JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Shimoga in Special (PC) Case No.3/2007 dated 13.10.2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under : The accused was working as S.D.A. in the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Shimoga in VAT Section and C.W.1 K.V. Nagaraja, a PWD Contractor, on 19.08.2006 approached the accused in his office at Shimoga along with required documents to obtain a VAT Clearance Certificate. At that time, the accused demanded bribe amount in a sum of Rs.350/- for issuance of the VAT Clearance Certificate and he has also received Rs.100/- as bribe amount and further demanded remaining bribe amount of Rs.250/-. On 21.08.20106 on demand, in between 5.00 p.m. to 5.10 p.m., the accused received the bribe amount of Rs.250/- for issuance of VAT Clearance Certificate. 3. The complainant, before giving the bribe amount of Rs.250/- on that day, in the morning at about 10.30 a.m., went to the Lokauyukta Police Station and submitted his report to the Inspector and on the basis of that report, the Inspector registered the case in Crime No.7/2006 and sent the FIR to the Court in a sealed packet, at about 1.00 p.m. secured two panchas namely A.K. Chandrappa, Senior Marketing Supervisor, A.P.M.C., Shimoga and H.N. Ramarao, FDA in R.T.O. Shimoga before them. The Inspector along with the two panchas and the complainant drew a entrustment mahazar. PW1 - A.K. Chandrappa was made to work as pancha in the proposed trap and PW2 - H.N. Ramarao as shadow witness. Then the Inspector, his staff, complainant, PW1 and PW2 went near the Commercial Tax Office and parked the jeep near Meenakshi Bhavana. 4. The Inspector along with the two panchas and the complainant drew a entrustment mahazar. PW1 - A.K. Chandrappa was made to work as pancha in the proposed trap and PW2 - H.N. Ramarao as shadow witness. Then the Inspector, his staff, complainant, PW1 and PW2 went near the Commercial Tax Office and parked the jeep near Meenakshi Bhavana. 4. At about 3.00 p.m. complainant and PW2 shadow witness went inside the Commercial Tax office and complainant went inside to meet the accused wherein PW2 was observing from the window and both of them i.e., complainant and PW2 waited outside till 5.00 p.m. At 5.00 p.m. accused called the complainant, delivered VAT Clearance Certificate to the complainant and on demand received Rs.250/- bribe and kept it in his left shirt pocket with his right hand and complainant came out, giving signal to the Inspector by wiping his face with a handkerchief and the Inspector came inside the office, introduced himself to the accused and informed him regarding the registering of the case against him and got washed his hands with Sodium Carbonate solution. On washing the right hand of the accused it turned into pink colour and the Inspector recovered Rs.250/- from the accused and accused told the Inspector that he gave Rs.100/- to one Veena who was also S.D.A. by way of repayment of loan and Inspector enquired the said Veena and also got washed her hands with Sodium Carbonate solution, which also turned into pink colour and recovered Rs.100/- from Veena. 5. Then the accused informed the Inspector that he did not demand the bribe amount but the complainant himself had forcibly kept Rs.250/- in his shirt pocket. Trap mahazar was drawn in the presence of the shadow witness PW2 and panch witness PW1, affidavits were taken for having conducted the trap and pre-trap mahazars. The seized notes and other samples collected were sealed in the presence of the panchas and the Inspector arrested the accused and reported about the conducting of the pretrap to the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Shimoga and secured the connected records pertaining to issuance of VAT clearance Certificate to the complainant, recorded the statements of the witnesses and PWD authorities visited the place of occurrence and drew the map. 6. 6. Later, the Inspector recorded the statement of witnesses and sent the seized articles to the Chemical Examiner for examination and on receiving the report, submitted the same to the Additional ADGP, Lokayukta, Bangalore with a request to secure sanction from the competent authority to prosecute the accused and at the request of the ADGP, Lokayukta, the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bangalore accorded sanction to prosecute the accused. The Inspector, after completing the investigation, submitted the final report. The Court took cognizance and registered the case in Spl.(P.C.) Case No.3/2007. 7. On receipt of summons, the accused appeared before the Court and represented through a counsel. Charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the same were read over to the accused, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the charges framed against the accused the prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and got marked 29 documents at Exs. P1 to P29 and the material objects as MOs.1 to 14. 8. Section 313 statement also recorded wherein the accused denied the allegations made against him. But the accused made a voluntary statement that on 21.08.2016 at about 3.30 p.m. an unknown person appeared before him and asked him as to where is Hoovappa and he replied to that unknown person that he himself is Hoovappa. Whereas that person told him that you are not Hoovappa and that Hoovappa is some other person and that person went away from there, after some time the same person again came and asked the accused as to where is Hoovappa and he come there on behalf of one Nagaraja for securing a Clearance Certificate. The accused after securing permission from his superior officer has prepared the Clearance Certificate, obtained the signature of the superior officer and handed over it to K.V. Nagaraja and obtained the signature of that person for having received the Clearance Certificate, but he forcibly kept the amount in the pocket of accused and immediately went out from that place. But suddenly police came and caught hold of him. He did not demand amount from anybody and not accepted it. 9. Heard learned SPP for the Lokayukta and learned counsel for the accused. 10. But suddenly police came and caught hold of him. He did not demand amount from anybody and not accepted it. 9. Heard learned SPP for the Lokayukta and learned counsel for the accused. 10. Learned SPP contended that as per the complaint given by PW6 K.V. Nagaraja, Lokayukta Inspector drew a pre-trap cum entrustment mahazar and the Inspector asked one H.N. Ramarao PW2 to act as shadow witness and A.K. Chandrappa PW1 to act as panch witness. As per the plan hatched the Inspector along with his staff and PWs. 1 and 2 went to the office of the accused along with PW6 complainant. Complainant went inside the office at 5.00 p.m., received the VAT Clearance Certificate and came out, gave signal to the Inspector by wiping his face with a handkerchief and Inspector came inside the office and introduced himself to the accused and narrated about the registering of the case against the accused, got washed his hands with Sodium Carbonate solution. The right hand when washed, turned into pink colour. The Inspector recovered Rs.250/- from the accused person and accused told the Inspector that he gave Rs.100/- to one Veena by way of repayment of loan, the same was also recovered from her. Trap mahazar was drawn in the presence of PWs. 1 and 2, seized notes and other samples were sealed in the presence of the panchas and the Inspector arrested the accused and after taking permission from the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Shimoga the Lokayukta Police prosecuted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and after completion of the investigation, submitted the final report against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 11. It is further contended that the court below has not appreciated the evidence on record and the documents produced before it in a proper perspective and held the accused not guilty of the offences as aforestated and acquitted the accused. He contended that the court below has not taken into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 6 and 8 in proper perspective. PWs. He contended that the court below has not taken into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 6 and 8 in proper perspective. PWs. 1 and 2 who are the panch witness and shadow witness respectively have given evidence in support of the prosecution that on 21.08.2006, they were called by the Lokayukta Inspector and asked to act as panch witness and shadows witness respectively and the Lokayukta Police PW8 - took them to the office of the accused along with their staff. There the accused was arrested and the materials seized by PW8. PWs. 1 and 2 signed in the entrustment mahazar as per Ex.P1 and Trap Mahazar as per Ex.P17. 12. Even according to the evidence of PW2 who is the shadow witness, he saw the incident that has happened at about 5.15 p.m. between PW6 complainant and the accused by standing outside the window of the counter room, he saw the accused and PW6 inside the room and accused demanding the bribe amount and PW6 giving amount of Rs.150/-. But the court below has not believed the statement of the shadow witness PW2 in proper perspective. 13. It is further contended that the court below has also not considered the evidence of PW6 complainant properly. PW6 in his evidence has deposed before the court that he filed application for VAT Clearance Certificate along with the required documents and when he went to enquire about the status of his application one Hoovappa asked bribe amount of Rs.100/- and asked him to come next day. Next day, PW6 complainant went to the Lokauyukta Police and lodged a complaint against the accused for demanding the bribe amount. The Lokayukta Police hatched a pre-trap plan and when the complaint went inside the office of the accused and received the Clearance Certificate and given bribe amount of Rs.250/- and after coming out gave a signal to the Lokayukta Police PW8, he came to the spot and arrested the accused. 14. Nextly it is contended that the court below has not believed the evidence of PW6 also who is the complainant. But it held that bribe was not demanded by the accused but it was forcefully given by PW6 to the accused. The court below has also not considered the evidence of PW8 in proper perspective. PW8 is the Inspector of Lokauyukta who conducted the trap. But it held that bribe was not demanded by the accused but it was forcefully given by PW6 to the accused. The court below has also not considered the evidence of PW8 in proper perspective. PW8 is the Inspector of Lokauyukta who conducted the trap. According to his evidence he hatched a pre-trap plan on the complaint lodged by PW6 and accordingly went to the scene and arrested the accused after getting washed the hands of the accused in Sodium Carbonate solution which turned into pink colour and as per the FSL report at Ex.P29, the articles at MO. Nos. 7 and 8 being the handwash solutions of the accused contained phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. Therefore, arrested the accused and charge sheeted him for the offences referred to above. The court below has not at all considered the evidence given by PW8 and has not given its opinion regarding the evidence of PW8. 15. The learned SPP further contended that the court below without considering the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 6 and 8 has only stated that since PW6 himself has turned hostile by stating that he has thrusted the tainted notes in the shirt pocket of the accused. The court below also held that the evidence of PW2 shadow witness itself is doubtful and acquitted the accused of the aforesaid offences. 16. The learned SPP relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of VINOD KUMAR vs. STATE OF PUNJAB reported in AIR 2015 SC 1206 to contend that in a bribery case demand, acceptance and recovery of money from accused is proved in entirety by testimony of prosecution/trap witnesses, and accused caught red handed with currency notes, the presumption can be drawn that accused had received or accepted said currency notes on his own volition and convicted the accused. He contends that in the case on hand also there was a demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe amount from accused and accused was also caught red-handed. Hence, submits that the said case is squarely applicable to the case on hand. 17. Nextly, he relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of MADHUKAR BHASKARRAO JOSHI vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2001 Crl.L.J. 175 wherein the word “gratification” has been explained which is understood to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to public servant who received it and not reward. 17. Nextly, he relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of MADHUKAR BHASKARRAO JOSHI vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2001 Crl.L.J. 175 wherein the word “gratification” has been explained which is understood to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to public servant who received it and not reward. It is held therein that the fact that public servant is found in possession of currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein is sufficient to draw legal presumption and prosecution need not further prove that money was paid to public servant. He submits that in the case on hand also there is proof of paying the money to the accused as bribe. Hence, submits that the said case is also squarely applicable to the case on hand. 18. Learned SPP submits that on all these grounds urged and the judgments cited above, the judgment passed by the court below needs to be intervened by this Court by convicting the accused of the offences stated above. 19. Controverting the arguments urged on behalf of the learned SPP, learned counsel for the respondent-accused has taken me through the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 who are the panch witness and shadow witness for Exs. P1 Entrustment Mahazar and P17 Trap Mahazar, PW6 who is the complainant in the case and PW8 who is the Lokayukta Inspector who conducted the trap. 20. It is further contended that PWs. 1 and 2 who were the panch witness and shadow witness respectively have stated in their evidence that as directed by the Lokayukta Police - PW8, they have accompanied him to the office of the accused wherein complainant went inside the office and he got the VAT Clearance Certificate from the accused at 5.15 p.m. and he came out of the office of the accused and gave a signal to the Inspector by wiping his face from handkerchief and then the Inspector went inside and arrested the accused. He has also drawn a trap mahazar and entrustment mahazar, for which PWs. 1 and 2 were the witnesses. In their evidence they have stated that they only followed the instructions given by the Inspector of Lokauyukta PW8. 21. It is further contended that the court below has disbelieved the evidence of PW2 and held the accused not guilty of the offences. He has also taken me through the evidence of PW6 who is the complainant. In their evidence they have stated that they only followed the instructions given by the Inspector of Lokauyukta PW8. 21. It is further contended that the court below has disbelieved the evidence of PW2 and held the accused not guilty of the offences. He has also taken me through the evidence of PW6 who is the complainant. The complainant in his evidence has clearly stated that the accused did not demanded any bribe but he himself forcibly kept Rs.250/- in his shirt pocket. Hence, the court below has held that PW6 has turned hostile and acquitted the accused. The court below has appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective. 22. In support of his contentions he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. JAYARAJ vs. STATE OF A.P. reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2080 wherein it is held that demand of gratification, proof, complainant disowning to have made the complaint, no other evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the demand and therefore held that demand of gratification cannot be held to be proved only on the basis of complaint filed and evidence of panch witness. In the absence of proof of demand mere recovery of tainted money from the accused is not sufficient for his conviction. He contends, in the case on hand also there is no demand for bribe but the same has been thrusted by the complainant in his shirt pocket. 23. Nextly, he relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of SURAJ MAL vs. THE STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) reported in AIR 1979 SC 1408 wherein it is held that mere recovery of money from accused is not sufficient. In the case on hand, there is only recovery and demand for bribe is not proved. 24. He relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of C.M. GIRISH BABU vs. CBI, COCHIN, HIGH COURT OF KERALA reported in (2009) 3 SCC 779 to contend that mere recovery of tainted money by itself is not enough, in absence of evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. 25. 25. Nextly, he relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of M.R. PURUSHOTHAM vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2015) 3 SCC 247 wherein the demand was not proved and the complainant himself has stated that accused had not demanded anything from him and he did not know what was written in the complaint. Mere possession and recovery of currency notes from accused without proof of demand do not constitute offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Act. 26. Lastly, he relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH vs. J.B. SINGH reported in AIR 2000 SC 3562 wherein complainant himself has turned hostile and therefore the necessary ingredient, the proof of bribery is not at all proved and hence acquitted the accused. 27. Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned SPP for the Lokauyukta-State/appellant and learned counsel for the respondent, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, Whether the court below was justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 28. On hearing the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and on an evaluation of the material on record, it is to be seen that PW1 P.K. Chandrappa is one of the panch witness for the mahazar Ex.P1. He stated in his evidence that at the request of the Lokayukta Inspector he went to his office. At that time complainant and PW2 were there. Lokayukta Inspector informed him that as complainant Nagaraj went to take VAT Clearance Certificate from the office of the accused, accused demanded Rs.250/- and a case has been registered against the accused and for that the Inspector asked Nagaraj to give the amount of Rs.250/- and Nagaraj took out the money and PW2 gave the numbers of the note and this witness has written down the same. There were denominations of Rs.100/- x 2, Rs.20 x 2 and Rs.10 x 1. The notes were then put in the phaphtholein powder and then it was asked to be kept in the pocket of complainant Nagaraj. There were denominations of Rs.100/- x 2, Rs.20 x 2 and Rs.10 x 1. The notes were then put in the phaphtholein powder and then it was asked to be kept in the pocket of complainant Nagaraj. Then this witness along with the Lokayukta Inspector, PW2 and other staff of Lokauyukta went near the office of the accused at about 3.00 p.m. and then complainant Nagaraj went inside the office and at 5.15 p.m. he came out showing signal to the Inspector by wiping his face with a handkerchief and then Lokauyukta Police entered inside the office and arrested the accused. When his hands were washed with sodium carbonate solution it turned into pink colour. He is the panch witness for the entrustment mahazar at Ex.P1 and trap mahazar at Ex.P17. 29. PW2 Ramarao states in his evidence that on 21.08.2006 when he was in his office, as per the orders of his higher officers he went to the office of Lokayukta and there Lokayukta Inspector introduced him to PW1 Chandrappa, complainant Nagaraj and other staff members. His version is almost that of PW1. But other than that, he was a shadow witness to the incident. He was also panch witness for the entrustment mahazar at Ex.P1 and trap mahazar at Ex.P17. 30. PW3 Veena is the colleague of the accused. She states in her evidence that on 21.08.2006 at about 5.10 p.m. accused gave her Rs.100/- which he had borrowed from her. Afterwards Lokauyukta Police came there and asked for that Rs.100/- and when she gave that Rs.100/- they then asked her to wash her hand with the solution and then her hands turned into pink colour. 31. PW4 Somanna was the officer of the accused. He states in his evidence that on 21.8.2006 at about 6.00 p.m. Lokayukta Inspector informed him that they have trapped the accused, then he came to know that while issuing VAT Clearance Certificate accused has taken bribe of Rs.250/-. 32. PW6 Nagaraja K.V. is the complainant in this case. He states in his evidence that on 01.08.2006 he went to the Commercial Tax Office and filed an application for VAT Clearance Certificate. Along with the application he has produced all the necessary documents. He then two to three times visited the office for the said certificate. But he could not get the certificate. He states in his evidence that on 01.08.2006 he went to the Commercial Tax Office and filed an application for VAT Clearance Certificate. Along with the application he has produced all the necessary documents. He then two to three times visited the office for the said certificate. But he could not get the certificate. He then asked one Hoovappa about the certificate for which he asked Rs.350/- and PW6 gave Rs.100/- and Hoovappa asked him to come on next day. Then PW6 went to the Lokauyukta Police and gave a complaint regarding the demand for bribe. The Lokauyukta Inspector hatched a pre-trap and as per the plan Lokayukta Police along with PWs. 1 and 2, complainant and staff of Lokauyukta went near the office of accused at about 3.00 pm. and the complainant went inside the office and asked for Hoovappa. When they showed Hoovappa he said that the said Hoovappa was different. And then he asked the accused for the certificate and then he asked him to sit outside. After some time, at 5.00 or 5.15 p.m. accused came out and asked complainant to come inside and then he handed over the VAT Clearance Certificate to him. Then complainant gave Rs.250/- by force and put it in the pocket of accused. Then he came outside signaling the Lokayukta Police by wiping his face from the handkerchief. Then the Inspector went inside and arrested the accused. 33. PW8 E.S. Veerabhadraiah is the Lokayukta Inspector who conducted the case of the complainant. In his evidence he has stated that as per the complaint received by the complainant he conducted the case. He arrested the accused on the charge of demanding and receiving the bribe amount. 34. The complaint given by the complainant to the Lokayukta Police is not in dispute. But the complainant who has given complaint later on stated in his evidence that he himself has given the money to the accused and kept the money in his pocket. In his evidence he has not stated anywhere that the accused asked for bribe amount for getting the VAT Clearance Certificate. The complainant PW6 has turned hostile not only on the minor aspects but also on material facts by deposing before the court in the course of examination in chief as well as the cross-examination that he himself thrusted the tainted notes in the shirt pocket of the complainant. The complainant PW6 has turned hostile not only on the minor aspects but also on material facts by deposing before the court in the course of examination in chief as well as the cross-examination that he himself thrusted the tainted notes in the shirt pocket of the complainant. As he is the vital witness to the case in question his evidence has to be taken in totality. 35. At a cursory glance, it is seen that even the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent fully applies to the facts of this case. 36. In the instant case, the complaint was filed by PW6 K.V. Nagaraj who has supported the case of the prosecution as per Ex.P21. The complainant himself thrusted the tainted currency notes MOs. 9 and 10 in the left shirt pocket of the accused. This evidence is contrary to the evidence of PW2 being a shadow witness. Therefore, no credentiality has been given to the testimony of shadow witness PW2. One of the essential ingredients of Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act is for having taken and acceptance of the bribe amount. But if the acceptance of the illegal gratification is in pursuance of a demand by the public servant then it would fall under Section 13(1)(d) of the Peventin of Corruption Act, whereas prosecution has not proved by placing the consistent and corroborative evidence relating to payment and acceptance of the bribe MOs. 9 and 10 said to be seized by the. 37. Therefore, even on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record and the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent it is seen that the trial court has not committed any perversity so as to interfere with the order acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 38. For the aforesaid reasons, the point framed is answered in the affirmative. There is no justifiable grounds urged in this appeal for interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal stands rejected by confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below in Spl.(P.C.) Case No.3/2007 dated 13.10.2009.