JUDGMENT : C.R. Kumaraswamy, J. 1. This criminal appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the Advocate for the appellant-accused 1 praying to set aside the order dated 27-9-2014 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Spl. C. No. 124 of 2010 convicting the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the appellant-accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine, 3 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine, 3 months R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 13(l)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of the complainant in the Trial Court is as under:- One Nagarajaiah S/o Mudalagiraiah presented a complaint before Lokayukta Police Inspector, Tumkur. Its contents discloses that he has purchased a land bearing Sy. No. Vz to the extent of 1.26 acres for a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. Sale deed was registered on 30-3-2007 before the Sub-Registrar Office, Kunigal Taluk. Then he approached the Taluk Office to change the katha into his name. One Suresh, Revenue Inspector, Huthridurga Hobli and Mahadevaiah, Village Accountant, Lingadevarapalya Village were making delay in effecting the katha transfer. Then they made him to wander several times, then he expressed his inconvenience to come frequently to the office and he requested the Revenue Inspector to change the katha. He demanded to pay Rs. 10,000/- by way of bribe, then he told that he has not brought money. On the next day itself, he met Village Accountant-Mahadevaiah. They calculated and told him that Rs. 20,000/- will incur. Then he bargained for that amount and then they agreed for Rs. 15,000/- and he said that he will arrange the money. Village Accountant-Mahadevaiah received Rs. 500/- and told him to bring certain documents. Since he was not willing to pay bribe amount, that on 7-3-2009, he went to Tumkur Lokayukta Police and narrated about the demand made by the Revenue Inspector and Village Accountant. 15,000/- and he said that he will arrange the money. Village Accountant-Mahadevaiah received Rs. 500/- and told him to bring certain documents. Since he was not willing to pay bribe amount, that on 7-3-2009, he went to Tumkur Lokayukta Police and narrated about the demand made by the Revenue Inspector and Village Accountant. Then Investigating Officer gave voice recorder to him and asked him to record the conversation. Then he went to office of the Revenue Inspector and met Village Accountant and recorded the conversation. He showed the documents and told them it is in order. Then they asked for money, he said that he has not brought money. He said that he intended to show the documents, therefore, he approached them. Then they said ok. Thereafter, they told him to come on Wednesday, otherwise they will not take further steps. Its contents further discloses that on 11-3-2009 at about 11.30 a.m. he went to Tumkur Lokayutha Police and returned the voice recorder. In order to change the katha, they demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- then he bargained and fixed for Rs. 15,000/-. Hence, he presented the complaint to register a crime against Revenue Inspector-Suresh and Village Accountant-Mahadevaiah. The Investigating Officer received the complaint on 11-3-2009 at 12.15 p.m. and registered the case in Crime No. 1 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The contents of the charge-sheet discloses that accused 1 is Suresh Kumar, S/o Ujjinappa, aged about 34 years, working as Revenue Inspector, Huthridurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk. Accused 2 is Mahadevaiah S/o Madaiah, aged about 52 years, working as Village Accountant, Yalagavadi Circle, Huthridurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk. C.W. 1 purchased the land bearing Sy. No. Vz measuring 1.26 acres, situated at Lingadevarapalya Village from C.W. 5-Narasimaiah and he registered the same. In order to change the katha, accused 1 and 2 demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- then they agreed to receive Rs. 15,000/-. That on 11-3-2009, at about 14.30 hrs. in the presence of C.Ws. 1, 2 and 4, Rs. 15,000/- was received by the accused, thereby alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. P.W. 1-Nagarajaiah is the complainant. 20,000/- then they agreed to receive Rs. 15,000/-. That on 11-3-2009, at about 14.30 hrs. in the presence of C.Ws. 1, 2 and 4, Rs. 15,000/- was received by the accused, thereby alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. P.W. 1-Nagarajaiah is the complainant. He has deposed that they have seen the accused, among them one is Secretary and another one is Shekdar. He has further deposed that he has purchased the property situated at Lingadevarapalya Village, measuring 1.26 acres. The katha was not changed, since there was delay in changing the katha, then he asked the accused, for that the accused said that he has purchased the property by violating Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and he has further stated that he has to engage a lawyer and conduct a case before the Court of Assistant Commissioner, for that some amount has to be spent. Then he requested them and the accused said that it will incur expenditure of Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 20,000/- for katha transferred. Then he went back to his village and enquired some persons, then some villager advised him to go to Lokayukta Police and to lodge a complaint. Then he went to Lokayukta Police and lodged a complaint as per Ex. P. 1. Ex. P. 1(A) is his signature. Then he gave Rs. 15,000/- to Lokayukta and they went inside and came and put money in his pocket. Then along with 4 to 5 members went in Tata Indica. They all went to Secretary Office and he told them that he has brought money. Then they telephoned to Shekdar-accused 1 to come and he was standing outside the office, they were speaking something. Then he went inside and said that he has brought expenditure amount and he wanted to handover the same to accused 2. When he attempted to remove money from his pocket, currency notes fell down. Money which were fallen on the ground was lifted by accused 1, then he sat down. Thereafter, accused 1 went out, after some time, Secretary came and Inspector also came there. Then he sat on Bench, he did not see what has happened. He saw his signature on a paper which is at Ex. P. 2. Ex. P. 2(A) is his signature. Thereafter, accused 1 went out, after some time, Secretary came and Inspector also came there. Then he sat on Bench, he did not see what has happened. He saw his signature on a paper which is at Ex. P. 2. Ex. P. 2(A) is his signature. He admits his signature. Ex. P. 3 is the paper. Ex. P. 3(A) is the signature. This witness was treated as hostile by the prosecution. During the cross-examination, he states that J-slip pertaining to the land which was purchased by him has gone to Revenue Department. Accordingly, he enquired accused 1. He denies the suggestion put to him that accused 1 demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. He also states that it is not proper to say that accused 1 demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. He also denies the suggestion put to him that since he was not willing to give bribe amount, he has approached the Lokayukta Police. He also denies the suggestion put to him that he recorded the conversation through voice recorder and handed over to the Police. He also denies the suggestion put to him that on 11-3-2009, at about 11.30 a.m. he presented the complaint as per Ex. P. 1. He also denies the suggestion put to him that the Lokayukta Police brought panch witnesses and introduced to him. He also denies the suggestion put to him that phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the currency notes and kept in his pocket. During the cross-examination, he further states that panch witness hand was washed and hand washed turned into red colour and the liquid was poured into a bottle. He does not know whether the signature was obtained on the mahazar. It is true that he along with panch witness and Lokayukta Police went to the office of the accused. He denies the suggestion that C.Ws. 2 and 4 went to office of the accused. He denies the suggestion that he handed over the money to the accused and came out by giving signal to the Lokayukta Police, then they ran away. He also denies the suggestion put to him that Lokayukta Police caught hold of the accused and their hands were washed in the liquid, there was a change in the colour. He also denies the suggestion put to him that the hand washed liquid was put in a bottle which was sealed. He also denies the suggestion put to him that Lokayukta Police caught hold of the accused and their hands were washed in the liquid, there was a change in the colour. He also denies the suggestion put to him that the hand washed liquid was put in a bottle which was sealed. He also denies the suggestion that in order to help the accused he is denying all the suggestion put to him. During the cross-examination, he states that he has given application to the Tahsildar for changing the Katha. Thereafter, he does not know what was happened to his application. He does not know that notice was displayed in the panchayath office. Accused 2 has written a note as per Section 79 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The file was sent to Revenue Department for examination. Thereafter, LRF (79-A, B) CR No. 04/2009-10 was registered in the Court of Assistant Commissioner. The accused has not demanded any money. He has not gone to Lokayukta Office. He denies the suggestion put to him that he has paid the amount. He also denies the suggestion that he has not given any documents to office of Assistant Commissioner. 5. P.W. 2-B.N. Nagaraj is a shadow witness. He has deposed that during May 2005 to November 2012, he was working as Second Division Assistant in the Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Zilla Panchayath, Tumkur. He has further deposed that on 11-3-2009, his Superior Officer directed him to go Lokayukta Office. Accordingly, he went to Lokayukta Office at 12 noon. The Lokayukta Police Inspector and C.W. 3 were present there. The Lokayukta Police Inspector said that somebody were demanding the bribe money in order to change the Katha. In this connection, they have to go to Kunigal and he should be a witness. Their hands were washed in phenolphthalein liquid and it turned into rose colour, they poured liquid into the bottle and sealed the same which were marked as M.Os. 1 and 2. He does not know whether tape recorder was on. He affixed his signature. He further deposed that he went in Lokayukta Jeep along with Umashankar, Ramesh and Shivanna. Around 1.30 p.m. they went to office which is near Kunigal bus stand, on the first floor, Mahadevaiah telephoned and called Revenue Inspector. Accused 1 came there. C.Ws. 1 and 2. He does not know whether tape recorder was on. He affixed his signature. He further deposed that he went in Lokayukta Jeep along with Umashankar, Ramesh and Shivanna. Around 1.30 p.m. they went to office which is near Kunigal bus stand, on the first floor, Mahadevaiah telephoned and called Revenue Inspector. Accused 1 came there. C.Ws. 3 and 4 went inside, when he was climbing up the stairs, by that time, accused ran away. When he saw from the window, the money was spread on the mat. C.W. 4 shouted that this person is Revenue Inspector, then Lokayukta Police came there and the) attempted to catch them. Then they caught hold of accused 1 and made him to sit on the mat. Hands of accused 1 was washed in phenolphthalein liquid, which turned into rose colour. Liquid was poured into a bottle and it was sealed. They were marked as M.Os. 3 to 5. The money which was found on the ground was taken by C.W. 3. Then Lokayukta Police put the money in a cover and sealed the same. That cover is marked as M.O. 6. It was opened in the open Court. Rs. 15,000/- was in that cover. Denomination is 500 more and they were less 1000 notes. As there was electricity problem, the Lokayukta Police went to Lokayukta Office where they typed the trap mahazar as per Ex. P. 3. Ex. P. 3(B) is his signature. During the cross-examination by the defence Counsel, he denies the suggestion that he went to Lokayukta Office at 12 noon. He also denies the suggestion that C.W. 3 has not counted any notes and he does not know who gave money. He also denies the suggestion that he did not proceed to Kunigal. He denies the suggestion that A1 was called and he did not watch the incident. He denies the suggestion that C.Ws. 3 and 4 while climbing the stairs, he went behind them. He also denies the suggestion that A1 ran away, money was fallen on the mat and C.W. 3 hands were not washed. He denies the suggestion that hand washed liquid was not collected in the bottle. He also denies the suggestion that no handwriting was done there. He has not put signature. He denies the suggestion that no amount was seized. He denies the suggestion that Ex. He denies the suggestion that hand washed liquid was not collected in the bottle. He also denies the suggestion that no handwriting was done there. He has not put signature. He denies the suggestion that no amount was seized. He denies the suggestion that Ex. P. 3 was prepared in Lokayukta Office. He denies the suggestion that in order to harass the accused the he has deposed falsely. 6. P.W. 3-K.C. Ramesh is the witness to the demonstration panchanama. He has narrated about the incident that has been taken place in the Lokayukta Police, handing over the money of Rs. 15,000/- smearing of powder to the notes and hand wash of the witness, changing of the colour and collecting the solution in the bottle and sealing the same. He further deposed that he along with Lokayukta Officer went to Kunigal. At a little distance, vehicle was stopped and they alighted from the vehicle. Revenue Inspector-Suresh Kumar came along with him and another two persons were there. Then Umashankar took him to the old building, then he went inside where the money was fallen. Then Suresh jumped the compound and Umashankar caught hold of him. Then hands of Suresh were washed and it turned into lavender colour, they were marked as M.Os. 3 and 5. Money was put in cover and they were marked as M.O. 6. During the cross-examination, he states that he does not know whose voice is recorded in the voice recorder. He has not recorded the currency note numbers. He does not know whether any other person noted down the currency note numbers. When he went to the office, there were three persons. When he was there, Suresh did not come there. After 15 minutes, the owners of the land came there. 7. P.W. 4-Prabhakara Reddy has spoken about not sending of files to the Sub-Divisional Officer. He does not know that when J-slip was received. When it was dispatched. After dispatch, there is 30 days waiting period as per regulations. They have to examine whether any Land Reforms Act has been violated or not. That on 28-5-2007, earlier Revenue Inspector has made remarks whether any Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 have been violated. 8. P.W. 5-Vijaykumar M.B. has drawn sketch of the scene of the offence. 9. P.W. 6-Dr. C. Somashekar is the sanctioning authority. They have to examine whether any Land Reforms Act has been violated or not. That on 28-5-2007, earlier Revenue Inspector has made remarks whether any Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 have been violated. 8. P.W. 5-Vijaykumar M.B. has drawn sketch of the scene of the offence. 9. P.W. 6-Dr. C. Somashekar is the sanctioning authority. He speaks about issuance of sanctioned order to prosecute the accused 1 and 2. 10. P.W. 7-Mohan Kumar is the Shirastedar, BDA, Bengaluru. He speaks about issue of J-slip document i.e. Ex. P. 22. 11. P.W. 8-B. Umashankar is the Investigating Officer. He has registered the crime in Crime No. 1 of 2009 on the basis of the complaint of P.W. 1 as per Ex. P. 1. He summoned the panch witness. He asked the complainant to provide the money which he has brought. The complainant has produced the four notes of 1000 and 22 notes of 500. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared to it and it was kept in the shirt pocket of the complainant. P.W. 3 hands were washed and it turned to into rose colour. The solution was put into a bottle. He further deposed that at about 1.15 p.m. they left the Police Station to Kunigal and reached at 2.15 p.m. He further deposed that at about 2.30 p.m. the complainant showed the accused and he along with his team ran away and caught hold of them. Then they brought the accused to the Police Station. The complainant showed accused 1 who has demanded the bribe amount of Rs. 15,000/-. Accused 1 got suspicious and thrown the money and ran away. He also showed another accused who is a Village Accountant-Mahadevaiah. His staff prepared the sodium carbonate solution and sample was kept in a bottle. Accused 1 hands were washed and it turned into rose colour, the solution was collected in a bottle and it was sealed. P.W. 3 removed the money, they examined the money and note numbers were tallied with which he collected. P.W. 2 got sketch of the scene of the offence. He played the voice recorder. They identified the voice of the accused. During the cross-examination, he states that below the building there is a commercial centre. He does not know-how much rooms are in the first floor. Along with P.W. 1, accused 1 also went inside. He denies the suggestion that P.W. 1 went inside. He played the voice recorder. They identified the voice of the accused. During the cross-examination, he states that below the building there is a commercial centre. He does not know-how much rooms are in the first floor. Along with P.W. 1, accused 1 also went inside. He denies the suggestion that P.W. 1 went inside. He denies the suggestion that P.W. 2 has gone to the first floor. He denies the suggestion that on 28-8-2007 Rajappa, Inspector has made observation that there is violation of Karnataka Land Reforms Ad. Along with P.W. 1 his brother-in-law was also there. He does not know when he went there, accused was there or not. He also states that since there is violation of Land Reforms Act, katha cannot be changed. Accused did not have power to change the katha. 12. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. Both have denied the allegations made against them. 13. The finding of the Trial Court is as under:- The Trial Court at para 34 of the judgment has observed that no doubt, the complainant-P.W. 1 has not supported the case of the prosecution on crucial aspects of handing over of bribe money to the accused. He was treated as hostile witness to the prosecution. The evidence of a hostile witness need not be rejected as a whole. If his version in parts gets strengthened by other available evidence, even then a conviction can be recorded. It would be easy for an accused to win over the complainant that too a man like the complainant of this case. The facts that complainant approached the Revenue Inspector for change of Katha and demanding of bribe by him has been spoken to by P.W. 1. He has also spoken to with regard to Ex. P. 1-the complaint, saying that he subscribes his signature only if he has confidence. FIR clearly mention about the demand of the bribe of the accused. Therefore, the explanation given by the complainant with regard to Ex. P. 1 is not convincing. The evidence of P.W. 8-the Police Officer who laid the trap was supported by other namely, pending work with the accused and hand wash of the accused 1 turned into pink established in the case. Thus, the contents of the complaint that there was demand of bribe by the accused is established. P. 1 is not convincing. The evidence of P.W. 8-the Police Officer who laid the trap was supported by other namely, pending work with the accused and hand wash of the accused 1 turned into pink established in the case. Thus, the contents of the complaint that there was demand of bribe by the accused is established. So far as acceptance of bribe is concerned, it is in the mahazar-Ex. P. 3 that P.Ws. 2 and 3 have stated that about the presence of 1st accused and hand wash turned into pink colour and also about the collection of that liquid in the bottles. They have identified those bottles as M.Os. 3 to 5. The Investigating Officer has stated in his evidence that the hands of 1st accused washed with sodium carbonate liquid and the same turned into pink colour and he has identified the hand wash liquid bottles as M.Os. 4 and 5. It is pertinent to note that the presence of 1st accused at that particular time in the office of the 2nd accused is not seriously disputed. The evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 8 is corroborated by the contents of Ex. P. 3. Moreover, the prosecution has also placed evidence that the hand wash solution which was collected in the bottles as per M.Os. 4 and 5 were sent to chemical examination and the report is as per Ex. P. 29. It is the case of the prosecution that the chemical examiner who examined M.Os. 4 and 5 as detected phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate in these bottles. It is in the evidence of P.W. 8 that he has collected the hand wash of 1st accused in M.Os. 4 and 5 and also collected cotton swab of the place where the bribe money was found and the same was produced before this Court as M.O. 7 and the same was subjected to chemical examination. As could be seen from Ex. P. 29, the cotton swab reacted to the phenolphthalein test. It is pertinent to note that the chemical examination report has not been disputed by the defence. As could be seen from Ex. P. 29, M.Os. 4 and 5 the hand wash of 1st accused reacted positive to both the phenolphthalein test and the sodium carbonate test and the cotton swab reacted positive to the phenolphthalein test. No doubt there is discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws. As could be seen from Ex. P. 29, M.Os. 4 and 5 the hand wash of 1st accused reacted positive to both the phenolphthalein test and the sodium carbonate test and the cotton swab reacted positive to the phenolphthalein test. No doubt there is discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 with regard to acceptance of bribe amount. P.W. 2 has deposed nearly after 4Vi years of the incident. Therefore, discrepancy and omissions bound to occur. The evidence placed before the Court by the prosecution with regard to the demand made by the 1st accused and the presence of 1st accused in the office of 2nd accused, the reaction of the 1st accused when the complainant offered bribe money is sufficient in the circumstances of the case to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe money by the 1st accused. The Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the evidence placed by the prosecution is sufficient to come to conclusion that the 1st accused has demanded and accepted the bribe amount. The presumption enunciated in Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would come into play. Therefore, the Trial Court convicted accused 1 for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 14. Feeling aggrieved by the same, accused 1 has preferred this appeal. 15. Learned Counsel for the appellant-accused 1 submits as under:- Accused 1 has not made any demand to the complainant. Actually, demand was made by accused 2, but in this case, accused 2 has been acquitted. Accused 1 has not accepted any money from the complainant. The appellant is not a competent person to change of katha when there is violation of Land Reforms Act. It is for the Sub-Divisional Officer to pass an order with regard to change of the katha when there is violation of Land Reforms Act. Earlier, Revenue Inspector-Venkatappa has made clear remarks that there is violation of Land Reforms Act under Sections 79-A and 79-B of the said Act. Question of changing the katha by the accused will not arise. Trap was laid in the office of the accused 2. Accused 1 is not an official of accused 2. Presumption will not help to establish the case of the prosecution. In this case, all the circumstances have not been established by the prosecution. Question of changing the katha by the accused will not arise. Trap was laid in the office of the accused 2. Accused 1 is not an official of accused 2. Presumption will not help to establish the case of the prosecution. In this case, all the circumstances have not been established by the prosecution. Demand and acceptance of the bribe money has not been established by the prosecution. The complainant's brother-in-law Anjanappa has also accompanied with the complainant, but he has not cited as C.W. The complainant has clearly stated in his evidence that bribe money has fallen on the floor of office of accused 2, not in the office of accused 1-appellant. The complainant has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The complainant has not stated anything positively that the accused 1 demanded the bribe amount nor he paid the amount to accused 1. In the absence of the evidence of demand and acceptance, the Trial Court would have not convicted accused 1 and benefit of doubt would have been given. The finding recorded by the Trial Court is not based on legal evidence. Mere recovery of notes from the spot cannot constitute the offence of bribe, unless it is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt or by cogent evidence. 16. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State submits as under:- In the complaint it is stated that there was a demand of bribe amount. When the complainant went to the office of accused 2, accused 2 directed to part the bribe amount to accused I. Currency note numbers tallied with the currency notes mentioned with in the trapped panchanama. Result of the chemical examination report is positive. Accused 1 has agreed to do job when he is submitted his explanation when I.O. asked about his say. Accused 1-appellant ran away, that itself is incriminating circumstances against appellant-accused 1. Records reveals that file was not sent to the office of Tahsildar for further action. File was pending with the accused for more than 1½ years. Accused 1 pointed out the money fell on the ground when I.O. questioned him. 17. I have examined the evidence of the complainant as well as shadow witness. 18. According to Shorter Oxford Dictionary accept means to take or receive with a consenting mind. File was pending with the accused for more than 1½ years. Accused 1 pointed out the money fell on the ground when I.O. questioned him. 17. I have examined the evidence of the complainant as well as shadow witness. 18. According to Shorter Oxford Dictionary accept means to take or receive with a consenting mind. Obviously such a consent can be established not only by leading evidence of prior agreement but also from the circumstances surrounding the transaction itself without proof of such prior agreement. Obtain means to secure or gain (something) as the result of request or effort. 19. In the instant case, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that there is a demand of bribe amount by the accused, but on perusal of documentary' evidence and oral evidence of P.W. 1 -complainant, it is clear that the complainant has turned hostile to the side of the prosecution. He has given dear go by to the case of the prosecution. He has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that there was no demand of bribe amount by accused 1. He did not hand over the bribe amount to accused 1. During the trap there is evidence to the effect that the money has fallen on the floor and accused 1 picked up the money. The complainant went and approached accused 2. He has stated that accused 2 asked him to hand over the money to accused 1. But, in the instant case, on appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused 2. As per the evidence of the complainant, the demand was made by accused 2, not by accused 1. Accused 1 came to the office of accused 2, at that time, the currency notes were fallen on the floor and accused 1 picked up the notes. At that time, he has been caught hold by the Lokayukta Officer and his hands were washed. Shadow witness does not speak anything about conversation between accused 1 and complainant about the demand of bribe amount. Bribe amount was demanded by accused 2, but in this case, accused 2 has been acquitted. No appeal has been preferred by the prosecution challenging the judgment of acquittal of accused 2. 20. Shadow witness does not speak anything about conversation between accused 1 and complainant about the demand of bribe amount. Bribe amount was demanded by accused 2, but in this case, accused 2 has been acquitted. No appeal has been preferred by the prosecution challenging the judgment of acquittal of accused 2. 20. The Trial Court mainly relies on the corroborative piece of evidence like phenolphthalein powder smeared on the currency notes and accused 1 explaining to the Investigating Officer about money fallen on the mat. These are corroborative piece of evidence, in order to bring home the evidence under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. There should be demand and acceptance by the accused and the complainant has to part the bribe amount. Shadow' witness has to observe the conservation between the accused and complainant and he has to narrate the same. In this case, shadow witness has not seen the parting of the money by the complainant to accused 1, on the other hand, money was lying on the mat. Money was actually demanded by accused 2, but he has been acquitted. When there is no proof that accused 1 accepted the money from the complainant, it is difficult to rise the presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act. When the prosecution proves by evidence: (i) that the accused was a public servant and (ii) that he had obtained from any person any gratification, then a rebuttable presumption arises in respect of the third ingredient. In absence of the proof of these two facts, the presumption does not arise. On mere recovery of certain money from the person of an accused without the proof of its payment by or on behalf of some person to whom official favour was to be shown the presumption cannot arise. 21. Taking into consideration of overall circumstances and after careful perusal and examination of evidence and materials placed on record, in my view', the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt of the offence of bribery. In this case, accused 2 has been acquitted and accused 1 has been convicted mainly on the corroborative piece of evidence rather than substantive piece of evidence. Evidence of shadow witness is also not convincing. In this case, accused 2 has been acquitted and accused 1 has been convicted mainly on the corroborative piece of evidence rather than substantive piece of evidence. Evidence of shadow witness is also not convincing. The complainant's brother-in-law Anjanappa who accompanied the complainant to office of accused 2 is a material witness, but he has not been cited as charge-sheet witness. In other words, there is no cogent evidence to establish that accused 1 demanded the bribe amount from the complainant, nor there is positive evidence to the effect that accused 1 received the bribe amount on behalf of accused 2. This aspect has not been spoken by the complainant. Therefore, accused 1 is entitled for benefit of doubt. 22. In view of the above discussion, pass the following:- ORDER (1) This appeal is allowed. (2) Accused 1-appellant is acquitted of the offence charged against him. (3) Bail bond stands cancelled.