JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant state has filed the present appeal against the respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the accused” for the sake of brevity) who was working as a Head Constable attached to Arni Police Station and was convicted by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, by its judgment and order dated 05-12-2002 delivered in Special Case No.6 of 1998, for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal delivered by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal. 2. In brief the prosecution case is that; Complainant Baliram Gunaji Jadhav was the resident of village Sendursani. Mangilal Jadhav is the nephew of the complainant and Devidas Chavhan is the son-in-law of the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that one Bandu Baliram Jadhav had pelted stones on the house of one Hachadibai. At that time, Mangilal and Devidas caught him. Therefore, Bandu had lodged the report against them for beating. Hachadibai had lodged report against Bandu. However, the matter was settled between them. The enquiry of the case lodged against Mangilal and Devidas by Bandu was with accused. On 29-08-1993, complainant Baliram went to the Police Station Arni in connection with the bail matter of his nephew Dau, who was in the custody in concerned with the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The enquiry of the said case was also with the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that, the accused demanded an amount of Rs.7000/- so that the bail can be granted to Dau. On the request of the complainant the accused reduced the amount up to Rs. 3000/-. The complainant was not in a position to pay the said amount, Dau was not released on bail. It is the further case of the prosecution that, when the complainant had gone to Arni in concerned with the case of Dau, accused asked him to produce Mangilal and Devidas in the Police Station as he would prepare case against them and also will send them in jail like Dau. As per the case of the prosecution the accused called the complainant to his house. As per the case of the prosecution the accused called the complainant to his house. Therefore, the complainant along with Motiram and Kaniram went to the house of the accused and at that time he demanded the amount of Rs. 600/- for not beating and arresting Mangilal and Devidas. The amount of Rs. 600/- was reduced to Rs. 500/-, as per the request of the complainant. However, the accused said that if the said amount of Rs. 500/- is not paid he would arrest Mangilal and Devidas. The complainant then informed about the said fact to Mangilal and Devidas. They told the complainant to agree for Rs. 500/- and given an amount of Rs. 100/- to the complainant. The complainant then went to the house of the accused. At that time the accused asked the complainant to pay the amount of Rs. 100/- to him and remaining amount of Rs. 400/- be paid on 31-08-1993 at his house. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant along with Mangilal and Devidas proceeded to the Anti Corruption Bureau, Yavatmal and the report was lodged against the accused in Anti Corruption Bureau office (Exhibit-30) on 30-08-1993. 4. After lodging of report, the Anti Corruption Bureau officers called two panchas. Thereafter, a demonstration of Phenolphthalein powder was given to the panchas and it was informed that if any substance comes in contact with Phenolphthalein powder and Sodium Carbonate it turns violet. The complainant brought the amount of Rs. 400/-. The Phenolphthalein powder was applied to those currency notes. The said notes were kept in the banian of the complainant. Head Constable Jadhav had taken big and small empty bottles for raid purpose. The primary panchanama Exhibit-52 was drawn accordingly in the office. 5. Thereafter, PW4 along with the panch, staff and complainant proceeded to Arni. The complainant went to the house of the accused along with Mangilal and the panch. However, the accused asked them to come to the hotel. Therefore, the complainant along with panch and accused went to the hotel. At that time, Mangilal was standing outside the hotel. The trap was arranged surrounding the hotel. The accused had placed an order for tea. After having tea, accused demanded the amount of Rs. 600/- within three days. The complainant asked the accused not to beat and arrest Mangilal and Devidas and handed over the amount of Rs. At that time, Mangilal was standing outside the hotel. The trap was arranged surrounding the hotel. The accused had placed an order for tea. After having tea, accused demanded the amount of Rs. 600/- within three days. The complainant asked the accused not to beat and arrest Mangilal and Devidas and handed over the amount of Rs. 400/- to the accused. The accused accepted the said amount. He counted the same and kept it in his Safari shirt’s pocket. The complainant then went out in Varandah and signalled the raiding party. Thereafter, Head Constable Hirekar along with Police Constable Lavhale reached there and caught hold both the hands of the accused. They gave their introduction. That time the accused made hue and cry that he was deceived. 6. Thereafter, the solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and the hands of the accused were dipped in the sodium carbonate solution separately. The colour of that solution changed to violet and it was collected in two empty bottles separately and sealed. The solution was taken charge by the Police. On currency notes, the drops of solution were sprinkled and their colour changed to violet where the drops were fallen. Those currency notes were also taken charge. The shirt of the accused was removed and the pocket was dipped in the solution, its colour also changed to violet. The said solution was collected in the bottle and sealed. The said bottles, shirt and currency notes were seized under panchanama. 7. Even the complainant’s fingers were dipped in the solution and it turned violet. That solution was also collected and sealed by the Police. After completing the formalities, the detailed panchanama Exhibit 54 was prepared. PW4, thereafter, lodged complaint vide Exhibit-64. On the basis of it offence was registered. The seized property was sent to the Chemical Analyzer for analysis. The papers were sent to the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur and subsequently, it was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal for sanction and accordingly the sanction order for prosecution was passed (Exhibit-61). Thereafter, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Court. The trial was conducted by the learned Special Judge and the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused as aforesaid. 8. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned Counsel Mr. Bhide for the respondent. Thereafter, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Court. The trial was conducted by the learned Special Judge and the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused as aforesaid. 8. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned Counsel Mr. Bhide for the respondent. I have perused the entire evidence on record led by the prosecution and the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Mrs. Haider contended that the judgment delivered by the learned Special Judge is illegal and perverse. In as much as the testimony of the witness has not been considered. According to learned APP since the evidence with regard to the acceptance of the amount has not been shattered in the cross examination, the presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act is to be considered. The learned APP canvassed that since the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification has been proved by the prosecution, the learned Special Judge ought to have convicted the accused. Mr. Bhide, the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the learned Special Judge has rightly considered the evidence on record and held that the alleged demand of bribe was not proved by the prosecution, hence the accused was rightly acquitted by the learned trial Judge. Mr. Bhide, the learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute that the amount of Rs.400/- was found with the accused. However, he urged that the said amount was not demanded and then accepted by the accused as a bribe, but it was thrust in the hands of the accused. To substantiate his contention, Mr. Bhide, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B. Jayaraj v State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55 wherein it is held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be drawn only after demand for an acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. 9. The defence has not seriously disputed the sanction accorded by PW4. The evidence of PW4 clearly indicates that he has evaluated the material placed before him and came to the conclusion that the case warranted prosecution, therefore, he accorded sanction. So also, the learned Counsel Mr. Bhide for the respondent, did not seriously dispute that it was a valid sanction. 10. The evidence of PW4 clearly indicates that he has evaluated the material placed before him and came to the conclusion that the case warranted prosecution, therefore, he accorded sanction. So also, the learned Counsel Mr. Bhide for the respondent, did not seriously dispute that it was a valid sanction. 10. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of complainant (PW1) to prove the demand as well as upon the acceptance of the illegal gratification. According to the PW1, one Bandu pelted stones on the house of Hachadibai. Mangilal and Devidas both intervened. Hachadibai lodged report against Bandu. Bandu also lodged report against Mangilal and Devidas for beating as they intervened. The matter was compromised in between Hachadibai and Bandu, as Bandu was her soninlaw. However, the report filed by Bandu against Mangilal and Devidas was investigated by the accused. He asked PW1 to call Mangilal and Devidas and demanded money. Mangilal asked PW1 to accompany him therefore PW1 accordingly went with him. The accused initially demanded the amount of Rs. 7000/- for both the cases. One of the cases out of two, was concerned with Dau and other case was concerned with Mangilal and Devidas. In the case of Mangilal accused demanded amount of Rs. 500/- and out of it Rs.100/- was paid to the accused and remaining amount of Rs. 400/- was agreed to be given on the day of ‘Bakri Id’ i.e. on Tuesday. The accused assured PW1 that, if the amount is paid he will not beat Mangilal and Devidas. 11. The complainant (PW1) took the amount of Rs. 500/- from Mangilal and proceeded to Anti Corruption Bureau Office at Yavatmal. The complaint was recorded by Anti Corruption Bureau Officer Mr. Sanjay Deshpande (PW4) at Exhibit-30. PW4 stated that Phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes and said amount was kept in the upper side pocket of banian of complainant. PW1 along with pancha (PW2) and Anti Corruption Bureau Officer Mr. Sanjay Deshpande (PW4) went to Arni. The PW1 along with panch (PW2) went to the house of the accused. The accused asked PW1 to come to the hotel. Accordingly PW1, panch (PW2) and accused went to one hotel. At that time, Mangilal was standing out side and the panch (PW2) was with the PW1. Sanjay Deshpande (PW4) went to Arni. The PW1 along with panch (PW2) went to the house of the accused. The accused asked PW1 to come to the hotel. Accordingly PW1, panch (PW2) and accused went to one hotel. At that time, Mangilal was standing out side and the panch (PW2) was with the PW1. At that time, accused asked the panch to give whatever amount was available with him and to give the remaining amount of Rs. 300/- thereafter. According to PW1, he handed over an amount of Rs. 400/- to the accused in hotel. The accused kept that amount in his shirt pocket. The PW1 then signalled the raiding party. Accordingly the officers of Anti Corruption Bureau caught hold the accused. The hands of PW1 were dipped in the water and the water turned violet. That water was collected in the bottle. Pocket of his banian was also washed and it also turned violet. That water was also collected and sealed. 12. On careful scrutiny of PW1, it is noticed that, with regard to the demand of bribe amount, PW1 deposed that, the accused initially demanded amount of Rs. 7000/- for both the cases. However, the said version is contradictory to the contents in the complaint (Exhibit-30). PW1 stated that in concern the case of Mangilal, accused demanded Rs. 500/- whereas, the complaint reveals that amount of Rs. 600/- was demanded by the accused. Even the complainant failed to state the date on which the first demand was made by the accused. It is also not clear as to when the amount of Rs.100/- was paid to the accused. There appear to be discrepancies in the version of PW1 when compared to his complaint Exhibit-30. Admittedly, the complainant had grudge against the accused as his relative did not get bail, hence he lodged the complaint against the accused. 13. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant went to the Police Station in concerned with the bail of Dau and for that purpose the accused demanded an amount of Rs. 7000/-. The amount was reduced to Rs.3000/- on the request of the complainant. As the said amount of Rs.3000/- was not given to the accused, the relative of complainant namely Dau was sent to jail. The complainant went to Arni for requesting the accused to release his relative Dau on bail. 7000/-. The amount was reduced to Rs.3000/- on the request of the complainant. As the said amount of Rs.3000/- was not given to the accused, the relative of complainant namely Dau was sent to jail. The complainant went to Arni for requesting the accused to release his relative Dau on bail. At that time the accused asked him to produce Mangilal and Devidas before him. He stated that if the amount is not paid he will send Mangilal and Devidas in jail like Dau. The accused called the complainant to his house. When the complainant went to the house of the accused the accused demanded the amount of Rs.500/- for not beating Mangilal and Devidas. On his request, the amount was reduced from Rs.600/- to Rs.500/-. The accused accepted the amount of Rs.100/- and agreed to accept the remaining amount of Rs. 400/- on 31-08-1993. In this context, it is worthy to note that PW1 has not stated about the demands made by the accused at various places, as mentioned in the complaint Exhibit-30. It is stated by PW1 that, the accused initially demanded Rs. 7000/- for both the cases and in the case concerned with Mangilal accused demanded amount of Rs. 500/- out of which Rs. 100/- was given and Rs. 400/- was agreed to be given on ‘Bakri Id’ day i.e. on Tuesday and the accused said that if the amount is paid he will not beat Mangilal. As discussed above, in the cross examination the complainant was unable to state, as to how many days before the demand of money the incident with regard to Bandu and Hachadibai had taken place. During the cross examination the complainant stated that, two months prior to the incident of Dau, Bandu had lodged report against Mangilal and both the cases were enquired by the accused. The complainant, however, denied that he stood as surety for Dau and further stated that there was no occasion for him to visit the Police Station before this incident. The complainant admitted that Dau could not be released on bail, therefore, he got annoyed against the accused and therefore report was lodged against the accused to teach him a lesson. It appears from the testimony of complainant that as he had grudge against the accused he had lodged a false complaint against him. 14. The complainant admitted that Dau could not be released on bail, therefore, he got annoyed against the accused and therefore report was lodged against the accused to teach him a lesson. It appears from the testimony of complainant that as he had grudge against the accused he had lodged a false complaint against him. 14. As far as the first demand made by the accused to the complainant is concerned, it is noticed that the testimony of PW1 is not corroborated with his complaint Exhibit-30. There is absolutely no iota of evidence on record to corroborate the said version of the complainant. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had grudge against the accused as his relative Dau did not get bail, therefore he decided to lodge complaint against the accused. With regard to the report of Bandu, the prosecution had filed Non Cognizable (N.C.) case of Bandu with seizure panchanama Exhibit-63. Actually, it was the N.C. complaint registered by Police which was lodged by Bandu. Admittedly, the Police Officers had no authority to investigate the N.C. complaint and arrest the accused without prior permission of the Magistrate. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the permission to investigate the case was obtained by the accused and the accused was investigating the case. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused demanded the amount from the complainant for not preparing the case against Mangilal and Devidas and putting them in lock up. Thus, the demand of the accused for Rs. 100/- and handing over the said amount to him is not established beyond reasonable doubt. 15. On the point of acceptance of the illegal gratification, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of Baliram (PW1), Arun the panch witness (PW2) and Anti Corruption Bureau Officer Mr. Sanjay Deshpande (PW4). According to PW1, he along with panch witness and Anti Corruption Bureau Officer Mr. Sanjay Deshpande (PW4) proceeded to the house of the accused. He offered money to the accused. However, the accused did not accept and ask him to come to the hotel. Thereafter, the complainant, panch and accused went to the hotel. Mangilal was standing outside the hotel. In the hotel, the accused asked the panch to hand over whatever amount was with him and asked him to give the remaining amount of Rs. 300/- afterwards. However, the accused did not accept and ask him to come to the hotel. Thereafter, the complainant, panch and accused went to the hotel. Mangilal was standing outside the hotel. In the hotel, the accused asked the panch to hand over whatever amount was with him and asked him to give the remaining amount of Rs. 300/- afterwards. At that time, the complainant handed over the amount of Rs. 400/- in the hotel. The accused kept the amount in the pocket of his banian. Thereafter, he signalled the raiding party and the Anti Corruption Bureau Officers caught hold the accused. The right hand of the accused was dipped into the water and water turned violet. The pocket of Banyan was washed and its colour was changed to violet. The water was collected in bottles. The bottles were taken charge. It is the specific case of the accused that he had not demanded the amount, but the complainant forcibly tried to thrust the said amount in his pocket. The complainant has made an improvement by stating that the accused asked the panch to give whatever amount was with him and to give the remaining amount of Rs. 300/- later on. 16. As regards the testimony of PW2 panch witness is concerned, he has stated about the trap. According to him, he along with complainant went to the house of the accused along with Mangilal. The accused asked the complainant whether he has brought the amount or not. The complainant told him that he has brought the amount of Rs.400/-. The accused said that no work will be done in Rs.400/- and he wanted Rs.1000/-. That time the complainant said to the accused that he does not have that much money and he has brought the amount of Rs.400/- by taking loan and he would give the remaining amount of Rs.600/- after harvest. On this the accused said that he would not wait till harvest and he wanted the amount within 2/3 days. Thereafter, they all went to the hotel. The complainant took out the currency notes from his pocket and handed over those currency notes to the accused. The accused counted it and kept in his pocket. PW2 deposed that then the complainant went outside and signalled the raiding party and when the raid was conducted the accused made hue and cry that he was deceived. The complainant took out the currency notes from his pocket and handed over those currency notes to the accused. The accused counted it and kept in his pocket. PW2 deposed that then the complainant went outside and signalled the raiding party and when the raid was conducted the accused made hue and cry that he was deceived. The solution was prepared and the wash of the hands and clothes of the accused which turned violet were collected in bottles. On currency notes, the drops of solution were sprinkled and their colour changed to violet where the drops were fallen. Those notes were also taken charge. The said bottles, shirt and currency notes were seized under panchanama Exhibit-53 and detailed panchanama was prepared at Exhibit-54. During the cross examination PW2 stated that when the tea was served in the hotel, at that time the complainant had gone out for giving signal and in between what talks had taken place he cannot say. So far as the testimony of PW4 is concerned, he has stated that the complainant lodged complaint Exhibit-30. He gave demonstration regarding the Phenolphthalein powder and Sodium Carbonate and recorded panchanama. On the point of trap he stated that the complainant and panch went to the house of the accused along with Mangilal. Thereafter, they all came to Heera Farsan Hotel. A trap was arranged at about 1.00 pm. The complainant gave signal and accordingly a trap was laid. The scrutiny of the witnesses indicates that the testimony of complainant is not corroborated with the evidence of PW2 and PW4. The complainant has not stated anything about the talks which had taken place with the accused in his house. PW2 stated the talks which had taken place in the house. He stated that there was a talk between the accused and the complainant in his house. According to the complainant, the accused demanded the money to the panch in the hotel. The PW2 has put forth some different story in respect of the demand of illegal gratification. PW4 has no personal knowledge as to what talks were going on between the complainant, Panch and the accused. It is thus not proved by the prosecution that the first demand was made by the accused in his house and then subsequently the second demand was made in the hotel. 17. PW4 has no personal knowledge as to what talks were going on between the complainant, Panch and the accused. It is thus not proved by the prosecution that the first demand was made by the accused in his house and then subsequently the second demand was made in the hotel. 17. As far as the case of acceptance of the illegal gratification is concerned, no doubt, the amount was recovered from the accused. However, it is the specific case of the accused that the complainant thrust the amount forcibly in his pocket. As per the case put up by the accused, as the complainant was annoyed with the accused, as his relative Dau was sent to jail, in order to teach lesson to the accused, the complainant has lodged a false complaint against him. No cogent and convincing evidence brought on record to show that the accused has actually demanded bribe amount. In this context, it is significant to note that, simply finding of the amount with the accused, is not a conclusive proof that the amount has been accepted by him towards illegal gratification, in the absence of any demand of bribe amount. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the accused demanded the money for doing official act and accordingly the accused accepted it for the same. 18. As far as the demand is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on AIR 2010 SC 1589 in the case of Banarasi Dass v. State of Haryana, wherein it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential and in absence of proof of demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant, appellant is entitled to acquittal. It is also held that mere proof of recovery of bribe amount from the appellant is not sufficient to prove the offence. 19. In the case of Ashok Kumar Wardhani v State of Maharashtra reported in 2003 All MR (Cri) 88, the complainant was only witness regarding alleged demand. It was held by this Court that the complainant being an interested witness the Court must look for independent corroboration. 20. 19. In the case of Ashok Kumar Wardhani v State of Maharashtra reported in 2003 All MR (Cri) 88, the complainant was only witness regarding alleged demand. It was held by this Court that the complainant being an interested witness the Court must look for independent corroboration. 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaswant Singh v State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1973 SC 707 , has held as under: “As PW 1 is the complainant, his evidence will have to be considered with great caution and it will not be ordinarily safe to accept his interested testimony unless there is material corroboration found in the other evidence adduced by the prosecution.” 21. In the case of B. Jayaraj v State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P., reported in (2010) 15 SCC 1 and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 779 .” 22. The learned trial Judge has appreciated the evidence in right perspective. There is no illegality or perversity noticed in the judgment delivered by the learned Special Judge, Pusad. 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. 23. 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.