ds nwljs lkQ fxykl esa ikuh Hkjokdj fxykl esa ,d pEep lksfM;e dkcksZusV ikoMj Myokdj ?kksy rS;kj djok;k x;k rks fxykl ds ?kksy dk jax ifjofrZr ugha gksdj iwoZor jaxghu gh jgkA fxykl ds bl jaxghu ?kksy esa Jh gkth[kk¡ ds cka;s gkFk dh vaxqyh;ksa dks Myokdj /kqyok;k x;k rks fxykl ds ?kksy dk jax ifjofrZr gksdj xqykch gks x;kA fxykl ds bl ?kksy dks Hkh dk¡p dh nks lkQ f’k’kh;ksa esa vk/kk&vk/kk Hkjokdj ekSds ij gh lhy eksgj dj ekdZ LH-1 and LH-2 vafdr fd;sA gkFk /kqykbZ dk;Zokgh dh fofM;ksxzkQh Jh ohjsUnzdflag eq[; vkj{kd ls djok;h x;hA blds i'pkr~ xokg Jh tqxyfd’kksj ACTO ls Hkh y{eh/kj O;kl dfu”B fyfid ds Vsfcy dh ryk’kh fyok;h xbZ rks Jh y{eh/kj O;kl d-fy- dh Vsfcy ij iM+h i=kofy;ksa ds chp esa rg fd;s gq, uksV ik;s x;s ftu uksVksa dks xokg Jh tqxy fd’kksj ACTO us mBokdj fxuk;s x;s rks dqy 5700@& :i;s ik;s x;sA** Upon perusal of Ex.P/6, the currency notes were not recovered from the physical and conscious possession of the accused appellant. The Investigating Officer, Virendra Pal Singh stated in his statement that statement of Haji Khan were recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation, upon perusal of the those statements, the said witness Haji Khan stated that he has taken Rs.5,000/-from Ashu Ram which is given by him to deposit the rent of his mine. In the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the witness Haji Khan said that those rupees were put by him upon table and I said that mine rent may be deposited for his mine. The Investigating Officer is not disputing the presence of Haji Khan at the time of trap proceedings when currency note were found in the files, therefore, it is a case in which although prosecution has tried to lead evidence for the purpose of recovery of currency note from the possession of the accused appellant but in fact the evidence on record loudly speaks that currency notes were not recovered from the conscious possession of the accused. More so, there is explanation of the witness Haji Khan PW—2 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation that said money was put by him upon table. The said witness further turned hostile in the trial. In the cross-examination of the PW—14 Investigating Officer a specific question was put by the counsel for the accused appellant whether the files in which currency notes recovered were taken in possession then it is replied by him that ^^;g lgh gS fd izn’kZ ih 4 iphZ ij iphZ fy[kus okys gLrk{kj ugha gSA fj’or dh jkf’k vfHk;qDr dh Vscy ij j[kh nks QkbZyksa ds chp esa feyh] mu nksuksa QkbZyksa dks tCr ugha fd;kA** The above statement given by the Investigating Officer clearly reveal that the reference made in the FIR with regard to slip upon which the amount of Rs.6,800/-was alleged to be returned by the appellant was not bearing any signature, so also, an application, was filed by the accused appellant under Section 73 of the Evidence Act for determination of hand writing upon the so called Ex.P/4 slip but learned trial court ignored the said application which is said to be filed by the accused appellant for the purpose of ascertaining hand writing upon the slip Ex.P/4. Meaning thereby, although trap was conducted by the ACB upon alleged allegation of bribe against the accused appellant, but in fact, the alleged bribe money was not recovered from the conscious possession of the accused appellant. Now the question arose how at the time of washing hand of accused appellant the colour was found in the water. In this regard, it is very important to mention here that after obtaining permission under Section 315 Cr.P.C. the accused appellant himself gave his statement in defence as DW-3 in which he has categorically stated that one person met on the relevant date in his office and after giving his identity he has shake-hand and said that my money for transfer may be deposited. The said witness said that he is ex-army man and his name is Ashu Ram. At that time, I said that I am going to cashier for depositing some file, you wait some time. When he came back at that time Ashu Ram went out of the room and come with the members of trap party of ACB. I have perused the statement of accused appellant which is DW-3 in which it is stated by him that Ashu Ram met him and after shake-hand he went out and after some time came back in the room alongwith trap party of ACB, therefore, it may be possible that at the time of washing hand, the colour might be changed. He has categorically denied the allegation that he has accepted the money and put in the files. In view of the above, it is abundantly clear that it is a case in which the complainant who was ex-army personnel turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story, therefore, the trap proceedings undertaken by the ACB cannot be accepted to be trustworthy so as to hold accused appellant guilty for the alleged offence because as per the trap proceedings the currency notes were not recovered from the conscious possession of the accused appellant. it is true that witnesses PW—12 Chatur Sen, PW—14 Narendra Pal Singh and PW—15 Parbat Singh gave their statement in support of prosecution but those statements are related to the proceedings after the signal given by the complainant Ashu Ram in the office on 16.4.2001 and as per the prosecution case, money was lying in the files upon the table in front of the chair of accused appellant and those files were not taken into possession in the investigation. Further, PW—2 Haji Khan clearly stated in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that he himself put currency notes upon the table after taking due money from Ashu Ram, therefore, it is a case in which the learned trial court has completely failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that currency notes were recovered from the conscious possession of the accused appellant, therefore, even if it is presumed that a videography of the trap proceedings is in existence then also it cannot be said that currency notes were recovered from the conscious possession of the accused appellant because as per prosecution itself the currency notes were recovered from the files which were lying on the table of the accused appellant and PW—2 Haji Khan stated in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate that those notes were put by him upon the table, therefore, it is a case in which only on the presumption the learned trial court held accused appellant guilty for the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act. In view of the above discussion, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove that currency notes were recovered from the conscious possession of the accused. I have examined the entire evidence on record and considered the fact that 3 important witnesses PW—1 Ashu Ra, PW—2 Haji Khan and PW—16 Kishore Singh turned hostile before the Court and during investigation when statement of PW—1 Ashu Ram – complainant PW—2 Haji Khan were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. they did not support the proseucti0on case, therefore, whole proceedings conducted by the ACB upon the allegation levelled against the accused appellant is under the shadow of unreliability, so also the whole proceedings is not trustworthy and reliable so as to convict the accused appellant for alleged offence of taking bribe. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but in this case, the prosecution has failed to prove the fact of demand by the accused appellant and failed to prove the recovery of currency notes from the conscious possession of the accused appellant and accused appellant himself explained while recording his own statement as defence witness that story was concocted by the prosecution so as to indulge him in the false case of taking bribe. In case of M.R. Purshotham (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that prosecution has to prove that there was demand and there was acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused appellant and if fact of demand is not proved then mere possession and recovery of currency notes without proof of demand would not attract offence under PC Act. In the case of M.R. Purushottam (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave the following verdict: “6. In such type of cases the prosecution has to prove that there was a demand and there was acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. As already seen the complainant PW1 Ramesh did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. No other evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove the demand made by the accused with the complainant. In this context the recent decision of a three Judge bench of this Court in B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014(4) Scale 81 is relevant and it is held as follows : 8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case in so far as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Exbt.P-11) before LW-9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Exhibit P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive in so far as the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. The above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. When PW1 Ramesh himself had disowned what he has stated in his initial complaint in Exh.P1 before PW4 Inspector Santosh Kumar and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW3 Kumaraswamy and the contents of Exh.P1 complaint cannot be relied upon to conclude that the said material furnishes proof of demand allegedly made by the accused. The High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are liable to be set aside. 7. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. Bail bond, if any furnished by the appellant, be released.” While examining the facts of the present case alongwith the above cited case I am of the opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the fact of demand of bribe and recovery of currency notes from conscious possession of the accused appellant. Bail bond, if any furnished by the appellant, be released.” While examining the facts of the present case alongwith the above cited case I am of the opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the fact of demand of bribe and recovery of currency notes from conscious possession of the accused appellant. Therefore, the conviction of accused appellant for alleged offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 is not sustainable in law. In view of the above, the instant criminal appeal is hereby allowed. The sentence and conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Jodhpur against the accused appellant vide impugned judgment dated 5.8.2006 in Cr. Case No.4/2004 is hereby quashed and set aside.