ORDER : Heard Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel for the State-Vigilance Department and Mr. B.P. Das, learned Counsel for the opposite party. 2. The State-Vigilance has preferred this appeal seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.01.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Berhampur in G.R. Case No. 04 of 2010 (V) (T.R. No. 65 of 2011). 3. It appears that the opposite party faced his trial in connection with the aforesaid case before the Court of leaned Special Judged (Vigilance), Berhampur as he allegedly demanded illegal gratification as a public servant to discharge his official duty i.e. for surgery of breast cancer of wife of the complainant-decoy. A trap was laid by the Vigilance Police on the complainant of the complainant-decoy and the opposite party was caught for accepting the bribe. But, in the conclusion of trial, since the complainant-decoy and the accompanying witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile even though the tainted money was recovered in the trap laid by the Vigilance Police, the trial Court acquitted the opposite party vide the impugned judgment and order. 4. Challenging the aforesaid, this petition seeking leave to appeal has been preferred by the petitioner-State (Vigilance) with the submission that since the tainted money was recovered in the trap laid by the Vigilance Police and in such a case presumption, though rebuttable, is there under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") with regard to illegal gratification, and the opposite party could not rebut such presumption, the trial court should not have acquitted the opposite party, more particularly, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vasudeva Rao, AIR 2004 SC 960 . Therefore, he submits that the propriety of the impugned of acquittal requires a detailed scrutiny this Court, hence, the leave sought for challenging the same in a criminal appeal be allowed. 5. Therefore, he submits that the propriety of the impugned of acquittal requires a detailed scrutiny this Court, hence, the leave sought for challenging the same in a criminal appeal be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the opposite party placing reliance in the case of Subash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 2169 & Narendra Champaklal Trivedy v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2012 SC 2263 submits that since in this case neither any demand or acceptance of bribe has been proved, mere recovery of tainted money being not sufficient enough to presume that the opposite party had accepted the same as a illegal gratification, the impugned judgment of acquittal needs no interference. 6. Needless to say that in the year 1980, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hazari Lal v. The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1980 SC 873 have held that recovery of money from the accused is not sufficient to prove acceptance of bribe. Placing reliance on the same, a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Subash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 2169 have held that mere acceptance of money without there being any other evidence would not be sufficient for convicting the accused under Section 13(1)(d)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequently, also placing reliance on such decisions, the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2012 SC 2263 , in paragraph-12 have held that it is the settled principle of law that mere recovery of the tainted money is not sufficient to record a conviction unless there is evidence that bribe had been demanded or money was paid voluntarily as a bribe and in the absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification, recovery would not alone be a ground to convict the accused. 7. Again in the case of Mukul Bihari & Anr. V. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 2012 SC 2270 , it has been held that "demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act, 1988. 7. Again in the case of Mukul Bihari & Anr. V. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 2012 SC 2270 , it has been held that "demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused, when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as bribe. Mere receipt of amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten the guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification, but the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act, 1988, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the Act, 1988." 8. The aforesaid is also the view of the Apex Court in the case of Satvir Singh v. State of Delhi thru. CBI, AIR 2014 SC 3798 wherein it has been held that failure on part of prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by appellant from complainant, appellate jurisdiction exercised by High Court to reverse the judgment and order of acquittal is not only erroneous but also suffers from error of law. 9. No doubt in the case of Vasudeva Rao (supra), the Apex Court have held as follows:- "Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act says that the Court may presume that "a man who is in the possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. That illustration can profitably be used in the present context as well when prosecution brought reliable materials that there was recovery of money from the accused. In fact the receipt and recovery is accepted. The other factor is the acceptability of the plea of loan, which the High Court itself has not held cogent or credible." 10. That illustration can profitably be used in the present context as well when prosecution brought reliable materials that there was recovery of money from the accused. In fact the receipt and recovery is accepted. The other factor is the acceptability of the plea of loan, which the High Court itself has not held cogent or credible." 10. However, in the case of Vasudeva Rao (supra), the law laid down in the case of Subash Parbat Sonvane (supra) having not been taken note of this Court is of the view that the case of Vasudeva Rao (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner. Since in this case even though money was recovered, but demand and acceptance of bribe having not been proved, the impugned judgment of acquittal, therefore, cannot be said to be contrary to law. Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out no case for a detailed scrutiny of the impugned judgment of acquittal in the appeal. 11. Accordingly, this CRLLP being devoid of merit stands dismissed. CRLLP dismissed.