JUDGMENT : P.N. Deshmukh, J. Original accused no.1/appellant herein Shrikrushna s/o. Janardhan Chaudhari takes exception to Judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Special Case No.4 of 1993, dt.25.3.2003, by which he is convicted for the offences under Sections 7, 13(i)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988"). For the offence under Section 7 of the Act of 1988, accused Shrikrushna Chaudhari is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. For the offence under Section 13(i)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988, the accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Original accused no.2 Sham Digambar Ingale, Police Constable is acquitted. 2. Briefly, the case of prosecution can be stated as under : On 15.1.1993, Original accused no.1 Shrikrushna Chaudhari along with acquitted Original accused no.2 Digambar Ingale were working as Police Constables attached to Akot Police Station and along with other three Police Constables, were on duty at Bajrang Chowk, Akot. PW1 Gajanan Deshmukh, the Complainant was driver of jeep bearing Registration No.MGM 7684 owned by one Babarao Aware and on that day, was proceeding in this vehicle along with the owner of vehicle and his relatives. However, at around 3.15 p.m., they were intercepted by accused along with other Police Constables by their vehicle, after chasing Complainant's vehicle since he had not stopped his vehicle inspite of police giving signal to him to that effect and stopped near petrol pump situated at some distance on AkotAkola road. According to case of prosecution, all the Constables alighted from their vehicle by which they reached the spot where Complainant was apprehended and one amongst the said Constables, counted passengers travelling in Complainant's jeep, who were nine in number. Complainant informed the Constables that he was not carrying fare paying passengers but all the occupants of the vehicle were his relations; however, none of the Constables listened to the Complainant and said that they would challan him. Complainant informed the Constables that he was not carrying fare paying passengers but all the occupants of the vehicle were his relations; however, none of the Constables listened to the Complainant and said that they would challan him. On the Constables directing Complainant to produce documents of the vehicle, the Complainant informed them that he was possessing driver license only as other documents were not in the vehicle, upon which the Complainant was informed that he will have to pay Rs. 400/- and accused Shrikrushna took Complainant's license. It is the case of Complainant that one amongst the Constables said, that if he makes payment of Rs. 200/-, the issue will be settled, upon which the Complainant said that he was not having said amount and would pay it in two or three days, upon which accused no.1 Shrikrushna issued memo directing Complainant to appear on 18th January, 1993 along with Rs. 200/-, but as Complainant was unable to attend on 18th January, 1993 he said that he would come on 19th January and meet in Bajrang Chowk, Akot and as Complainant was not interested to make payment, he went to Office of AntiCorruption Bureau, Akola on 18th January and lodged Complaint (Exh.48), which was recorded by PW9 Pitambar Chaudhari, Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B. and instructed Complainant to attend the Office of A.C.B. on 19th January at 7.30 a.m. PW9 Pitambar Chaudhari, Dy.S.P. arranged for two panch witnesses from the Office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation namely Subhash Bhaglekar (not examined since dead) and PW2 Vilas Shinde, who were introduced to Complainant in the Office of A.C.B. on 19.1.1993. After they gave their consent to act as panchas, Complainant Gajanan narrated his Complaint to both the panchas and thereafter, they read contents of Complaint (Exh.48) and finding the same to be recorded as stated by Complainant, put their endorsements on Exh.48. 3. In the Office of ACB, on 19th January, 1993, on the instructions of Investigating Officer, Complainant Gajanan produced amount of Rs. 200/- brought by him as bribe money consisting of one note of Rs. 100/- in denomination and two notes of Rs. 50/- each in denomination. Serial numbers of these currency notes were recorded in the panchanama. 3. In the Office of ACB, on 19th January, 1993, on the instructions of Investigating Officer, Complainant Gajanan produced amount of Rs. 200/- brought by him as bribe money consisting of one note of Rs. 100/- in denomination and two notes of Rs. 50/- each in denomination. Serial numbers of these currency notes were recorded in the panchanama. On the instructions of PW9 Dy.S.P. Chaudhari, Peon from the Office of A.C.B. gave demonstration to the panchas with regard to effect of phenolphthalein powder when it comes in contact of Sodium Carbonate solution upon which both the panchas understood that when this powder comes in contact with Sodium Carbonate solution, the solution turns purple. The powder was thereafter smeared on the currency notes with the cotton swab, which were then carefully kept in the right side pant pocket of Complainant Gajanan. 4. Pw9 Dy.S.P. Pitambar Chaudhari then gave instructions to Complainant and both the panchas that Complainant shall be accompanied with Subhash Bhaglekar. While PW2 Vikas Shinde was instructed to accompany raiding team, Complainant was instructed to meet accused no.1 Shrikrushna and talk with him about the memo issued by him on 15.1.1993 and to make payment of bribe of Rs. 200/- only on his demand, by removing the currency notes by his right hand and till then to not to touch the currency notes. He was also instructed that proposed panch no.1 Subhash should be introduced as his relative and was further instructed to give signal to the raiding party by scratching his head with left hand. It is also case of prosecution that Complainant was instructed that, in the event accused Shrikrushna directs Complainant to pay bribe amount to some other person, he should pay it accordingly to that person in presence of accused Shrikrushna. Panch no.1 Subhash proposed was instructed to accompany the Complainant and to listen conversation whatsoever may take place between him and accused no.1 with regards to demand of bribe and it's acceptance by said accused. While PW2 Vilas Shinde was instructed to accompany raiding team and to watch proposed signal to be given by Complainant and to inform about it to raiding team members who can then arrive on the spot and apprehend the accused. Pretrap Panchanama (Exh.55) is with regard to all these facts drawn in the Office of A.C.B. 5. While PW2 Vilas Shinde was instructed to accompany raiding team and to watch proposed signal to be given by Complainant and to inform about it to raiding team members who can then arrive on the spot and apprehend the accused. Pretrap Panchanama (Exh.55) is with regard to all these facts drawn in the Office of A.C.B. 5. After drawing Pretrap panchanama, both the panchas, Complainant Gajanan and PW9 Pitambar Chaudhari, Investigating Officer proceeded to the spot in a separate vehicle. Complainant along with Subhash Bagdekar travelled in one vehicle which they made stationary near State Bank of India near AkotAkola road and went to Bajrang chowk where one traffic Constable was present, to whom Complainant inquired about accused Shrikrushna, who was informed to be sitting in the nearby hotel. Complainant Gajanan, therefore, went to that hotel with Subhash and found accused Shrikrushna with Original accused no.2 Sham Ingale (acquitted) having tea. On seeing the Complainant, accused Shrikrushna informed him to wait outside the hotel and after coming out, went near pan stall while Original accused no.2 Sham Ingale went across the road near Laxmi Bartan Bhandar. Near Pan stall, accused Shrikrushna inquired from Complainant if he had brought money, to which Complainant replied in affirmative, upon which accused informed Complainant to return back memo, which Complainant gave back to him. Accused Shrikrushna then instructed Complainant to pay amount to other Constable. Complainant, therefore, with Subhash Bhaglekar went to other side of road near Laxmi Bartan Bhandar where Original accused no.2 Sham Ingale was present, to whom accused no.1 Shrikrushna said that he is sending Complainant to him and he should see, upon which Complainant took out money by his right hand from right side pocket of his pant, upon which Complainant gave proposed signal and on receiving the same, PW9 Dy.S.P. Pitambar Chaudhari along with PW2 Vilas Shinde, panch no.2 and other raiding team Officers arrived on the spot and apprehended accused no.2 Sham Ingale. Members of the raiding team introduced themselves to accused no.2 Shyam and prepared solution of Sodium Carbonate wherein finger of all the members of raiding team were checked and there was no change in colour, then fingers of PW2 Vilas Shinde was checked by preparing fresh solution. On examining left hand fingers of accused no.2 Sham by dipping into the solution, it turned into purple colour. 6. On examining left hand fingers of accused no.2 Sham by dipping into the solution, it turned into purple colour. 6. The currency notes recovered from the pant pocket of accused no.2 Sham were verified with its serial numbers mentioned in Pretrap Panchanama (Exh.55) which were found tallying. The bribe money was seized and panchanama of these facts were drawn vide Exh.57. PW9 Dy.S.P. Pitambar Chaudhari thereafter lodged his report as per Exh.89, on the basis of which PW3 Dattu Palve, API registered offence vide Crime No.19 of 1993 which was further investigated by PW9 Dy.S.P. Pitambar Chaudhari, during the course of which he obtained sketch of spot of incident prepared by PW5 Bhaskar Kurale as per Exh.75 and forwarded solution of Sodium Carbonate used in the present trap for its analysis of C.A. Due to transfer of PW9 Dy.S.P. Chaudhari, further investigation was carried out by PW8 Keshav Idhole, P.I., Amravati who forwarded investigation papers to PW7 Babasaheb Kangale, the Sanctioning Authority who accorded sanction to prosecute the accused as per Sanction (Exh.78). On receipt of Sanction Order, chargesheet came to be filed against the accused in the Special Court. 7. Charge was framed vide Exh.13 for the offence under Section 7 punishable under Sections 13(1), 13(2) and 12 of the Act of 1988. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence of accused is of total denial and false implication. It is specific case of accused Shrikrushna that he has not demanded Rs. 200/- from Complainant on 15.1.93 or 19.1.93 and had issued Challan to Complainant on 15.1.1993 as Complainant was not possessing documents of his vehicle and as Complainant did not stop his vehicle inspite of signal given by police and on being intervened by accused, he got annoyed on the police and therefore, lodged police report. Accused did not examine any witness in support of their defence. 8. Accused did not examine any witness in support of their defence. 8. To establish appellant's involvement in this crime of his demanding bribe on 15.1.1993 and subsequently, demanding it on 18.1.1993 and accepting the same on that day through Original accused no.2 Sham, evidence of PW1 Gajanan, the Complainant when perused would reveal that, on 15.1.1993, while he was driving vehicle bearing registration No.MGM 7684 owned by Babarao Aware and was proceeding in it in his capacity as a driver along with relatives of owner, at about 3.15 p.m., was intercepted on AkotAkola road by one vehicle wherefrom four Police Constables got down and one amongst them asked PW1 Gajanan why he did not stop inspite of their giving signal and blowing whistle. The Constables then asked other Constable to count number of passengers in the vehicle, upon which the Complainant informed that none of the occupants of his vehicle were fare paying passengers but were family members of the owner; inspite of that, the Constable said that they would challan the vehicle. The Constable thereafter asked the Complainant to produce driving license and documents relating to the vehicle which Complainant could not produce since were not available; however, had driving license with him. Upon which the Constable said that since Complainant does not have the documents, he will have to pay Rs. 400/- as required for that purpose. The Constable then inquired name of Complainant and issued him one memo calling upon Complainant to appear on 18.1.1993 and saying that, on paying Rs. 200/- everything will be set right. The Complainant said that he does not have Rs. 200/- with him and should be given time of 23 days, upon which accused no.1 i.e. appellant informed that he should bring Rs. 200/- on the following day and the case would be closed. The Complainant further stated that he was unable to meet appellant the next day and said that he can come on 19.1.1993, upon which appellant asked him to come on 19.1.1993 and meet him at Bajrang Chowk. 9. According to further evidence of Complainant, on 18.1.1993, he went to Office of A.C.B. and lodged his oral Complaint as per Exh.48 who was then directed by PW9 Dy.S.P. Pitambar to come on 19.1.1993 and to bring Rs. 200/- and to come in his jeep. 9. According to further evidence of Complainant, on 18.1.1993, he went to Office of A.C.B. and lodged his oral Complaint as per Exh.48 who was then directed by PW9 Dy.S.P. Pitambar to come on 19.1.1993 and to bring Rs. 200/- and to come in his jeep. Rest of evidence of Complainant is with regards to the facts which took place in the Office of A.C.B. as per Pretrap panchanama (Exh.55). For the present, skipping said portion of evidence of Complainant, when his further evidence with regards to subsequent demand and acceptance by appellant is considered, he has deposed that he along with panch Subhash Bhaglekar arrived at Bajrang Chowk on 19.1.1993 where one traffic Constable was present with whom they inquired of appellant who informed that appellant was having tea in nearby hotel on AkotAkola road. Therefore, Complainant with panch Subhash Bhaglekar went to hotel and saw appellant along with one traffic Constable with him having tea, who informed Complainant that he would talk with him by coming out of hotel and then Complainant along with panch and appellant came outside the hotel near one pan stall where he inquired if Complainant had brought money, to which Complainant replied in affirmative and asked about the memo and about the case. Upon which the appellant asked him to give memo and said that he would later on see what could be done. It is further deposed by Complainant that, in the meantime, Constable who was present with appellant went to other side of the road and appellant directed Complainant to go to that Constable and give money to him Accordingly, Complainant paid Rs. 200/- to other Constable which he accepted by his left hand and kept in the left side pocket. Immediately thereafter, Complainant gave proposed signal, upon which Investigating Officer and other members of the raiding team arrived and apprehended Original accused no.2 Sham and recovered Rs. 200/- from his pant pocket. 10. In view of evidence of Complainant as aforesaid on the point of demand on 15.1.1993 and subsequent demand on 19.1.1993 and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs. Immediately thereafter, Complainant gave proposed signal, upon which Investigating Officer and other members of the raiding team arrived and apprehended Original accused no.2 Sham and recovered Rs. 200/- from his pant pocket. 10. In view of evidence of Complainant as aforesaid on the point of demand on 15.1.1993 and subsequent demand on 19.1.1993 and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs. 200/- on that day by Original accused no.2 Sham on making payment of said amount to co-accused as aforesaid by Complainant on the say of appellant, it is worthy to note that, admittedly according to the case of Complainant, on 15.1.1993 when his vehicle came to be intercepted on AkotAkola road by some other vehicle, four Police Constables are said to have alighted from it. From the evidence of Complainant, on the day of incident i.e. on 15.1.1993, it has nowhere come on record that initial talk was between appellant and Complainant as, according to him, one Constable talked with him who also told another Constable to count number of passengers in the vehicle etc. Even, according to his evidence, said Constable initially demanded Rs. 400/- claiming said amount to be required by them as Complainant was not having in his possession documents of his vehicle and has also stated that then one Constable issued memo saying that Complainant should pay Rs. 200/- and everything will be closed. According to Complainant, by this memo he was called upon to appear on 18.1.1993 and Complainant had informed said Constable that he does not have Rs. 200/- with him and asked for time of 23 days. Thus, from the above evidence, it has come on record that since interception of vehicle till it came to be searched, all the acts about asking Complainant for documents of vehicle and demand of Rs. 400/- stating same to be required by Police, as Complainant did not possess documents and for that reason issuance of memo and demand of Rs. 200/- is as per evidence of Complainant, by some Constables whose names are not deposed by him. As per evidence of Complainant, name of appellant, for the first time, has come on record when he stated to appellant that he was unable to attend on 18.1.1993, who told him to come on 19.1.1993 at Bajrang Chowk along with Rs. 200/- saying that everything will be closed. As per evidence of Complainant, name of appellant, for the first time, has come on record when he stated to appellant that he was unable to attend on 18.1.1993, who told him to come on 19.1.1993 at Bajrang Chowk along with Rs. 200/- saying that everything will be closed. Having considered above stated evidence of Complainant with regards to first demand, thus, there is nothing establishing appellant's involvement demanding Complainant Rs. 200/- as bribe nor appellant, as per evidence of Complainant, had even issued memo to him directing to appear before Police and Complainant has nowhere named the appellant. Even otherwise, it is worthy to note that, since according to evidence of Complainant, he was already issued with challan, there appears no reason for appellant to demand any bribe. 11. Evidence of Complainant Gajanan when considered with regards to subsequent demand and acceptance of bribe money by appellant on the day of incident on 19.1.1993, would reveal that he along with panch Subhash Bhaglekar arrived at Bajrang Chowk, and with one Constable inquired about accused and was informed that he was in nearby hotel. Accordingly, Complainant met accused who informed him that he will come outside and talk and on coming near pan stall inquired from Complainant if he has brought money, to which the Complainant replied in affirmative and then inquired if he has brought memo of challan and instructed to hand it over to him saying that he would see later as to what could be done, and thereafter, Complainant Gajanan deposed that appellant instructed him to hand over Rs. 200/- to another Constable who was on the opposite side of the road, to whom he accordingly paid Rs. 200/- and gave proposed signal. In the entire evidence of Complainant thus it has not come on record that appellant had at any time either on 15.1.1993 or 19.1.1993 demanded bribe as evidence of Complainant is silent as his naming appellant to have demanded bribe on 15.1.1993 and on the day of incident, what is attributed to appellant is that he on meeting Complainant inquired from him if he has brought the amount as well as memo of challan, and after taking memo of challan from the Complainant, directed him to make payment of Rs. 200/- to other Constable. 200/- to other Constable. As such, from the evidence of Complainant neither first demand or subsequent demand of bribe and its acceptance has come on record. 12. Admittedly, prosecution could not examine Subhash Bhaglekar who has acted as panch no.1 in the present case as record reveals that, according to report of service of summons (Exh.32) to said prosecution witness, he could not be served since dead. As such, case of prosecution is without corroboration to the evidence of independent witness on the point of demand and acceptance by appellant on 19.1.1993, which evidence even otherwise for the reason above is not at all reliable. Except for panch Subhash Baglekar, there is no other witness who could have been examined by prosecution to corroborate evidence of Complainant as except this witness, there can be no other witness who accompanied Complainant on the date of trap. In the circumstances, fact remains that even for want of independent evidence, no case can be relied, more particularly in the absence of satisfactory evidence of Complainant. 13. Prosecution though had relied upon evidence of PW2 Vilas, admittedly he is the second panch, who, according to case of prosecution and as per instructions given to him by PW9 PI Pitambar Chaudhari, Investigating Officer was required to remain with the raiding team and watch proposed signal, if any given by Complainant on making payment of bribe money and nothing else. In that view of the matter, there is no other evidence which can be considered as a corroborative piece of evidence to the evidence of Complainant. 14. In view of the facts, we find much substance when learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the case of Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) through his legal representative vs. State of Punjab reported in, (2017) 8 SCC 136 where, in a case having identical facts, submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant therein were that there was no evidence on record to prove the demand, receipt and recovery of any amount as illegal gratification as alleged and thus as the indispensable ingredients of the offence with which the original accused had been charged, have remained unproved, the conviction and sentence being patently untenable was found to be set aside stating that otherwise it would result in gross travesty of justice. 15. 15. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 11, Hon'ble Apex Court took note of its verdict in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543 underlying that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It was recounted as well that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. Not only the proof of demand thus was held to be an indispensable essentiality and an inflexible statutory mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it was held as well qua Section 20 of the Act, that any presumption thereunder would arise only on such proof of demand. 16. From the above discussed evidence and law laid down as aforesaid, it is, therefore, held that there is no evidence establishing demand or acceptance of bribe by appellant, and therefore, no provisions of Section 20 of the Act of 1988 to draw presumption against the appellant can said to be attracted to the case in hand. 17. Similarly, appellant has further relied upon the case of Avinash Sitaram Garware vs. State of Maharashtra reported in, (2008) AllMR(Cri) 15, wherein, in the case attracting the Act of 1988, it has been observed that prior demand of money by accused since not proved, rest of the case of prosecution needs to be considered with great caution and circumspection. In that case, prosecution had failed to prove demand nor could examine material witness. In the case in hand, there is no corroborative evidence to evidence of Complainant as panch no.1 Subhash is dead and thus, defence of appellant of his false implication is probabilized,. 18. Pw3 Dattu Palve is the Officer who, on the basis of report of Investigating Officer Dy.S.P. Chaudhari, registered offence while PW4 Indira Belsare and PW5 Bhaskar Kurale are formal witnesses as, in the presence of PW4 Indira Belsare, register of motor vehicle cases is seized while PW5 Bhaskar Kurale had prepared sketch of scene of offence as per Exh.75. 18. Pw3 Dattu Palve is the Officer who, on the basis of report of Investigating Officer Dy.S.P. Chaudhari, registered offence while PW4 Indira Belsare and PW5 Bhaskar Kurale are formal witnesses as, in the presence of PW4 Indira Belsare, register of motor vehicle cases is seized while PW5 Bhaskar Kurale had prepared sketch of scene of offence as per Exh.75. PW6 Heerasingh Jadhav, P.I. is also on seizure of motor vehicle register which fact by itself is too short to connect the appellant with the present crime for want of substantive evidence on the point of demand and acceptance on record. Defence had not disputed sanction accorded for prosecution of appellant and as such, evidence of PW7 Babasaheb Kangale, Additional Police Commissioner, Nagpur is also not required to be discussed. 19. On an overall appreciation of evidence on record in the context of law pertaining to proof of ingredients of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it is found that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The charge levelled against the appellant thus fails. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned Judgment and Order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola convicting accused no.1 Shrikrushna Janardhan Chaudhari for the offence under Section 7 and 13(i)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences charged with. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant be refunded back to him.