JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order passed by learned Special Judge, Warora in Special Case No.9 of 2008 (Old Case No.2 of 2003), whereby appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7(13)(i)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.8000/, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Though the judgment of the Special Court was assailed in appeal by the original convict, he, during the pendency of the appeal expired, whereupon present appellant, who is wife of original appellant, got herself substituted with a bid to purge him of the stigma. 3. Brief facts to unfold the prosecution case can be stated as under : Appellant on the day of incident was working as a Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Bhadravati against whom PW 2 Vyankatsubbarao Rauri lodged his report (Exh.33) alleging that while he was working as a contractor and running his business under name and style as 'R.G.Consultant' and was receiving contracts for construction of road etc., had submitted his tender for construction of road in one of the areas in Bhadravati which tender was accepted in 2000 – 2001 and the work was allotted to him which was estimated to the extent of Rs.5,50,000/. Complainant has alleged that on his attending office of Municipal Council to receive the work order, President as well as appellant, who was then Chief Officer, demanded 5% of the tender amount for each of them and was further informed that additional amount to the extent of 2% and 3% will have to be paid to the President and the appellant, respectively, at the time of drawing of final bill. It is the case of prosecution that when he received work order, appellant was not present in the office of Municipal Council and his charge was with one Mr.Chahande and as such, as agreed between him, President and appellant, he made payment of Rs.10,000/to Mr.Namojwar, the President, towards 2% of his share and Mr.Chahande had accordingly issued work order to him. After 10 to 15 days, appellant joined his duty to whom complainant informed that he received work order on making payment of Rs.10,000/to the President and in 2 – 3 days payment of Rs.15000/towards 3% share of said amount was paid to appellant at his house. According to the case of prosecution, complainant started construction work of road in the year 2000 and completed the same in the year 2001. On 7th April, 2001 Mr.Namojwar President was changed and a new President Mr.Dhyneshwar Dukre was appointed. On completion of work complainant thus, visited appellant when he reminded him of payment of 2% of bill amount for President and 3% for himself and had further informed that the new President's share would be 10% of the bill amount and not what was decided earlier and directed to meet the new President to whom complainant met who demanded 10% of the bill amount to whom he paid amount of Rs.10,000/in July, 2001 by visiting his shop when new President asked for payment of further amount of Rs.40,000/. 4. Thereafter, on 13th July, 2001 complainant visited the house of appellant and requested for release of bill amount of Rs.5,50,000/by submitting bill of Rs.5,42,721/. However, appellant through his Junior Engineer, got the bill prepared for amount of Rs.4,00,000/informing complainant to submit revised estimate bill and for sanctioning said bill reminded for payment of 2% of the amount of bill to the extent of Rs.8000/to him and directed him to make said payment by visiting his house. However, since complainant was not willing to make payment of bribe of Rs.8,000/he visited the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged his report on 16th July, 2001. As per the report, as bribe was to be accepted by appellant on 17th July, 2001 he arranged for two independent panch witnesses and directed complainant to visit the office of Anti Corruption Bureau on 17th July, 2001. 5. On arrival of panchas, they were introduced to complainant and complainant narrated his complaint orally. Both the panchas thereafter verified the complaint (Exh.33) orally from the complainant and tallied contents thereof and got themselves satisfied to be recorded according to the grievance of the complainant. Complainant produced Rs.8000/which were 16 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500/each. Serial Numbers of the currency notes were recorded in the pretrap panchanama. Both the panchas thereafter verified the complaint (Exh.33) orally from the complainant and tallied contents thereof and got themselves satisfied to be recorded according to the grievance of the complainant. Complainant produced Rs.8000/which were 16 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500/each. Serial Numbers of the currency notes were recorded in the pretrap panchanama. Mr.Khedekar, Police Constable thereafter gave demonstration of effect of phenolphthalein powder and solution of Sodium Collaborate to the panch witnesses and the complainant from which they came to know that when solution of Sodium Carbonate comes in contact with Phenolphthalein powder, powder is turned into purple colour. All the currency notes as produced were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. Necessary instructions were issued to PW 1 Prabhakar Bankar, who acted as a shadow witness and accompanied complainant at the time of trap to hear conversation whatsoever may take place between complainant and appellant. Another panch witness Mr.Petkar was directed to accompany raiding party and on getting signal to rush to the spot and watch what transpires there, while complainant was instructed to not to touch the bribe money smeared with phenolphthalein powder kept in his pocket, till demanded and to make payment thereof only on demand by appellant. He was further instructed that, on acceptance of bribe, to give signal by lifting his Lungi. After drawing pretrap panchanama (Exh.14) of all these facts, trap came to be laid at the house of appellant situated at Bhadravati at 8.10 a.m. 6. Complainant and PW 1 Prabhakar went to the house of appellant at 8.30 a.m. and the Investigating Officer received the proposed signal at 8.45, upon which members of the raiding team arrived at the house of appellant and caught hold of appellant. The bribe money was recovered as was found kept in a room on cot, upon which Sodium Carbonate solution came to be sprinkled when violet colour spots appeared on the currency notes of which serial numbers also tallied with the numbers mentioned in the pretrap pancanama (Exh.14). Similarly, fingers of right hand of appellant came to be dipped in the solution of Sodium Carbonate but there was no change in colour of solution. Post trap panchanama (Exh.20) of all these facts came to be drawn. All the seized muddemal articles were sent to the Chemical Analyzer. Similarly, fingers of right hand of appellant came to be dipped in the solution of Sodium Carbonate but there was no change in colour of solution. Post trap panchanama (Exh.20) of all these facts came to be drawn. All the seized muddemal articles were sent to the Chemical Analyzer. PW 3 Sheshrao Janrao Patil, Instigating Officer, then sent detailed report to the Bhadravati Police Station upon which offence came to be registered vide Crime No.3024 of 2001 and further investigated the same. On receipt of sanction to prosecute the appellant from its competent authority, chargesheet came to be filed before the Special Court. 7. Charge (Exh.8) was framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to which he denied and claimed to be tried. Defence of accused is of total denial and of false implication. Accused has not examined himself on oath nor examined any defence witness in support of his case. 8. To establish the charge levelled against the appellant, prosecution has examined three witnesses and has commenced its evidence on examining PW 1 Prabhakar Bankar, the panch, who was with the complainant and has proved pretrap panchanama (Exh.14) and post trap panchanama (Exh.20), PW 2 Vyankatsubbarao Rauri, the complainant, who has proved his report (Exh.33), and has concluded its evidence by examining Investigating Officer, PW 3 Sheshrao Patil, Dy.Superintendent of Police. 9 Learned Special Judge, on considering evidence and proved documents on record, convicted appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted that evidence of complainant, is not at all corroborated by PW 1 Prabhakar, the panch witness and has also contended that even otherwise there are material contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses as to the contents of posttrap panchanama (Exh.20) and has therefore contended that from the evidence of these witnesses prosecution can not be said to have established beyond reasonable doubt fact of appellant demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.8000/as alleged. It is also contended that appellant in fact, on getting first opportunity had in detail given his explanation with regards to the amount of Rs.8000/alleged to be recovered from his house which aspect though has been admitted by the Investigating Officer, said explanation is not forming part of chargesheet and therefore, submitted that adverse inference is necessary to be drawn against the prosecution. 11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, had supported the impugned judgment and submitted that evidence of both the witnesses substantially established fact of demand and acceptance of bribe by appellant from the complainant and has submitted that appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 12. In the background of submission advanced as aforesaid, evidence of complainant Vyankatsubharao when perused would reveal that in the year 2000-2001 while he was working as a Contractor had submitted tender for construction of road in Bhangaram ward at Bhadravati of the estimated costs of Rs.5,50,000/which work was allotted to him on accepting his tender. According to him, he was asked to pay 5% of tender amount to the President and 5% to the appellant who was Chief Officer of the Nagar Parishad and was further demanded 2% and 3% amount at the time of issuing of work order and further amount of 3% and 2% for the President and appellant, respectively, at the time of drawing of bill. 13. Complainant has further deposed that when he went to receive the work order, the appellant was on leave and his charge was with one Mr.Chahande, then Tahsildar Bhadravati, and he, therefore, met Sunil Namojwar, the President, who asked him to make payment of 2% of work order issued to him and accordingly he paid him Rs.10,000/who accordingly managed to get work order issued to complainant. 14. After appellant resumed his duties, complainant met him and informed appellant that Mr.Sunil Namojwar, President got the work order issued to him on making payment of 2% of tender amount upon which appellant asked him to make him payment of Rs.15000/at the rate of 3% as agreed. Pausing here, it is material to note that no complaint is lodged by complainant with reference to above said demands and payments made by him to Mr.Namojwar, President and to the appellant. Pausing here, it is material to note that no complaint is lodged by complainant with reference to above said demands and payments made by him to Mr.Namojwar, President and to the appellant. It is matter of concern as to, though in his report (Exh.33) lodged with the office of PW 3 Sheshrao Janrao Patil, Deputy Inspector General, Anti Corruption Bureau, no action is taken against said authority. In fact, counsel for appellant submitted that statements of Mr.Namojwar, President and Mr.Chahande are recorded during the course of investigation and are shown as witnesses, however, they are not examined by prosecution. 15. It has further come in the evidence of complainant that by the time he completed the construction of road, one Dhyneshwar Dukre was elected as new President of Municipal Council to whom he met for receiving the bill amount who demanded 10% of the total amount of bill, which amount though he tried to negotiate to a lesser amount, failed in his negotiation and thus, paid Rs.10000/to the new President and agreed to pay balance of Rs.40,000/. The President on accepting said amount assured complainant that he will ask appellant, the Chief Officer to pass the bill. Complainant therefore visited the appellant at his residence and requested for release of bill amount upon which he claims that appellant reminded him of his earlier agreement and demanded his share to which he agreed saying “Yes” and further deposed that accordingly, appellant asked him to meet him in the office. It is noted that evidence of complainant is totally silent as to on what date he met appellant in his house, and why he was required to meet the appellant in his house instead of meeting in the office. His evidence further reveals that accordingly he met the appellant in his office one day at 12.00 noon when appellant directed Junior Engineer to prepare the bill which, however, was prepared for a lesser amount for Rs.4,00,000/to which complainant objected, upon which was informed by appellant that his supplementary bill will be submitted later on and asked complainant to pay 2% of amount of bill i.e. Rs.8000/at his house on 17th July, 2001. 16. From the evidence of complainant it has no where come on record as to what was the first date of demand. 16. From the evidence of complainant it has no where come on record as to what was the first date of demand. Though from his above evidence it has come on record that one day when complainant met appellant in his office at 12.00 noon he was directed to pay 2% of the bill amount by visiting his house on 17th July, 2001 and as he was not willing to make payment of said amount, visited the office of Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged his report (Exh.33). Therefore, it can safely be held that said demand is made to complainant on 13th July 2001 on which day report came to be lodged. However, as already stated earlier, there is absolutely no action taken on the part of complainant, by lodging any report any time in 2000 or in January, 2001, when he was issued with the work order and though has deposed that he was told to pay 5% of the tender amount each to the President and appellant and though also claims that amount of 2% and 3% was further demanded and paid by him to the then President and appellant, respectively, on receiving the work order. In the evidence of complainant it has come on record that by the time road construction was over and his bill was submitted, new President by name Dhyneshwar Dukre was appointed to whom he made payment of 10% of bill amount and had agreed to make payment of further amount of Rs.40,000/. However, complainant has even not made any complaint with any authorities on his making payment of Rs.10,000/to the President and of his demanding balance amount of Rs.40,000/from him. Perusal of report (Exh.33) though reveals such demand by earlier President Mr.Sunil Namojwar along with the appellant as well as refers to alleged demand by the newly elected President Mr.Dhyneshwar Dukre on 7th April, 2001, no investigation as per the allegations in the complaint are carried out against these Presidents nor any explanation is put forth by prosecution on this aspect though on the basis of report (Exh.33), action is initiated against the appellant alone. Above facts, in fact, create doubt in the case of prosecution supporting the case of appellant of his false implication. 17. Above facts, in fact, create doubt in the case of prosecution supporting the case of appellant of his false implication. 17. Coming to the aspect of alleged demand and acceptance of bribe amount by appellant, further evidence of complainant would reveal that from the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, after drawing of pretrap panchanama (Exh.14), he along with PW 1 Prabhakar Bankar reached to the house of appellant while members of the raiding team had already proceeded ahead of them. On reaching the house, complainant pressed the callbell which was responded by appellant saying “good morning' and accordingly complainant along with PW 1 Prabhakar entered his house and occupied the seats as offered by appellant. Complainant sat on cot (Diwan) along with appellant. PW 1 Prabhakar was introduced as an employee of the office of complainant. On conversation, which took place between complainant and appellant, it is deposed by complainant that he informed appellant that he would be going out of station for about 15 days and therefore, what should he do for receiving his bill ?, upon which appellant suggested him to give authority letter to receive the cheque on his behalf, upon which complainant informed that he will issue the authority letter in the name of PW 1 Prabhakar and accordingly scribed it there itself and obtained signature of PW 1 Prabhakar when appellant informed complainant to keep it with PW 1 Prabhakar who would produce the same in the office when he will come to collect the bill amount. Accordingly, authority letter was kept with PW 1 Prabhakar. Before considering further evidence of complainant on the point of alleged demand and acceptance when above evidence is considered with the evidence of PW 1 Prabhakar Bankar he, on this aspect, has deposed that on his reaching to the house of appellant with the complainant, complainant was directed to give in writing authority letter in his name authorizing him (PW 1 Prabhakar) to accept the cheque on behalf of complainant and accordingly he kept the authority letter with him which came to be seized. In his crossexamination he has admitted that the authority letter was scribed by him as per the say of appellant and kept in his pocket. Thus, contrary to the evidence of complainant, it is the case of PW 1 Prabhakar that he has scribed the authority letter. In his crossexamination he has admitted that the authority letter was scribed by him as per the say of appellant and kept in his pocket. Thus, contrary to the evidence of complainant, it is the case of PW 1 Prabhakar that he has scribed the authority letter. Though this piece of evidence, in fact, does not appear to be material to consider in the background of case of prosecution, evidence of these two witnesses on this small issue does not appear to be corroborating to each other. 18. Coming back to the evidence of complainant on the point of demand and acceptance, he has deposed that after the authority letter was kept with PW 1 Prabhakar, appellant informed him that “his work is done”, and asked, what about his (appellant's) work ? On that, complainant said that “I have brought” and then complainant took out bribe money and offered to appellant which appellant directed him to keep on the cot. Accordingly, complainant kept it on the cot saying that it was Rs.8000/, upon which appellant said alright and then complainant came up to the door of the room and by lifting his Lungi gave the proposed signal upon which, the members of the raiding team arrived on the spot. In view of above stated evidence, it is material to note that complainant's evidence is silent on appellant's demanding Rs.8000/, as according to the evidence of complainant, on appellant's enquirying about his work, complainant took out bribe money and offered to appellant. Above stated evidence of complainant even otherwise does not find to be corroborated from the evidence of independent witness PW 1 Prabhakar on the point of demand and acceptance as on this point his evidence would reveal that on his arriving along with complainant to the house of appellant and on complainant's pressing the call bell, appellant opened the door and after their occupying the seats, conversation took place between complainant and appellant when complainant told appellant that he had brought the amount in respect of the work and appellant then by gestures suggested complainant to keep the amount on Diwan accordingly complainant took out the currency notes from his, moneypurse and kept on Diwan and immediately thereafter raiding party members appeared. Similarly, evidence of PW 1 Prabhakar is not corroborating to the version of complainant even on the aspect of their reaching to the house of appellant and the incident which took place thereafter as he has admitted that it is he, who has pressed the call bell and further stated that the call was responded by appellant who, on opening the door, asked them as to what do they want, upon which complainant told appellant that he has some work upon which appellant informed that he is going to the office and complainant should meet him in the office. This piece of evidence is silent in the evidence of complainant. Evidence of PW 1 Prabhakar as such is not at all in corroboration to the evidence of complainant right from their visiting the house of appellant till the conversation between appellant and complainant. 19. Even otherwise, according to PW 1 Prabhakar, when complainant said to appellant that he has only five minutes work with him and therefore appellant allowed them to sit inside the house, according to him, at that time his wife and children were present in the house and his wife has offered water to them and has further admitted that within five minutes of his scribing the authority letter, appellant came in the room and saw that money was kept on the cot and therefore asked as to whom it belonged. He further admitted that upon that complainant had informed the appellant that he had kept the amount, upon which appellant instructed complainant to collect the amount and keep with him. Above admission of PW 1 Prabhakar are very material and go in favour of appellant though PW 1 Prabhakar has deposed that after he kept the authority letter in his pocket he does not remember whether appellant went inside the house to ask his wife to prepare tea as he has admitted that within five minutes appellant came out of the room goes to show that appellant had went inside and therefore when he came back found currency notes kept on the cot. The case of appellant, thus, of complainant planting currency notes on Diwan in his absence when he went inside to ask his wife to prepare tea appears to be probable. The case of appellant, thus, of complainant planting currency notes on Diwan in his absence when he went inside to ask his wife to prepare tea appears to be probable. In that view of the matter, there appears much substance when it is suggested to complainant that appellant had gone inside his house to ask his wife to prepare tea and in his absence appellant planted notes on Diwan, though these suggestions are denied by complainant. 20. Similarly, there also appears much substance when it is suggested to complainant that after appellant saw amount lying on Diwan he asked complainant as to whom it belongs and upon complainant replying that it belongs to him, appellant asked him to take the amount back and leave his house as from the evidence of Prabhakar it has come on record that after arrival of raiding team Officers when they asked complainant as to where was the bribe money and removed it from the money purse of complainant. Above admission of PW 1 Prabhakar therefore substantiates the case of appellant of his directing complainant to remove the money from Diwan and to take it back and leave his house as the bribe money was found recovered from the money purse of complainant. 21. Above case of appellant of his false implication is further substantiated when independent witness PW 1 Prabhakar has admitted that when appellant had gone inside the house for asking his wife to prepare tea, complainant had kept bribe money on cot and has further deposed that he is not aware if appellant had demanded any bribe money from the complainant. In view of above contrary evidence of complainant and PW 1 Prabhakar prosecution can not said to have established fact of demand and acceptance of bribe by appellant beyond reasonable grounds. 22. In view of above evidence and facts of the prosecution case learned counsel of appellant has rightly relied upon the case of Mukhtiar singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2017)8 SCC 136 where the appellant was prosecuting his appeal having been convicted for the offence under Section 7, punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting illegal gratification. State of Punjab reported in (2017)8 SCC 136 where the appellant was prosecuting his appeal having been convicted for the offence under Section 7, punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting illegal gratification. The court finding that as there is no demand and acceptance proved beyond reasonable doubt, bald allegations in the complaint regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by appellant cannot be relied unless corroborated and finding that prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, reversed the conviction. In the case in hand also, from the material on record it is evident that there is no satisfactory evidence on record to establish demand of illegal gratification either before lodging of report or on the day of trap, as the evidence led is totally inadequate to comply with the prerequisites to constitute the ingredients of offence with which the appellant has been charged. 23. Even otherwise, by now, it is well established that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused. On this aspect, reference can be usefully made to the case of State of Punjab Vs. Madam Mohan Lal Verma reported in 2013 (4) Crimes 41 (SC), wherein in para 7 of the judgment, it is observed that : “7. The law on the issue is well settled 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 substantiative 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 a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, 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. Hence, 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. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the Court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain, how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the Court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person.” 24. Before parting with this judgment, it is also necessary to state that according to the evidence of Investigating Officer Sheshrao Patil, Dy.S.P. that during drawing of posttrap panchanama (Exh.20) he had asked accused to make his statement in writing which was accordingly reduced by appellant in writing and had signed the same which was also signed by both panchas and the Investigating Officer. Said fact is also found mentioned in posttrap panchanama (Exh.20) that Shri Patil asked appellant to give in writing his say, if any, about bribe amount of Rs.8000/to which he submitted his say in writing upon which signatures of both the panchas and of Investigating Officer were obtained. Admittedly, said explanation of appellant, which apparently is first in point of time, is not forming the part of chargesheet. In fact, the Investigating Officer Mr.Sheshrao Patil had admitted that the statement given by appellant is not filed on record. In view of above stated admitted facts the explanation whatsoever, put forth by appellant certainly needs consideration in as much as the circumstance of prosecution suppressing the material version of appellant is an important circumstance which raises shadow of doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case. In view of above stated admitted facts the explanation whatsoever, put forth by appellant certainly needs consideration in as much as the circumstance of prosecution suppressing the material version of appellant is an important circumstance which raises shadow of doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case. It is the duty of the prosecution to bring the entire truth before the Court, however, it appears that prosecution has deliberately kept back vital document of the record during the trial though it could have been very much available to the investigation agency and could have been placed on record with the chargesheet. However, since this material evidence is not brought on record, presumption as required under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act is necessary to be raised that, had this document been produced it would not have favoured prosecution and as such has been withheld the same. In the circumstances, useful reference can be made to illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. 25. For the reasons mentioned as aforesaid, the criminal appeal must succeed. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 31st March, 2001 passed by learned Special Judge, Warora in Special Case No.9 of 2008 convicting appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is quashed and set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the offence for which he was charged and convicted. His bail bond stands cancelled. Fine amount, if paid, be refunded back to the appellant.