JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant Rama Kishan being aggrieved of the judgment dated 14.8.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Anti Corruption Court, Bikaner in Criminal Case No. 4/2001 whereby, he was convicted and sentenced as below :- Conviction Sentence S. 7 of PC Act 1 year's SI & fine of Rs. 500/- in default one month's SI. S. 13(1) r/w 13(2) of PC Act 2 years' SI & fine of Rs. 1000/- in default two months' SI. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Succinctly stated the facts essential and relevant for disposal of this appeal are noted herein below. 3. The appellant herein was posted as a Patwari at the relevant time in Patwar Halka Akasar, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner. The complainant Shri Prithviraj Singh submitted a report to the Additional S.P., ACB, Bikaner on 6.5.2000 alleging inter alia that he was a resident of Shekhawat Farms Takiya Ki Chowki, Kalwad Road, Jhotwara and was currently persuing farming operations in Village Chani, Tehsil Kolayat. He, his uncle Kalyan Singh, father-inlaw Ganesh Singh & mother-in-law Smt. Aruna Chouhan etc. purchased 8 murabbas i.e. 200 bighas of land located in Khasra No. 158 of village Chani from one Vivek Chabra s/o Madan Lal r/o Abohar through a power of attorney. 6 of the 8 murabbas were registered in the name of respective purchasers whereas remaining 2 murabbas were purchased under agreements of sale. The complainant had completed all the requisite formalities in relation to those lands. Mutation, measurements etc, of the land were also carried out at the instance of the complainant himself. He had submitted the requisite application fees etc. for measurement of the land and requested the Patwari Chani i.e. the appellant herein for expediting the process. The patwari demanded a bribe of Rs. 25,000/- for carrying out measurement of the murabbas. Upon the complainant pleading for a lenient consideration, the patwari bargained and the deal was stuck at Rs. 17,000/- as bribe for carrying out the measurement. From the said sum of Rs. 17,000/-, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- had already been paid to the patwari and the remaining Rs. 7,000/- was to be paid and the accused was pressing hard for the same. 17,000/- as bribe for carrying out the measurement. From the said sum of Rs. 17,000/-, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- had already been paid to the patwari and the remaining Rs. 7,000/- was to be paid and the accused was pressing hard for the same. The complainant had to procure copies of khatas and jamabandies of the land for the purpose of taking electricity connection and other formalities. He approached the patwari and asked him for certified copies of the documents. On this, the patwari told that the amount of Rs. 7,000/- was still pending towards the earlier deal and that he would have to cough up an additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- for getting copies of the documents. The complainant alleged in his report that in this manner, the patwari was demanding a total amount of Rs. 27,000/- as bribe for providing the copies of the documents in addition to the amount paid earlier. The said application was taken on record by the ACB officials and the complainant was provided a mini tape recorder for verification of demand of bribe. It is alleged that during the verification proceedings the accused was heard demanding a sum of Rs. 19,000/- from the complainant for doing his work. The bribe was to be paid at the house of the accused on 8.5.2000. The complainant presented himself at the ACB outpost, Bikaner on 8.5.2000 with a sum of Rs. 9,000/- which he could arrange with some difficulty. The trap laying officer summoned two independent witnesses namely, Rajendra Singh and Vijay Kumar Joshi. The currency notes presented by the complainant were initialled by the trap laying officer and were dusted with phenolphthalein powder and were placed in the complainant's pocket. The complainant was instructed not to handle the same and to take out & pass on the tainted currency notes upon being demanded by the appellant herein. The complainant was again provided the mini tape recorder and was instructed to record the conversation likely to be held between him and the accused during exchange of the bribe money. The complainant was sent to the house of the appellant herein along with the panch witnesses Rajendra Singh & Vijay Kumar Joshi. The complainant was again provided the mini tape recorder and was instructed to record the conversation likely to be held between him and the accused during exchange of the bribe money. The complainant was sent to the house of the appellant herein along with the panch witnesses Rajendra Singh & Vijay Kumar Joshi. A little later, the complainant came out of the house of the accused and gave the pre-arranged signal, on which the trap laying officer along with the other members of trap party, both the panch witnesses rushed into the house of the accused. The appellant was seen standing in the verandah of the house counting the 500 rupees notes. The trap laying officer Shri Niyaj Mohd. PW 5 introduced himself to the accused who became alarmed on seeing the trap party and threw down the currency notes on the floor. The patwari was asked to furnish an explanation for accepting the amount on which, he blurted out that he had not accepted any bribe and that the complainant Prithviraj Singh had given him the currency notes for examining and he was simply checking the notes to find out if they were genuine or not. The Patwari confronted Prithviraj that none of his works had been delayed and as to why he got him entangled in the case. The complainant controverted this suggestion and reiterated that the accused had demanded the bribe amount and after bickering about the shortfall in the settled bribe amount, he had accepted the currency notes worth Rs. 9,000/- in his own hands by way of bribe and was counting the same. The hands of the appellant were washed in a solution of Sodium Carbonate which turned pink. The wash was packed in separate bottles. The currency notes thrown down by the accused were picked up and on verification, were found to be the same ones passed on by the complainant and bore initials of trap laying officer Niyaj Mohd. Thereafter, the accused was questioned in detail and he told the trap laying officer that no work of Prithviraj was pending with him at that time. Prithviraj and his family members had executed six registered sale deeds of land in Khasra No. 158 and mutation had already been entered and had been verified. Copies of two jamabandies were demanded for fixing the tube-well which were provided to the complainant. Prithviraj and his family members had executed six registered sale deeds of land in Khasra No. 158 and mutation had already been entered and had been verified. Copies of two jamabandies were demanded for fixing the tube-well which were provided to the complainant. The measurement of 150 bighas land was completed by 22-23 March, 2000. The explanation furnished by the accused was not found satisfactory and accordingly he was arrested for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 after drawing requisite proceedings and thereafter, an FIR No. 29/2000 came to be registered at C.P.S., Jaipur. After investigation, the appellant herein was charge-sheeted for these offences. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant in these very terms. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses in support of its case. The accused denied the prosecution allegations in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the case. No work of the complainant was pending with him and all the formalities required to be carried out by the accused appellant had been completed by March, 2000. The complainant's deal with Vivek Chabra could not fructify in the fullest because Vivek Chabra refused to sell him the remaining 50 bighas of land as per the agreement. The complainant was angry and suspected that the appellant accused was responsible for fallout of the deal and that is why he lodged the totally false complaint against him. On the fateful day, the complainant approached the accused, showed him some currency notes suggesting that the news was circulating regarding the 500 Rs. Denomination notes being counterfeit and he had come to get the notes verified from the accused who started checking the same for their genuineness and during this process, the complainant got him trapped in furtherance of a fraudulent design. No witness was examined in defence on behalf of the appellant. 4. At conclusion of the proceedings, the trial Court held that the prosecution duly proved the fact which was virtually admitted by the accused that he had taken 18 tainted notes of Rs. 500/- each in his hands. The trial Court further concluded that the appellant was not an expert for examining the veracity of the currency notes and accordingly, his explanation was discarded on this ground. 500/- each in his hands. The trial Court further concluded that the appellant was not an expert for examining the veracity of the currency notes and accordingly, his explanation was discarded on this ground. The trial Court considered the defence argument based on the admission made by the prosecution witnesses PW 1 Vijay Kumar and PW 5 Niyaj Mohd. that no work of the complainant was pending with the accused at the time of trap and discarded the same assigning a reason that PW 2 complainant Prithviraj himself alleged that a bribe of Rs. 17,000/- was fixed between him and the accused for measurement of the land in question and thus, the money which the accused accepted was for meeting the pending demand and non-pendency of current work with the accused when the trap was laid was immaterial. Accordingly, finding the allegations of demand and acceptance to be proved, the learned trial Court proceeded to convict and sentenced the appellant as above by the impugned judgment dated 14.8.2002, which is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Accordingly, finding the allegations of demand and acceptance to be proved, the learned trial Court proceeded to convict and sentenced the appellant as above by the impugned judgment dated 14.8.2002, which is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Shri A.K. Singh, learned counsel representing the appellant drew the Court's attention to the following references from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses:- P.W.1 Vijay Kumar:- ^^;g lgh gS fd ifjoknh i`Fohflag rFkk eqfYte jkefd'ku ds e/; okrkZ eSaus vius dkuksa ls ugha lquhA ;g Hkh lgh gS fd eqfYte us esjs lkeus ifjoknh ls dksbZ fj'or ugha ekaxh FkhA ;g lgh gS fd loZÁFke fu;kt eksgEen lhvkbZ ds iwNus ij eqfYte us ;g crk;k Fkk fd dkgs ds :i;s fy;s gSa] ikap ikap lkS ds uksV ns[k jgk Fkk fd uksV vlyh gS ;k udyh gS] eqfYte us ekSds ij ;g Hkh dgk Fkk fd i`Fohjkt us ;g uksV esjs dks nsus ds fy;s fn;s gSaA eqfYte us ;g Hkh ekSds ij dgk Fkk fd eSaus dksbZ fj'or ugha yh gSA eqfYte us ekSds ij ifjoknh dks ;g Hkh dgk Fkk fd i`Fohjkt eSaus rsjk D;k dke jksdk Fkk rFkk rqus ;s D;k fd;kA ;g lgh gS fd ;g Vsªi dh dk;Zokgh 8-5-2000 dks gqbZ FkhA ;g lgh gS fd bl Ádkj ls fjdkMZ ds eqrkfcd Vªsi dh dk;Zokgh ls iwoZ mDr dk;Z lEiUu fd;k tk pqdk FkkA fjdkMZ ds eqrkfcd ifjoknh dk dksbZ dke Vªsi ds le; yafcr ugha FkkA** P.W.2 Prithviraj Singh (Complainant):- ^^Án'kZ ih&1 esa eqfYte }kjk 'kq:&'kq: esa 25]000@& ekaxus o 17]000@& r; gksus o 10]000@& esjs }kjk fn;s tkus dh dksbZ rkjh[k vafdr ugha gSA vkt eSa ugha crk ldrk fd :i;s dc ekaxs] dc eqdjZj gq, o dc eSaus bldks fn;s Fks ysfdu ;g yxHkx ebZ dh ckr gS fQj dgk fd vÁSy ekg dh ;g ckr gSA ;g lgh gS fd gkftj vnkyr eqfYte us ekSds ij fj'or yh gksus ls bUdkj fd;k Fkk rFkk dgk Fkk fd og rks ikap ikap lkS :i;s ds uksVksa dks ns[k jgk Fkk fd vlyh gS ;k udyh gSaA ;g lgh gS fd eqfYte us ekSds ij ;g dgk Fkk fd mls rks i`Fohjkt us ;kfu eSaus uksV ns[kus ds fy;s fn;s FksA ;g lgh gS fd ekSds ij gkftj vnkyr eqfYte us eq>s ;g Hkh dgk Fkk fd ;kj i`Fohjkt eSaus rsjk D;k dke jksdk Fkk] rsus ;s D;k fd;kA** P.W.5 Niyaj Mohd:- ^^;g lgh gS fd bl dsl esa f'kdk;r 6-5-2000 dh Fkh vkSj blesa Vªsi eSaus 8-5-2000 dks fd;k FkkA ;g lgh gS fd bl ekeys esa eqfYte ij ifjoknh us mldh N% jftLVªh;ksa dk bardky ntZ djus o mldh 150 chek tehu dh iSekbZ'k djus vkSj nks [kkrksa dh udysa ysus dh ,sot esa fj'or dk vkjksi yxk;k FkkA bu rhuks dkeksa ds vykok eqfYte ds ikl ifjoknh dk dksbZ dke yafcr ugha FkkA udy jftLVªj vkfVZdy Án'kZ 26 eSaus ns[kkA ;g lgh gS fd bl jftLVªkj dh Øe la[;k 3894 ij udy nsus dk bUnzkt i`Fohflag ifjoknh ds uke dk gh gS] ;g Hkh lgh gS fd ifjoknh }kjk crk;s x;h N% jftLVªh;ksa esa ls ,d jftLVªh x.ks'kflag iq= N=flag ds uke dh gS ftldh udy nsus dk bUnzkt Hkh bl jftLVªj dh Øe la[;k 3895 ij gSA ;g bUnzkt fnukad 30-3-2000 dk gS rFkk udy fn;s tkus dk bUnzkt 1-4-2000 dk gS ;g ckr lgh gSA vkfVZdy Án'kZ 26 dh Øe la[;k 3894 o 3895 ds vuqlkj ifjoknh dks mlds }kjk pkgh x;h nksuksa udysa Vªsi ls cgqr igys vFkkZr~ 1-4-2000 dks nh tk pqdh Fkh] ;g lgh gSA ifjoknh }kjk djkbZ xbZ N% jftLVªh;ksa ds bardky dk baUnzkt bardky jftLVªj vkfVZdy Án'kZ 25 dh Øe la[;k 855 ls 858 esa ntZ gS tks 3-1-2000 dks ntZ fd;k gqvk gSA ;g lgh gS fd ;g bardky ifjoknh dk Vªsi ls cgqr igys ntZ gks x;k FkkA ;g lgh gS fd nSfud Mk;jh vkfVZdy Án'kZ 27 dh ist la[;k 21 esa vafdr LFkku ,Dl vkSj okbZ ds eqrkfcd ifjoknh dks mldh tehu dk lhekKku 17-3-2000 o 21-3-2000 dks fn;k tk pqdk Fkk tks Vªsi ls cgqr igys dk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd vkfVZdy Án'kZ 25 ls 27 ds vuqlkj ,QvkbZvkj esa crk;s x;s ifjoknh ds yafcr dke eqfYte us Vsªi ls cgqr igys gh iwjs dj fn;s FksA QnZ VªkalfØIV esa ifjoknh o eqfYte dh vkoktksa dk oSKkfud ijh{k.k esjs tkudkjh esa ugha djk;k x;k FkkA** 6. Referring to the statement of trap laying officer PW 5 Niyaj Mohd., Shri Singh urged that the witness did not state in his evidence that he got the allegation of demand of bribe verified. On the contrary, the witness clearly admitted that the verification of demand was carried out by Shri Pratap Singh Inspector who was not examined by the prosecution during the trial. The recordings of conversation held between the accused and the complainant during the so-called verification of demand of bribe are inadmissible in evidence because neither was the accused asked to give his voice sample for comparison nor was the recorded cassette produced in Court during evidence. The prosecution did not get the voice comparison done by the forensic expert. He thus urged that the prosecution failed to give any proof in support of the charge that the appellant demanded bribe from the complainant. He contended that as demand of bribe was not proved, the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence of acceptance of bribe as well. He urged that the accused gave a prompt and satisfactory explanation for handling the tainted currency notes when the trap laying officer reached his house. He further submitted that entire formalities required to be carried out by the accused for the land transactions of the complainant party had been completed well before the trap was laid and this fact was admitted by all the relevant prosecution witnesses including the trap laying officer Shri Niyaj Mohd. (PW 5) who categorically stated that all official jobs of the complainant with the revenue department had been completed by the accused. He thus urged that there was no reason for the accused to demand bribe or for the complainant to agree for the same. Shri Singh further urged that the appellant gave a satisfactory explanation for handling the tainted currency notes and as such, burden of proving that the currency notes were accepted by the accused by way of illegal gratification shifted back on to the prosecution which failed to discharge its burden and hence, the prosecution case has to fail. He relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Khaleel Ahmed v. State of Karnataka reported in (2015) 16 SCC 350 and urged that the ratio of the said decision applies to the case at hand on all fours and thus, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 7. He relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Khaleel Ahmed v. State of Karnataka reported in (2015) 16 SCC 350 and urged that the ratio of the said decision applies to the case at hand on all fours and thus, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 7. Per contra, learned P.P. vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. He contended that the complainant had no animosity against the appellant so as to falsely implicate him and put a huge sum of Rs. 9,000/- at risk without any reason. However, on the aspect of proof regarding the demand of bribe, learned P.P. had no option but to concede that the prosecution did not lead any independent evidence whatsoever to prove that the appellant ever demanded bribe from the complainant and that the evidence regarding verification of demand is totally missing from the prosecution case. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the original record and have re-appreciated the evidence available on record threadbare. 9. It is virtually an admitted position as emerging from the record that the proceedings undertaken by the investigating agency for verification of the alleged demand of bribe made by the appellant were not brought on record. Pratap Singh Inspector who got the alleged verification carried out was not examined in evidence. The only material witness examined by the prosecution to prove this fact was the complainant Prithviraj PW 2 himself. He did not disclose the date on which the accused allegedly demanded bribe from him. Though the prosecution alleged that the conversation held between the accused and the complainant at the time of the verification proceedings was saved in a tape recorder but no cassette of the recording so made was presented during trial by way of substantive evidence. Even in unverified tape recording of the conversation held between the accused and the complainant the transcription whereof was marked as Ex. P/8 during the evidence of trap laying officer, there is not even the minimal of utterance by the appellant which can satisfy the Court that he demanded bribe from the complainant. On the contrary, the appellant is heard suggesting the complainant that the notes appear to have been discontinued. P/8 during the evidence of trap laying officer, there is not even the minimal of utterance by the appellant which can satisfy the Court that he demanded bribe from the complainant. On the contrary, the appellant is heard suggesting the complainant that the notes appear to have been discontinued. The appellant gave an explanation right at the time of trap proceedings that the complainant had passed on the currency notes to him to check their genuineness. Though this explanation was controverted by the complainant but when the same is tested upon touchstone of the attending circumstances, it is evident that the complainant's stance was totally false. The accused offered a pertinent explanation that all the formalities pertaining to the complainant's land deals had been completed at the end of the revenue department much before the trap. This fact is mentioned in the trap memo and has been admitted by almost all prosecution witnesses including the I.O. The prosecution conveniently omitted to place on record the details of the conversation held between the accused and the complainant during the demand verification and the bribe handing over proceedings. Thus, there is a significant grey area in the prosecution case regarding what actually transpired between the accused and the complainant at the time when the bribe was allegedly transacted. Whilst PW 2 complainant Prithviraj made an allegation that some of his work was still pending with the accused on the other hand, Niyaj Mohd. I.O. made a categoric admission in his statement that all formalities of the complainant had been completed by the accused long before the trap was laid. After a thorough appreciation and evaluation of the evidence available on record, the following conclusions can be crystallized beyond all manner of doubt :- (1) That the prosecution did not lead any evidence whatsoever to prove that the accused appellant demanded bribe from the complainant. The verification proceedings conducted during the alleged demand did not see the light of the day because the police officer Pratap Singh who conducted these proceedings was not examined in evidence. Further, recording of the so-called conversation was not proved and brought on record. (2) That the accused gave a thorough explanation for handling the notes given to him by the complainant right at the time of trap laying proceedings. Further, recording of the so-called conversation was not proved and brought on record. (2) That the accused gave a thorough explanation for handling the notes given to him by the complainant right at the time of trap laying proceedings. Since the charge against the accused is for the offences under Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act would not come to the aid of the prosecution by mere fact of the accused handling the tainted currency notes. (3) That the explanation given by the accused at the time of trap proceedings finds place in the running note and was duly accepted by the panch witness PW1 Vijay Kumar and the trap laying officer PW 5 Niyaj Mohd. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khaleel Ahmed (supra) has clearly propounded that the demand of illegal gratification is a sin qua non for bringing home the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. In absence of proof of demand of illegal gratification, a public servant cannot be held guilty of these charges. A prompt and satisfactory explanation given by public servant for handling the currency notes right at the time of trap is a significant circumstance which goes in favour of his claim of innocence. 11. As noted above, the appellant gave a prompt explanation right at the time of trap proceedings that no work of the complainant was pending with him and that the currency notes were given to him for checking their genuineness. The fact that the genuineness of the notes was discussed between the accused and the complainant is also indicated from the conversation transcript which was proved by the prosecution as Ex.P/8. Significantly enough, on going through transcription, it is manifest that the accused did not even utter even a single word to indicate that he had ever demanded any gratification from the complainant. Even the complainant is not heard making any utterance that he was passing on the currency notes as illegal gratification pursuant to any demand made by the accused. As a consequence of the above discussion, I am of the firm opinion that the trial Court committed grave error in facts as well as in law while convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As a consequence of the above discussion, I am of the firm opinion that the trial Court committed grave error in facts as well as in law while convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is my firm opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant for the above offences beyond all manner of doubt and the explanation furnished by the appellant for handling the tainted currency notes is fit to be accepted. 12. Resultantly, the instant appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 14.8.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Anti Corruption Court, Bikaner is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Record be returned forthwith.