JUDGMENT AND ORDER : HITESH KUMAR SARMA, J. 1. This appeal, under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C, is preferred against the judgment and order, dated 31-12-2007, passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, in Special Case No. 52 of 2014, convicting the accused-appellant, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short, ‘PC Act’) and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 1 month. 2. I have perused the appeal memo, the impugned judgment and order as well as the record of the learned trial Court including the evidence of the witnesses for both sides. 3. I have heard Mr. D Talukdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant and Mr. SC Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Central Bureau of Investigation. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Rama Kanta Kaushik, a registered railway contractor and owner of M/s. BD Enterprise submitted a complaint, vide Ext.3, before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Guwahati, alleging that the accused-appellant, Pushpa Nath, Office Superintendent-II in the office of the Divisional Electrical Engineer, NF Railway, Guwahati, demanded an amount of Rs. 1,000/- from him for issuance of ‘No Loss Certificate’ in the name of M/s. BD Enterprise as well as for reward of giving advance information in regard to future requirement of Divisional Electrical Engineer, NF Railway, Guwahati. 5. On receipt of such information, the CBI laid a trap, and in the trap, the accused-appellant was found to have taken an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as bribe, which includes 10 notes of Rs. 100/- denomination. 6. I have perused the entire evidence on record. The evidence on record makes it clear that the trap was laid by the CBI observing all required formalities and Rs. 1000/-, as aforesaid, was found in the possession of the accused-appellant which suggests acceptance of bribe by the accused-appellant. To constitute an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, two essential ingredients are required to be established by the prosecution. The first is demand of gratification in consideration of doing some favour, and secondly, acceptance of the gratification by the person, who demanded. To find out as to whether these two essential ingredients have been established by the prosecution, on consideration of the whole evidence on record, this Court finds that the evidence of PW2, the complainant, is most vital. The first is demand of gratification in consideration of doing some favour, and secondly, acceptance of the gratification by the person, who demanded. To find out as to whether these two essential ingredients have been established by the prosecution, on consideration of the whole evidence on record, this Court finds that the evidence of PW2, the complainant, is most vital. 7. In his examination-in-chief, the complainant/PW2 is found to have stated that he owed an amount of Rs. 1000/- to the accused-appellant and the accused-appellant demanded him that amount only. But in his cross-examination, he is heard saying that on 08-02-2002, the accused-appellant demanded an amount of Rs. 1,000/- from him and also indicated in his evidence as to what for such demand was made. He has specifically stated that such demand was made to favour him with ‘No Loss Certificate’. But in the complaint itself, he has stated that apart from this reason, he also demanded the money for passing information to him in advance regarding future requirement of materials by the Divisional Electrical Engineer. 8. PW3, who is the witness to the trap laid by the CBI, is heard saying in his evidence that he had seen the accused-appellant receiving something from the complainant without naming as to what he had received and he also specifically stated in his evidence that he did not hear the conversation between the accused-appellant and the complainant/informant. But, the fact remains that the complainant/PW2 himself has given a version in his examination-in-chief and then another one in his cross-examination, while examined by the prosecution after he was declared hostile. In his evidence in chief, he has claimed that no demand was made to him by the accused-appellant; rather, he absolved the accused-appellant in his examination-in-chief while he deposed that the accused-appellant demanded the amount from him which he owed to him. But in the cross-examination, while he was confronted with the previous statement, he admitted that there was demand. While the PW2.complainant was confronted with the previous statement, the particular part of his statement, which was contradictory, was not exhibited; rather, the whole statement was exhibited, which included the non-contradicted part. Therefore, from the point of view of evidentiary value, the evidence elicited during the cross-examination of the complainant/PW2 lost its credibility. However, on this score the learned counsel for the CBI, Mr. Therefore, from the point of view of evidentiary value, the evidence elicited during the cross-examination of the complainant/PW2 lost its credibility. However, on this score the learned counsel for the CBI, Mr. Keyal, submitted that the prosecution exhibited the previous statement of the complainant/PW2 to prove the demand made to him by the accused-appellant although not proved in the strictest sense of law yet he has submitted that the Court should not look into the minute technicalities as to proof of previous statement of the complainant. 9. At this point of time, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Sejappa v. State by Police Inspector Lokayukta, Chitradurga, reported in (2016) 12 SCC 150 and submitted that demand and acceptance of gratification must be proved by the prosecution to establish an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and submitted further that both these essentials have not been proved by the prosecution. This decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterates the proposition of law that demand and acceptance of gratification must be proved in an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. 10. As stated above, the evidence of the complainant/PW2 appears to this to be doubtful as he has shifted one version to the other in the same breathe. That being so, as indicated above, the evidence of the complainant/PW2 cannot be relied upon being doubtful as he was contradicting his own version in his examination-in-chief with that of his cross-examination and failed to withstand the test of credibility. 11. In view of above, in the absence of proof of demand of gratification, beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused deserves acquittal of the charge on benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 12. The judgment and order, dated 31-12-2007, passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, in Special Case No. 52 of 2014, is accordingly set aside. 13. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment and order.