JUDGMENT : M.G. GIRATKAR, J. 1. Appellant assailed the judgment of conviction passed by Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Special Case No. 18/1991 by which he is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The case of the prosecution in short against the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') is as under : (i) Complainant Ulhas Khedkar was appointed as Instructor of Electrical Maintenance in Prabodhan Junior College, Daryapur in the year 1984. After few months, he is promoted as Lecturer. Said college is run by private institution and thus an approval of the Deputy Director, Vocational Education and Training was required to draw the salary. Such approval was taken by the College directly. Till September, 1990, he was getting his salary regularly but he did not get the salary for October and November, 1990 as the approval was not accorded by the Deputy Director. (ii) The complainant enquired with college and satisfied that the proposals for approval have been sent by the college regularly. As he was in dire need of money, in the month of October, 1990, visited the office of the Deputy Director. He saw the concerned clerk/accused Gulhane. When he enquired from accused, accused Gulhane told him that such proposals have not been received from his college. Complainant told him that such proposals have been already sent by his college but the accused did not pay any heed to it. Complainant returned to Daryapur and contacted the Clerk of his college, Shri Lanke. Then said Clerk Shri Lanke given the copies of proposals to the office of the Deputy Director. Shri Lanke told the complainant that he had shown the office copies and also the entries in the Dak book but accused said that such proposals have not been received in his office. In the meanwhile said Lanke forwarded the new proposals irrespective of the fact that the complainant did not get his salary as the approval was not accorded by the office of the Deputy Director. In the meanwhile said Lanke forwarded the new proposals irrespective of the fact that the complainant did not get his salary as the approval was not accorded by the office of the Deputy Director. (iii) As last resort, complainant, on 3-12-1990 visited the office of the Deputy Director and contacted the accused and told him that such proposals have been already sent by his college. Therefore, accused should obtain necessary approval. Then accused told the complainant that proposals have been received, however, there is some "Golmal" and he passed some remark that information is not correct and complainant would not get his salary. Accused also told him that similar are the proposals of Khandare and Pawar. Complainant then said to accused that they are also not getting their salary and some way is to be sorted out and need not cause any harassment to him. The accused then assured the complainant that he will accomplish his work and complainant, Khandare and Pawar shall pay him Rs. 1,000/- each. (iv) The complainant requested the accused to reduce the said amount. Then accused said that some amount is to be paid to Deputy Director. The complainant then become ready and his companion Khandare also become ready. As the complainant was not having any money he told the accused that he will make arrangement and the accused then said to him that on 7-12-1990 is the office day and the complainant shall pay him money on the said day. After payment of money, accused will obtain the approval of the Deputy Director and will send the bills. The complainant then returned to Daryapur. (v) On 7-12-1990, complainant again saw the accused and enquired from him about the approval. Then accused assured him that he will accomplish his work and the complainant shall pay him Rs. 1,000/- in the office hours and the accused took entire responsibility to get the work done. The complainant was not ready to give bribe, therefore, he approached the office of A.C.B., Amravati and lodged the report. After report of complainant, Investigating Officer P.I. Shri Bhagat reduced the said complaint into writing. Thereafter he called two panchas. As usual, pretrap panchanama was prepared and demonstration was given. Necessary instructions were given to the complainant to show signal as soon as accused accept money/bribe. After the completion of pretrap panchanama, trap was led. After report of complainant, Investigating Officer P.I. Shri Bhagat reduced the said complaint into writing. Thereafter he called two panchas. As usual, pretrap panchanama was prepared and demonstration was given. Necessary instructions were given to the complainant to show signal as soon as accused accept money/bribe. After the completion of pretrap panchanama, trap was led. Accused demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/- in presence of panch no. 1. Posttrap panchanama was prepared in presence of panchas. Necessary sanction was obtained. Thereafter chargesheet was filed before the Special Court. (vi) Charge was framed at Exhibit 14 for the offences punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the said Act. Prosecution has examined complainant, both the panch witnesses and Investigating Officer Shri Bhagat. After hearing the prosecution and defence, learned Special Judge convicted the accused as stated above, hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri Anil Mardikar for the appellant/accused. He has pointed out evidence of complainant and both the panch witnesses. He has submitted that accused has not demanded and accepted amount of bribe. Amount of bribe was forcibly thrusted in the pocket of accused. This fact is admitted by panch witness. Both the panch witnesses have not stated anything about the demand and acceptance of amount of bribe by the accused. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused demanded and accepted amount of bribe, hence, accused/appellant is entitled for acquittal. 4. Heard Shri Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent. He has supported the impugned judgment. 5. Perused the evidence on record. The evidence of complainant shows that he was appointed on the post of Instructor and thereafter he was promoted as a Lecturer. The salary for the month of September and October, 1990 was not given as approval was not granted by Deputy Director, Vocational Education. Accused was working as a Clerk in the said office of Deputy Director. He approached to the accused. Accused demanded bribe of Rs. 1,000/- in presence of his colleague Shri Khandare. He has stated that he was not ready to give amount of bribe, therefore, report was lodged. He has stated that accused demanded and accepted bribe amount. This particular evidence is not corroborated by any of the panch witnesses. 6. He approached to the accused. Accused demanded bribe of Rs. 1,000/- in presence of his colleague Shri Khandare. He has stated that he was not ready to give amount of bribe, therefore, report was lodged. He has stated that accused demanded and accepted bribe amount. This particular evidence is not corroborated by any of the panch witnesses. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the accused pointed out evidence of complainant. He has stated that "that day Khandare was with me. Accused then said to arrange for Rs. 1000/- each. He told me that amount is required to be paid to the Deputy Director. I assured him that I will make the arrangement. This was the incident of 3-12-1990." 7. According to complainant in presence of Shri Khandare, accused has demanded amount of Rs. 1,000/-. But prosecution has not examined Shri Khandare who admittedly is his colleague. There was no hurdle to examine Shri Khandare but prosecution has not examined him. He has specifically stated in examination-in-chief itself (paragraph 3) that panch Shri Metkar and himself saw the accused and told him that he brought the amount. Accused then told him that they would have tea. He himself told the accused that he brought the amount, please hurry up to seek approval. Then he paid amount to the accused. This particular evidence clearly shows that there was no any demand by the accused. Moreover, his evidence is falsified by panch no. 1 who was present along with the complainant at the time of trap. 8. P.W. 2 Sudhakar Metkar has stated in his evidence that accused enquired about his identity. Then complainant told him that he was his relative. Then complainant told the accused about his work. Complainant told that his work is accomplished and offered money to the accused. He was declared hostile. Nothing is brought on record in his crossexamination to support the case of prosecution. In paragraph no. 4 of his crossexamination, he has specifically stated as under : ... It is true the report does not mention regarding approval of the post. It is true it is told that signal should be such that it should not be recognized by any layman. The office of I.T.I. is a room of 15 x 15 ft. The accused was then working on his table. He was alone in that room. It is true the report does not mention regarding approval of the post. It is true it is told that signal should be such that it should not be recognized by any layman. The office of I.T.I. is a room of 15 x 15 ft. The accused was then working on his table. He was alone in that room. It is true to say while going accused was ahead and he was followed by complainant and myself. It is true while going complainant took out from his pocket and handed over to the accused. Witness volunters that it was the money. It is true to say accused then said what is that, complainant said it is money. It is not true to say that accused then returned the amount to the complainant saying that he does not need it. It is true to say that the complainant then tried to thrust the currency notes in the pocket of the accused saying that accept it. It is true to say accused then said that he does not need it. It is true in the said malie the notes fell on the ground. It is true to say as soon as the currency notes fell down the complainant gave signal. Panch no. 2 also arrived alongwith raiding party. I have to remember that accused said that complainant thursted currency notes in his pocket and he returned it as said by accused to panch no. 2. It is true Mr. Pande told to panch no. 2 to stay near the currency notes. It is true to say that Pande told the accused to lift the amount and to come near the table for writing purposes. Accordingly accused lifted the money with his left hand and placed on the table. It is true then hands of the accused were seen in the ultraviolet light. It is true the accused was then directed by the A.C.B. personal to give his say and the accused written his say. It was then handed over to me. I read it. It is true to say that the contents were correct. Myself and Gawai put our signature on it. It is marked Ex. 52. I can not assign why my statement is silent regarding the accused said to complainant the work told by him is completed. 9. Panch no. It was then handed over to me. I read it. It is true to say that the contents were correct. Myself and Gawai put our signature on it. It is marked Ex. 52. I can not assign why my statement is silent regarding the accused said to complainant the work told by him is completed. 9. Panch no. 1 has specifically stated that accused not demanded and accepted the amount of bribe but complainant himself forcibly thrusted amount of Rs. 1,000/- in the pocket of accused. Thereafter say of complainant was obtained by the Investigating Officer, Exh. 52. He has specifically stated that one person came to him and taken him to tea stall. He forcibly put the amount in his pocket. This particular defence is supported by the evidence of admission of P.W. 2 Shri Metkar. P.W. 3, panch witness who was present along with trap party also not supported to the case of prosecution. He has specifically stated that when he reached there, amount was lying on the tar road. This itself shows that as soon as accused noticed forcible thrusting of bribe amount, he had thrown that notes on the road. 10. From the evidence on record, it is clear that evidence of complainant is not supported by the material witnesses. According to prosecution, P.W. 2 Shri Metkar was panch no. 1 who was present along with the complainant at the time of trap. Shri Metkar has specifically stated that accused not demanded any amount of bribe. The complainant himself forcibly thrusted amount of bribe in the pocket of accused. The material witnesses not supported to case of prosecution. As per the evidence of complainant, his colleague, Shri Khandare was present when amount of bribe was demanded by the accused in his office on 3-12-1990. As per his contention, in presence of Khandare, accused demanded amount of Rs. 1,000/- but Khandare was not examined by the prosecution. 11. In criminal law, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Theory of preponderance of probability is not applicable. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution has not proved by any cogent evidence that accused demanded and accepted bribe. Evidence of complainant itself shows that he himself given the amount. Panch no. 1 Shri Metkar stated that complainant thrusted the amount of Rs. Theory of preponderance of probability is not applicable. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution has not proved by any cogent evidence that accused demanded and accepted bribe. Evidence of complainant itself shows that he himself given the amount. Panch no. 1 Shri Metkar stated that complainant thrusted the amount of Rs. 1000/- in the pocket of accused. All this evidence clearly show that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused. Accused/appellant is entitled for acquittal. Hence, following order. ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) Accused/appellant is acquitted of the offences charged against him. (iii) Accused/appellant is on bail during the pendency of appeal. His bail bond stands cancelled. (iv) Fine amount, if paid, be refunded to the accused/appellant. (v) R & P be sent back to the trial Court.