JUDGMENT : SWAPNA JOSHI, J. 1. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the accused” for the sake of brevity) who was serving as a Nazul Surveyor in the office of Taluka Inspector of Land Records at Chandrapur, at the material time, was prosecuted on the allegations of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Special Judge, Chandrapur, by its judgment and order dated 25.01.2011 delivered in Special Case No. 7 of 1999, acquitted the accused of the aforesaid offences. Having aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal delivered by the learned Special Judge, Chandrapur, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal. 2. In brief the prosecution case is that; complainant (PW-1) Sumedh Motiram Shinde was residing in Naginabag Ward at Chandrapur in his ancestral house. There was a Nazul land of 900 sq. ft. bearing Plot No. 11/2, Block No. 19, Sheet No. 5, adjacent to his house. The complainant had applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandrapur for getting the said land permanently. The Nagar Parishad and Town Planning office issued "No Objection Certificate" in that regard. The accused was serving as a Nazul Surveyor in the office of Taluka Inspector of Land Records at Chandrapur. The Naib Tahsildar issued one letter to the Nazul Surveyor for the report of valuation of the said land. About 8 days prior to the lodging of the complaint, the complainant met with the accused being a Nazul Surveyor and enquired about the valuation report. The complainant requested the accused to send the report expeditiously. On which the accused said that he has to bear the expenses of Rs. 3000/- for getting the valuation report. On the request of the complainant the amount was reduced to Rs. 2,500/-. The accused again said that unless and until the amount of Rs. 2,500/- is paid, the report would not be sent and if the said amount is paid, he would report the valuation of less amount. The complainant told the accused that he would think over it and thereafter inform him about the payment. On 09.10.1998, the complainant went to the office of the accused and requested him to send the report expeditiously. The accused again demanded amount of Rs. 2,500/. The complainant asked for 2/3 days for making the said payment. The complainant told the accused that he would think over it and thereafter inform him about the payment. On 09.10.1998, the complainant went to the office of the accused and requested him to send the report expeditiously. The accused again demanded amount of Rs. 2,500/. The complainant asked for 2/3 days for making the said payment. On which the accused asked him to bring the amount till the evening of 12.10.1998. The accused said that if he is not available in the office the amount should be brought to his house. As the complainant was not intending to pay the said bribe amount to the accused, he lodged oral complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau, Chandrapur on 12.10.1998 (Exhibit-23). Radhakrishna Sharma PW-5 the officer of the Anti Corruption Bureau, Chandrapur, recorded the complaint of the complainant. He called for two witnesses from the office of Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. (PW-5) Radhakrishna Sharma selected two panchas and as the offices of the Anti Corruption Bureau and Nazul Surveyor were closed to each others, as a precautionary measure, he took the complainant, panch witnesses and staff members to the rest house of the Forest Department. Thus, the rest house of the Forest Department was used as a Anti Corruption Bureau office in the proceedings of raid. The panchas and complainant were given the demonstration as to change of colour on application of the Phenolphthalein powder and Sodium Carbonate. The Phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes consisting of two notes of Rs. 500/- and 15 notes of Rs. 100/- (total Rs. 2,500/-) and they were kept in the pocket of shirt of the complainant. The complainant and one panch Maya Chawre along with the raiding party proceeded to the office of the accused. However, as the accused was working in the office he asked the complainant to visit his house during night time or in the next day morning. The raiding party, therefore, returned to the rest house and prepared the panchanama no. 2 (Exhibit-31) by mentioning all the events. During night time the complainant along with another panch namely Omprakash Gajjalwar went to the house of the accused. The raiding party followed them. At about 21.10 hours the complainant entered into the house of the accused. The complainant handed over the amount to the accused. The accused counted the currency notes. He then came out of the house. During night time the complainant along with another panch namely Omprakash Gajjalwar went to the house of the accused. The raiding party followed them. At about 21.10 hours the complainant entered into the house of the accused. The complainant handed over the amount to the accused. The accused counted the currency notes. He then came out of the house. The complainant gave signal to the raiding party by lighting the torch. The Anti Corruption Bureau officers rushed inside the house of the accused and caught hold both the hands of the accused. The accused was inside the house. When the Anti Corruption Bureau officers entered the house of the accused, they saw that the son of the accused was counting the currency notes. The hands of the accused were dipped in the solution, it turned violet. The hand wash of the accused was taken in a glass bottle and it was sealed. Similarly, the colour of the currency notes was also changed to purple. On sprinkling the Sodium Carbonate solution on the currency notes the violet coloured spots appeared on them. The seizure memo was prepared at Exhibit-24. Both the hands of the accused and his son were dipped in the solution of Sodium Carbonate on which the colour of the solution turned violet. The right hand fingers of the complainant were dipped in the solution of the Sodium Carbonate and its colour changed to violet. The panchanama was prepared. Investigation was carried out. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. 3. The defence of the accused is that the complainant was not entitled for the grant of Nazul land. In fact the complainant thought that the accused was creating obstruction in granting the Nazul land to him therefore he had brought panch Omprakash Gajjalwar to his office prior to 8 to 10 days. On the point of incident, it is the case of the accused that, the son of the accused was on the platform of the house. Two persons came there and thrust the amount in his hands. Thereafter, the son handed over the said amount to the accused. The accused again returned the said amount to his son and came on the platform. However, he did not see anyone. Thereafter, the raiding party came to that place and apprehended him. Two persons came there and thrust the amount in his hands. Thereafter, the son handed over the said amount to the accused. The accused again returned the said amount to his son and came on the platform. However, he did not see anyone. Thereafter, the raiding party came to that place and apprehended him. The defence examined (DW-1) Kapil Uddarwar the son of the accused, who deposed in the same line. 4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined in all five witnesses. (PW-1) Sumedh Shinde is the complainant. (PW-2) Omprakash Gajjalwar is the panch witness who allegedly accompanied the complainant to the house of the accused. (PW-3) Sudhir Sayankar is the Police Nayak who registered the offence on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant. (PW-4) Pandurang Karande who was working as a Deputy Director of Land Records at Nagpur at the time of incident and he was the sanctioning authority. (PW-5) Radhakrishna Sharma is the Investigating Officer. The defence of the accused was that he had been falsely implicated and he had neither made any demand of the amount nor accepted it. 5. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant::: State and the learned Counsel for the respondent-accused. I have gone through the record of the case and the impugned judgment and order. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State contended that the learned Special Judge has illegally passed the judgment of acquittal against the accused inasmuch as it is not considered that the prosecution has proved the demand of bribe amount as well as its acceptance. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the accused Mr. Naidu argued that the learned Special Judge has rightly considered the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the offence against the accused is not proved and therefore he is entitled for acquittal. 7. Mr. Naidu, the learned Counsel for the accused has invited the attention of this Court to the evidence led by the prosecution with regard to the alleged demand of bribe amount and submitted that the said demand itself is not proved by the prosecution by producing cogent and consistent evidence. The learned Counsel for the accused pointed out that the prosecution has failed to examine the material witness who accompanied the complainant to the office of the accused when he allegedly made the demand of bribe amount. The learned Counsel for the accused pointed out that the prosecution has failed to examine the material witness who accompanied the complainant to the office of the accused when he allegedly made the demand of bribe amount. According to the learned Counsel for the accused, the present case fails on this count only. He further submitted that the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt as to from whom the bribe amount was taken charge i.e. either from the accused or from his son and to whom exactly the said amount was handed over. 8. After giving anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by both the sides, it is necessary to go through the evidence on record. So far as the sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, the prosecution has examined (PW-4) Pandurang Karande who is the Sanctioning Authority. According to him, after perusing the documents and after applying the mind in that respect to the facts of the case, he accorded the sanction for the prosecution of the accused vide Sanction Order dated 15.07.1999 (Exhibit-46). The version of (PW-4) Pandurang Karande has not been seriously disputed by the defence. It is also not disputed that the accused was a public servant i.e. Nazul Officer and the matter of valuation of Nazul land was pending before him since one week prior to the alleged trap. The letter dated 08.09.1998 of the Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Chandrapur, addressed to the accused, recites the subject of report of valuation in respect of the land in dispute. 9. As far as the alleged demand of bribe amount by the accused is concerned, according to the complainant Sumed Shinde (PW-1), he had applied for grant of Nazul land to the Tahsil Office. The case was sent to Nazul Office for valuation. The Tahsil Office received "No Objection Certificate" from the Municipal Council and from the Town Planning Office. The application of PW-1 was sent for valuation to the Nazul Office. The accused who was serving as a Nazul Surveyor at Nazul Office, asked for an amount of Rs. 3000/- in order to have less valuation of the field. PW-1 stated that he would not be in a position to pay the amount of Rs. 3000/-. Therefore, the accused reduced the demand to Rs. 2,500/-. The accused who was serving as a Nazul Surveyor at Nazul Office, asked for an amount of Rs. 3000/- in order to have less valuation of the field. PW-1 stated that he would not be in a position to pay the amount of Rs. 3000/-. Therefore, the accused reduced the demand to Rs. 2,500/-. The complainant then proceeded to the Anti Corruption Bureau Office and lodged the oral report against the accused. According to PW-1 one Mrs. Maya Chawre a lady and Mr. Gajjalwar the two employees were called by the Anti Corruption Bureau Officers. They smeared currency notes with the Phenolphthalein powder. The said notes were kept in the pocket of shirt of the complainant and the Anti Corruption Bureau Officers instructed him to take Mrs. Chawre with him as an intending purchaser of the land. Mrs. Maya Chawre along with complainant went to the Nazul Office. PW-1 met with the accused. PW-1 informed the accused that he had brought the amount which was asked. The accused, however, said that no site is available hence he did not accept the amount as the office was functioning. The accused asked PW-1 to visit his house. Thereafter, PW-1 returned to the Anti Corruption Bureau Office. It is significant to note that, so far as the first demand is concerned, Mrs. Maya Chawre accompanied the complainant to the office of the accused. However, she has not been examined by the prosecution. Similarly, the Investigating agency had not verified whether any demand is made by the accused, prior to conducting the trap. According to PW-1 the another panch namely; Gajjalwar accompanied him. They went to the house of the accused. PW-1 told the accused that he had brought the amount which was asked by him. Then he took out the money from the pocket of his shirt and handed over the same to the accused. The accused counted those notes and then came out from the house. Thereafter, PW-1 and Gajjalwar came out of the house of the accused, signalled the Anti Corruption Bureau Officers by lighting the torch. The Anti Corruption Bureau Officers rushed to the house of the accused and caught hold both the hands of the accused. The accused was inside the house. When the Anti Corruption Bureau Officers entered the house of the accused, at that time the son of the accused was counting the currency notes. The Anti Corruption Bureau Officers rushed to the house of the accused and caught hold both the hands of the accused. The accused was inside the house. When the Anti Corruption Bureau Officers entered the house of the accused, at that time the son of the accused was counting the currency notes. The solution was sprinkled over the currency notes which turned purple. The hands of the accused were dipped in the solution of Sodium Carbonate on which the colour of the solution turned violet. The right hand fingers of the complainant were dipped in the solution of the Sodium Carbonate and its colour changed to violet. The hand wash of the accused was taken in a glass bottle and it was sealed. The seizure memo was prepared at Exhibit-24. Thus, the testimony of (PW-1) Sumed Shinde, does not reveal any demand of the bribe amount, when he went to the house of the accused. During the cross examination PW-1 stated that when the accused demanded the amount of Rs. 3000/- and it was reduced to Rs. 2,500/- it was made in the presence of one fellow. The prosecution has failed to examine the said fellow. Thus, the prosecution has not sought corroboration to the testimony of PW-1 on the point of alleged demand. 10. As far as the testimony of PW-2 is concerned, on 12.10.1998, he went to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau along with his colleague Maya Chawre. He was informed about the demand of bribe from PW-1 by the Nazul Surveyor. The complainant had brought the amount of Rs. 2500/. The Phenolphthalein powder was applied to those currency notes. The complainant kept it in his shirt’s pocket. Mrs. Maya Chawre was instructed to accompany the complainant. PW-2 stated that a tape recorder was also given to the complainant for recording the conversation between him and the accused. The panchanama was drawn in the guest house (Exhibit-30). Thereafter, the complainant, both the panchas and the Anti Corruption Bureau Officers proceeded to the office of Nazul Surveyor. Mrs. Maya Chawre accompanied the complainant to the office of the accused. However, they returned back within 15 minutes as the accused was busy in his work. PW-2 then accompanied the complainant to the house of the accused at about 8.00 p.m. The members of Police party followed them in a jeep. The accused was present in the house. Mrs. Maya Chawre accompanied the complainant to the office of the accused. However, they returned back within 15 minutes as the accused was busy in his work. PW-2 then accompanied the complainant to the house of the accused at about 8.00 p.m. The members of Police party followed them in a jeep. The accused was present in the house. He came in the varandah of his house. The complainant then told the accused that he had brought the money as per his say. The complainant then handed over the money to the son of the accused who was present there. Thereafter, the complainant signalled to the members of the raiding party. The members of the raiding party went inside the house. They apprehended the accused by holding his hands. The hands of the accused were dipped in the solution of the Sodium Carbonate. The colour of the solution turned to violet. The solution was taken charge by the Police and the seizure memo was prepared (Exhibit-33). The son of the accused was also asked to dip his fingers in the fresh solution of Sodium Carbonate. The colour of the solution turned violet. The said solution also taken charge by the Police. The seizure panchanama was prepared accordingly at Exhibit-34. 11. On the tainted notes, the solution of Sodium Carbonate was sprinkled. After sprinkling the same the violet colour spots appeared on them. The seizure memo was prepared at Exhibit-34. Thus, the testimony of PW-2 reveals that in his presence the accused did not make any demand of bribe amount. PW-2 has stated that a tape recorder was given to the complainant for recording the conversation between him and the accused. However, PW-1 did not state anything about the tape recorder. Thus, there is no corroboration to the version of PW-1 on the point of alleged demand. So far as the testimony of PW-1 is concerned, there is glaring discrepancy in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 on the point of handing over the currency notes to the accused. In the cross examination PW-2 stated that the complainant handed over the money to the accused. Thus, the testimony of PW-2 does not inspire confidence on the point of handing over the amount to the accused by PW-1. His testimony does not throw any light on the aspect of demand of bribe amount by accused to PW-1. In the cross examination PW-2 stated that the complainant handed over the money to the accused. Thus, the testimony of PW-2 does not inspire confidence on the point of handing over the amount to the accused by PW-1. His testimony does not throw any light on the aspect of demand of bribe amount by accused to PW-1. Thus, on the point of alleged demand of bribe amount, the testimonies of the complainant and PW-2 are not consistent and trustworthy. 12. So far as the acceptance of bribe amount is concerned, it is discussed above that there is discrepancy in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 on the point of acceptance of the amount. According to PW-1 he handed over the bribe amount to the accused, whereas according to PW-2, it was handed over to the son of the accused. PW-2, thus, declared hostile by the prosecution. He admitted in his cross examination that the amount was handed over to the accused however he did not further state whether the said amount was further given by the accused to his son. No convincing material elicited from his cross examination and his evidence does not inspire confidence. It is not disputed that the amount was received from the hands of the son of the accused in his house in the presence of the accused. The Chemical Analyzer’s report also reveals that the test of Sodium Carbonate which was positive indicating thereby that there was Phenolphthalein powder on the hands of the accused and his son which indicates that they had handled the tainted notes. It is also not in dispute that the numbers of the currency notes recovered from the accused were tallied with the numbers mentioned in panchanama no. 1. However, the recovery of the tainted amount is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offence. It is the specific case of the accused as seen from the cross examination of the witnesses and the examination of (DW-1) Kapil Uddarwar that on the date of incident, he along with his parents were watching Television in the leaving room. As he heard some noise, they all came outside the house to see what was the matter. Two persons came near him and out of them one person thrust the amount in his hand and asked him to handover the same to his father. Thereafter, they both left that place. As he heard some noise, they all came outside the house to see what was the matter. Two persons came near him and out of them one person thrust the amount in his hand and asked him to handover the same to his father. Thereafter, they both left that place. Accordingly, DW-1 handed over the said amount to his father. However, his father again handed over the said amount to him by murmuring “who paid the amount.” After 3 to 4 minutes, 3 to 4 persons came to their room. One person caught hold of his hand and snatched the amount from him. Those persons said that his father had accepted the bribe amount. Thus, the defence of the accused appears to be probable one. 13. It is well settled law that under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the accused is not required to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. However, he has to simply point out the preponderance of probabilities. Thus, it appears that there is probability of thrusting the amount in the hands of the son of the accused and his son handing over the said amount to his father i.e. the accused. In this regard, the testimony of Investigating Officer (PW-5) shows that, the son of the accused was holding currency notes when he reached to the house of the accused. Thus, the prosecution has not proved the demand of the bribe amount as well as its seizure from the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is also not established by the prosecution that the complainant had paid the amount to the accused. 14. The prosecution has suppressed the tape recorder which was allegedly given to the complainant by the Anti Corruption Bureau Officers. Neither the complainant has stated about the tape recorder nor the said fact is mentioned in the panchanamas. Even the Investigating Officer is silent on this aspect. Thus, the evidence of these witnesses does not inspire confidence on the point of alleged demand of bribe amount by the accused to the complainant. According to PW-1 the demand of bribe was for less valuation which contradicts his own version that the demand was for sending the report expeditiously. There is discrepancy on the point, as to for what purpose the demand was made. The complaint (Exhibit-23) reveals that the bribe amount was demanded for sending the report expeditiously. According to PW-1 the demand of bribe was for less valuation which contradicts his own version that the demand was for sending the report expeditiously. There is discrepancy on the point, as to for what purpose the demand was made. The complaint (Exhibit-23) reveals that the bribe amount was demanded for sending the report expeditiously. Whereas, according to the complainant, the bribe amount was demanded for showing less valuation. In fact, the matter was pending in the Nazul office since 1995 and 8 days prior to the complaint, the complainant reached to the office of the accused. Within a period of 8 days the complainant met with the accused twice and during that time the accused demanded the bribe amount from the complainant. However, the theory of the prosecution appears to be improbable. It is not clear as to within a period of 8 days how the alleged demand was made by the accused from the complainant. In the absence of non-examination of the person who accompanied the accused when the alleged first demand was made, the said fact remains disproved for want of corroboration. In the light of the fact that PW-1 himself has given contradictory version on the aspect of demand of bribe amount from the complainant, it is not clear, whether the alleged bribe amount was for less valuation of the land or for sending the report expeditiously. In the absence of any corroboration to the testimony of PW-1 on this aspect, the testimony of PW-1 does not inspire confidence. 15. The learned Counsel Mr. Naidu placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Madhav Rajurkar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2016 (2) Mh. L.J. (Cri) 580, this Court held that no verification of alleged demand of bribe was made before laying of trap. Since testimonies of witnesses were not reliable as they were not consistent with each other. The fact that the appellant demanded bribe and same was accepted, not duly proved, the benefit of doubt can be granted to the appellant. 16. The learned Counsel for the accused has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Balkrishna Bhau Desai vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2016 All MR (Cri) 1913 to canvass that suppressing the tape recorder leads to the inference that the conversation between the complainant and the appellant was against the case of the prosecution. According to Mr. According to Mr. Naidu, there is no reference of tape recorded in the version of PW-1 as well as the Investigating Officer. Conversation between the complainant and the appellant would have certainly thrown light on the aspect of alleged demand of bribe amount by the appellant. However, since it is suppressed, legitimate inference can be drawn that the said conversation was not supporting the case of the prosecution as alleged by the complainant. The paragraphs 17 and 18 therein are reproduced below: “17. The question that arises is why then the prosecution does not wish to rely on the conversation that had taken place between Raje-Bhosale and the appellant? The question that arises is why the Investigating Officer is claiming that no tape-recorder had been provided to Raje-Bhosale (while admitting that it could be provided) and no conversation between him and the appellant had been recorded? The question that arises is who is right-Raje-Bhosale or the Investigating Officer-Ahire (PW-4)? It is a mater of common sense that Raje-Bhosale’s version in this regard, cannot be discarded at all. If there had been no tape-recorder, Raje-Bhosale would have had no reason to mention about such a tape-recorder. Moreover, ordinarily, the Investigating Officer was expected to have the conversation between Raje-Bhosale and the appellant recorded when such recording facility was available, and when there had been no prior verification of the alleged demand. 18. In my opinion, this is a serious discrepancy in the prosecution case. This shows that the prosecution did not want to produce the record of the conversation between Raje-Bhosale and the appellant. Needless to say that in such a situation, the inference that the recorded conversation, if produced, would not have supported the prosecution case, or the account of the happenings as given by the de facto complainant Raje-Bhosale, can legitimately be drawn.” 17. There is no illegality or perversity noticed in the judgment delivered by the learned Special Judge, Chandrapur. It is well settled principle of law that in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction particularly in appeal against acquittal, it is not open to this Court to substitute its own view with a view taken by the lower Court, unless the view taken by the lower Court is illegal, perverse or against the principle of law. 18. There are no sufficient grounds made out by the appellant/State to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. 18. There are no sufficient grounds made out by the appellant/State to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. In these circumstances, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.