JUDGMENT S. K. SAHOO, J. - The appellant Dr. Sushil Kumar Pati faced trial in the Court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur in T.R. Case No. 20 of 2002 for offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter ‘1988 Act’) on the accusation that on 12.11.2000 being a public servant employed as Orthopaedic Specialist in Rourkela Government Hospital, Rourkela, he demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.150/- from P.W.3 Surendranath Mohanty as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing an official act, viz. issuing fitness certificate in favour of P.W.3 and thereby committed criminal misconduct by corrupt means by obtaining for himself pecuniary advantage of Rs.150/-. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.08.2008 found the appellant guilty of the offences charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months on each count under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act and the substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. 2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case, as per the written report (Ext.3) presented by P.W.3 Surendranath Mohanty before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sambalpur on 11.11.2000 is that he was working in the P.H.D. Office at Rourkela and on 05.06.2000 he fell down and sustained fracture injury on his leg. He was treated at Life Line Clinic, Rourkela from 06.06.2000 to 11.06.2000 and was discharged. On 13.07.2000 he felt severe pain for which he met the appellant in Rourkela Govt. Hospital for treatment. After checking P.W.3, the appellant advised him to take rest for a period of six months. P.W.3 felt better after a few months. He was transferred to Keonjhar Town and in that connection he met the appellant on 10.11.2000 and requested him to issue a medical fitness certificate. The appellant checked P.W.3 and told him that the condition of his leg is better and he asked Rs.150/- for his treatment. When P.W.3 expressed his reluctance to pay such amount, the appellant told him that unless the demand amount of Rs.150/- is fulfilled, medical fitness certificate would not be granted in his favour and no further medicine would be prescribed. When P.W.3 expressed his reluctance to pay such amount, the appellant told him that unless the demand amount of Rs.150/- is fulfilled, medical fitness certificate would not be granted in his favour and no further medicine would be prescribed. Even after much persuasion by P.W.3, the appellant sticked to his demand. As his joining at Keonjhar was necessary, P.W.3 agreed on compulsion to pay the demanded amount. The appellant told P.W.3 to come on 12.11.2000 which was a Sunday and there would be less number of patients on that day and he would issue medical fitness certificate on that day after receipt of Rs.150/-. Finding no way out, P.W.3 lodged the first information report as he was compelled to give bribe money of Rs.150/- on 12.11.2000 to the appellant for getting the medical fitness certificate as well as for medicine prescription. P.W.6 Nabakishore Pattnaik, D.S.P. (Vigilance), Rourkela received the written report from P.W.3 and sent it to Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sambalpur who directed the officer in charge of Vigilance police station, Sambalpur to register the case and accordingly, Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 57 dated 11.11.2000 was registered under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act. P.W.6 was directed by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sambalpur to detect the case by laying a trap and to investigate the case. On 12.11.2000 a preparation for the trap was held at Vigilance Unit Office, Rourkela. In presence of all the witnesses and Vigilance Officers, P.W.3 was introduced to the trap party members and he narrated his grievance as mentioned in the F.I.R. P.W.3 produced three nos. of fifty rupees G.C. notes to be used in the trap. The numbers of the G.C. notes were noted down by P.W.1 in a piece of paper and kept it with him for comparison after detection. A demonstration relating to the reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution was made and the sample chemical liquid was collected in two bottles and those were labeled and sealed. The G.C. notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and it was kept in the left side shirt pocket of P.W.3 with instruction to give it to the appellant only on demand. A preparation report (Ext.1) was made and the trap party members and P.W.3 signed thereon. The G.C. notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and it was kept in the left side shirt pocket of P.W.3 with instruction to give it to the appellant only on demand. A preparation report (Ext.1) was made and the trap party members and P.W.3 signed thereon. P.W.2 Banamali Nayak was asked to accompany P.W.3 to act as over hearing witness, to see the passing of tainted notes from P.W.3 to the appellant and then to relay signal to the trap party members by brushing his head with his hands. After preparation of the trap, the trap party members along with P.W.3 proceeded to Rourkela Government Hospital in a jeep and parked their vehicle at a reasonable distance from the hospital. P.W.3 followed by P.W.2 proceeded to the hospital and P.W.3 met the appellant in room no.34 in the upstairs of the hospital. On seeing P.W.3, the appellant asked him whether he had brought the demanded money. When P.W.3 replied in affirmative, the appellant asked him to keep the money in the pen stand kept on the table of that room and accordingly, P.W.3 kept the tainted money in the pen stand. The appellant wrote a certificate in favour of P.W.3 and then after locking the room, he along with P.W.3 came to the downstairs of the hospital for putting the O.P.D. number in the certificate. The appellant put the O.P.D. number in the fitness certificate written by him and handed over the same to P.W.3. At about 11.20 a.m. P.W.6 and the other trap party members received pre-arranged signal from P.W.2 and accordingly they rushed inside the hospital and found room no.34 of the hospital was under lock and key. They came to the outdoor of the hospital which was in room no.3 and found the appellant sitting there. P.W.3 was also found sitting with the appellant. P.W.6 gave his identity so also that of the other team members to the appellant and challenged him to have received Rs.150/- as bribe from P.W.3 to which the appellant denied. P.W.6 took the hand wash of the appellant in sodium carbonate solution which did not change its colour. The solution was kept in a bottle and labeled and sealed. P.W.6 gave his identity so also that of the other team members to the appellant and challenged him to have received Rs.150/- as bribe from P.W.3 to which the appellant denied. P.W.6 took the hand wash of the appellant in sodium carbonate solution which did not change its colour. The solution was kept in a bottle and labeled and sealed. P.W.3 disclosed before P.W.6 that as per the direction of the appellant, he had kept the tainted money amounting to Rs.150/- in a pen stand on the table of the appellant in room no.34. On being asked by P.W.6, the appellant opened the lock of room no.34. The trap party members entered inside the room and found the tainted G.C. notes were kept inside the pen stand on the table. On the request of P.W.6, P.W.1 brought out the tainted money and compared the numbers of the G.C. notes with that already noted in a piece of paper which tallied. P.W.6 seized the tainted G.C. notes under seizure list Ext.6. He also seized the pen stand in which the tainted money was kept and the chit of paper in which P.W.1 had noted down the numbers of G.C. notes at the time of preparation. The O.P.D. ticket, medical fitness certificate, sealed sample bottles were also seized under different seizure lists. P.W.6 prepared detection report vide Ext.2 in which all the trap party members including the appellant signed. On 12.11.2000 P.W.6 made over the charge of investigation to P.W.5 Akshaya Kumar Sahoo, Inspector of Vigilance, Rourkela Unit who examined the witnesses, sent the exhibits to R.F.S.L., Ainthapali, Sambalpur for examination and opinion. On 18.12.2000 P.W.5 received the report of the chemical examiner. He produced all the relevant documents before the Deputy Secretary to Government of Odisha who accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellant. He received the sanction order on 21.12.2001 and on completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet on 21.12.2001 against the appellant. 3. The defence plea of the appellant was one of complete denial of the occurrence and it was pleaded that P.W.3 had come to the hospital for his treatment and the appellant had given him one advisory certificate and a prescription. 3. The defence plea of the appellant was one of complete denial of the occurrence and it was pleaded that P.W.3 had come to the hospital for his treatment and the appellant had given him one advisory certificate and a prescription. On 12.11.2000 P.W.3 collected medical fitness certificate from him and on that day the appellant noticed some peculiar and abnormal behaviour of P.W.3 who was trying to touch the hands of the appellant while collecting medical fitness certificate. It was further pleaded by the appellant that he was not aware as to who kept the tainted money inside the pen stand and since the room in question was the duty room, many persons used to come to that room. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses. P.W.1 Prabhas Chandra Rout was the Asst. Engineer, R.D.A., Rourkela who was a member of the trap party and he stated about the preparation for the trap as well as preparation of the detection report after the trap. P.W.2 Banamali Naik was the Junior Engineer, National Highway Division and he acted as over hearing witness and stated about the preparation for the trap as well as detection. P.W.3 Surendra Nath Mohanty is the informant in the case and he stated about the demand of bribe made by the appellant to him for issuance of fitness certificate and further stated about the preparation for the trap as well as detection. P.W.4 Dhobei Charan Sahoo was the Deputy Secretary to Government of Odisha, General Administrative Department and he was the sanctioning authority who proved the sanction order (Ext.4). P.W.5 Akshaya Kumar Sahoo was the Inspector of Vigilance, Rourkela Unit who took over charge of investigation from P.W.6 and submitted charge sheet. P.W.6 Naba Kishore Patnaik was the D.S.P., Vigilance, Rourkela who was the trap laying officer and he stated about the preparation for the trap, recovery of tainted money and preparation of the detection report. The prosecution exhibited twelve documents. Ext.1 is the preparation report, Ext.2 is the detection report, Ext.3 is the first information report, Ext.4 is the sanction order, Ext.5 is the chemical examination report, Exts.6 to 10 and 12 are the seizure lists and Ext.11 is a sheet of paper. The prosecution proved four material objects. M.O.I is the seal, M.O.II, M.O.III and M.O.IV are the G.C. notes. The appellant exhibited three documents. The prosecution proved four material objects. M.O.I is the seal, M.O.II, M.O.III and M.O.IV are the G.C. notes. The appellant exhibited three documents. Ext.A is the medical certificate dated 13.07.2000, Ext.B is the fitness certificate dated 12.11.2000 and Ext.C is the prescription dated 12.11.2000. 5. The learned trial Court after assessing the evidence on record came to hold that the evidence of P.W.3 is believable and non-seizure of any outdoor ticket dated 10.11.2000 from P.W.3 and outdoor register relating to that date from the hospital did not belie the prosecution story and non-examination of any patient present in the outdoor of the hospital on 10.11.2000 at the time of demand of bribe by the appellant is no way helpful to the defence. It is further held that the evidence of P.W.3 finds corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses in material particulars. It is further held that there is no evidence on record showing that P.W.3 had prior enmity or dispute with the appellant and therefore, the plea taken by the defence that P.W.3 might have kept the tainted money in the pen stand taking advantage of temporary absence of the appellant in room no.34 cannot be accepted. It was further held that the fact that phenolphthalein powder was traced in the hand wash of the appellant on chemical examination is not a circumstance appearing against the appellant as there was every possibility of contamination of phenolphthalein powder to the hands of the appellant from the hand of P.W.3 while taking and returning fitness certificate. It was further held that even though the evidence of P.W.3 about demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant from him is not supported from the evidence of P.W.2 but since the evidence of P.W.3 finds corroboration from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 on material particulars, there is nothing to disbelieve such evidence. 6. Mr. Hemant Kumar Mund, learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that the learned trial Court has not assessed the evidence on record in its proper perspective. He argued that the appellant had not demanded anything from P.W.3 on 13.07.2000 when he granted advisory certificate vide Ext.A to him advising him to take rest for six months and even though P.W.3 visited the hospital on several occasion for his treatment after 13.07.2000 and before 10.11.2000 but on none of the occasion the appellant demanded anything from P.W.3. He argued that the appellant had not demanded anything from P.W.3 on 13.07.2000 when he granted advisory certificate vide Ext.A to him advising him to take rest for six months and even though P.W.3 visited the hospital on several occasion for his treatment after 13.07.2000 and before 10.11.2000 but on none of the occasion the appellant demanded anything from P.W.3. It is contended that in view of such previous conduct of the appellant, the alleged demand stated to have been made on 10.11.2000 is a doubtful feature. He asserted that even though the demand of bribe is stated to have been made in the outdoor but the outdoor register has not been seized to show that P.W.3 visited the outdoor on that day. No prescription relating to the treatment of P.W.3 on 10.11.2000 has been proved and therefore, it is argued that it is very difficult to accept that P.W.3 visited the appellant on that day in the outdoor during course of which the demand was made. It is further contended that the demand is stated to have been made in presence of several patients in the outdoor which is quite unbelievable. He emphasized on the conduct of P.W.3 in not reporting the demand of bribe made by the appellant to his higher authorities which according to Mr. Mund is a suspicious feature. It is contended that as per the evidence of P.W.3, fitness certificate was not necessary for his joining and therefore, why P.W.3 would pursue for such a certificate and would even agree to pay bribe? It is further contended that P.W.3 seems to have hatched out a story of demand of bribe to falsely implicate the appellant for the best reason known to him. He highlighted that the non-acceptance of bribe money from P.W.3 by the appellant with his hands and asking P.W.3 to keep the money in the pen stand is another suspicious feature as there was nobody inside the room at that point of time. It is further contended that there was every opportunity on the part of P.W.3 to plant the tainted money inside the pen stand without the knowledge of the appellant. It is further contended that the explanation given by the appellant immediately after the trap shows his bonafideness and it rules out the presentation of an afterthought story. It is further contended that there was every opportunity on the part of P.W.3 to plant the tainted money inside the pen stand without the knowledge of the appellant. It is further contended that the explanation given by the appellant immediately after the trap shows his bonafideness and it rules out the presentation of an afterthought story. He contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the appellant. The learned counsel relied upon the decisions in the cases of Gulam Mahmood A. Malek -Vrs.- State of Gujarat reported in A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1558 and Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra reported in A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 765. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department on the other hand contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court and the prosecution has proved all the three aspects i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe money and the explanation furnished by the appellant is not acceptable. It is contended that when P.W.3 would have been benefited by the issuance of fitness certificate by the appellant, there was no earthly reason on his part to bring false accusation against the appellant had there been no demand. The learned counsel for the Vigilance Department relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of A.P. -Vrs.- R. Jeevaratnam reported in A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 4095, State of U.P. -Vrs.- Dr. G.K. Ghosh reported in A.I.R. 1984 Supreme Court 1453, State of Bihar -Vrs.- Basawan Singh reported in A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 500, Gurjant Singh -Vrs.- State of Punjab reported in (2015) 62 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 91, State of West Bengal -Vrs.- Kailash Chandra Pandey reported in A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 119, Hazari Lal -Vrs.- The State (Delhi Admn.) reported in A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 873 and contended that the appeal should be dismissed. 7. Law is well settled that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of 1988 Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge would fail. 7. Law is well settled that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of 1988 Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under the aforesaid Sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of the offences i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the Court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. The burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the 1988 Act 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 1988 Act. The standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-à-vis the standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ. The evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particulars and the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon. Even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be independent, if the evidence of the complainant and the other circumstantial evidence on record is found to be consistent with the guilt of the accused and not consistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty for the Court in upholding the prosecution case. Even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be independent, if the evidence of the complainant and the other circumstantial evidence on record is found to be consistent with the guilt of the accused and not consistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty for the Court in upholding the prosecution case. (Ref:- B. Jayaraj -Vrs.- State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 55, Bhagirathi Pera -Vrs.- State of Orissa reported in (2014) 58 Orissa Criminal Reports 566, M.R. Purushotham -Vrs.- State of Karnataka reported in (2015) 3 Supreme Court Cases 247, State of Punjab -Vrs.- Madan Mohan Lal Verma reported in A.I.R. 2013 S.C. 3368, State of Maharashtra -Vrs.- Dnyaneshwar reported in (2009) 44 Orissa Criminal Reports 425, Punjabrao -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra reported in A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 486, V. Sejappa -Vrs.- State* reported in A.I.R. 2016 S.C. 2045, Panalal Damodar Rathi - Vrs.- State of Maharashtra reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1191, Mukhitar Singh -Vrs.- State of Punjab reported in (2016) 64 Orissa Criminal Reports (S.C.) 1016, Gurjant Singh -Vrs.- State of Punjab reported in (2015) 62 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 91, State of U.P. -Vrs.- Dr. G.K. Ghosh reported in A.I.R. 1984 Supreme Court 1453). In case of Krishan Chander -Vrs.- State of Delhi reported in (2016) 3 Supreme Court Cases 108, it is held that the demand for the bribe money is sine qua non to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the 1988 Act. In case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy -Vrs.- District Inspector of Police reported in (2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 152, it is held that the proof of demand has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Qua Section 20 of the Act, which permits a presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that while it is extendable only to an offence under Section 7 and not to those under Section 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the Act, it is contingent as well on the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, it was emphasized, could follow only if there was proof of demand. Such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, it was emphasized, could follow only if there was proof of demand. Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act would also not arise. 8. According to the prosecution case, the demand of bribe by the appellant for issuance of fitness certificate in favour of P.W.3 was made first on 10.11.2000 and again on 12.11.2000. Demand of bribe on 10.11.2000:- Adverting to the first demand made on 10.11.2000, the appellant specifically denied about any meeting with P.W.3 on that day in the hospital and the later requesting him to grant a fitness certificate in order to enable him to join service at Keonjhar. In the first information report (Ext.3), it is mentioned by P.W.3 that on 10.11.2000 he met the appellant and requested him to grant fitness certificate. The appellant checked him and opined that the leg of P.W.3 was in a better condition but he asked Rs.150/- for his treatment. When P.W.3 expressed his reluctance to pay such amount, the appellant told him that unless the demand amount of Rs.150/- is fulfilled, he would neither grant fitness certificate nor write any prescription and in spite of repeated request of P.W.3, the appellant sticked to his demand. It is further mentioned that as for joining at his new place of posting at Keonjhar town, the certificate was necessary, on compulsion P.W.3 agreed to pay the bribe money. On being examined during trial, P.W.3 has supported his version made in the first information report and stated that he requested the appellant to issue a medical fitness certificate in his favour to enable him to join at Keonjhar to which place he was transferred. In the cross-examination, P.W.3 has however stated that his authorities had not asked him to submit fitness certificate for joining in the office. If that was the state of affairs, the conduct of P.W.3 in approaching the appellant on 10.11.2000 for grant of such certificate and insisting him for such certificate and even getting agreed to pay the bribe money appears to be unbelievable. When there was no necessity for such a certificate for the purpose of his joining at the new place of posting, why P.W.3 would meet the appellant in the hospital and insist him to issue such certificate. When there was no necessity for such a certificate for the purpose of his joining at the new place of posting, why P.W.3 would meet the appellant in the hospital and insist him to issue such certificate. P.W.3 has further stated that on 13.07.2000 the appellant had granted him a medical certificate marked as Ext.A which was seized on his production by Vigilance Police. He further stated that he had not produced such certificate in the office after the same was granted by the appellant and had kept the same with him. There is no accusation against the appellant that when he issued the medical certificate (Ext.A) in favour of P.W.3, he raised any demand. P.W.3 has further stated that in between 13.07.2000 and 10.11.2000, he had met the appellant on several dates in connection with his treatment. There is also no accusation that on any occasion prior to 10.11.2000, the appellant had raised any demand from P.W.3 for his treatment. In the background of the case, when on several occasion the appellant had treated P.W.3 and even issued medical certificate (Ext.A) without any demand, it appears strange as to why all on a sudden he would raise the demand on 10.11.2000. The previous conduct of the appellant in not raising any demand from P.W.3 and providing the required treatment goes against the prosecution case of raising demand on 10.11.2000. P.W.3 has stated that many patients were present in the outdoor on 10.11.2000 when he was examined by the appellant and those patients were present when the demand was made by the appellant. First of all, raising of demand of bribe in such a scenario in presence of other patients appears to be an unbelievable story. The investigating officer (P.W.5) has neither examined any patients who were present at the outdoor of the hospital on 10.11.2000 nor had he seized the O.P.D. register of the hospital of the concerned date or any O.P.D. ticket issued to P.W.3. When specific questions in that respect were put to P.W.5, he replied that he did not think it to be necessary. The learned trial Court has also not given any importance to the non-seizure of those documents or non-examination of any patient. When specific questions in that respect were put to P.W.5, he replied that he did not think it to be necessary. The learned trial Court has also not given any importance to the non-seizure of those documents or non-examination of any patient. When a situation in which the alleged demand of bribe is stated to have been made appears to be doubtful or improbable, it was the duty of the prosecution to adduce acceptable evidence to show that the appellant was so fearless and careless that he did not even hesitate to demand bribe in a public place like outdoor that to in the presence of other patients. Moreover the seizure of such documents like O.P.D. register and O.P.D. ticket and examination of patients would have lent corroboration to the presence of P.W.3 in the outdoor on 10.11.2000 particularly when the appellant denied that he had met P.W.3 on 10.11.2000 in the hospital. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussions, it is very difficult to accept that on 10.11.2000 the appellant demanded Rs.150/- from P.W.3 for issuance of a medical fitness certificate. Demand of bribe on 12.11.2000:- P.W.3 has stated that on 12.11.2000 when he met the appellant in a room in the upstairs of the hospital, the appellant asked him whether he had brought the demanded money and when he replied in the affirmative, the appellant asked him to keep the money in the pen stand kept on the table in that room which was in a shape of a glass and after he kept the money in the pen stand, the appellant caught hold of that pen stand and wrote a certificate in his favour. P.W.3 has stated in the cross-examination that he along with P.W.2 first went to the outdoor of the hospital which is situated on the ground floor and could not find the appellant there and then they went to the upstairs of the hospital and met him in room no.34. P.W.3 has further stated in the crossexamination that the appellant had not told him on 10.11.2000 specifically to meet him in the outdoor of the hospital on 12.11.2000. P.W.3 has further stated in the crossexamination that the appellant had not told him on 10.11.2000 specifically to meet him in the outdoor of the hospital on 12.11.2000. Therefore, it appears from the evidence of P.W.3 that even though he was asked by the appellant to come on 12.11.2000 to the hospital for collecting the fitness certificate but he was not told by the appellant as to where exactly he would be available and at what time. P.W.3 seems to be searching for the appellant in the hospital to give him bribe money for obtaining fitness certificate even though such a certificate was not asked for by his authority for joining his duty. The over hearing witness (P.W.2) is completely silent regarding any demand stated to have been made by the appellant to P.W.3 even though he remained outside the room near the door of room no.34 which was open and there was a curtain on the entrance door of the room. P.W.3 has stated that no patient was present either inside the room or outside. In such a situation, had there been any demand by the appellant, it would not have missed the ears of P.W.2 who had accompanied P.W.3 for a specific purpose. The silence of P.W.2 on such a material aspect speaks volumes regarding the alleged demand made inside room no.34 on 12.11.2000. In case of Gulam Mahmood A. Malek -Vrs.- State of Gujarat reported in A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1558, it is held that the complainant in a trap case is in the nature of an accomplice and before any Court could act on his testimony, corroboration in material particulars is necessary. In case of State of Bihar -Vrs.- Basawan Singh reported in A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 500, it is held that independent corroboration does not mean that every detail of what the witnesses of the raiding party have said must be corroborated by independent witnesses. Corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime; it is sufficient even though, it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime. In view of the foregoing discussions, it is difficult to accept the evidence of P.W.3 without any corroboration either from direct evidence or from circumstantial evidence that on 12.11.2000 the appellant reiterated the demand of Rs.150/- from him for issuance of fitness certificate. 9. In view of the foregoing discussions, it is difficult to accept the evidence of P.W.3 without any corroboration either from direct evidence or from circumstantial evidence that on 12.11.2000 the appellant reiterated the demand of Rs.150/- from him for issuance of fitness certificate. 9. Acceptance of bribe money by appellant:- P.W.3 has stated that on 12.11.2000 when he replied in affirmative to the query made by the appellant as to whether he had brought the demanded money, the appellant asked him to keep the money in the pen stand kept on a table in that room and accordingly, he kept the money in the pen stand. It appears from the evidence of P.W.3 that there was no patient either inside or outside room no.34 by the time he reached there. If according to the prosecution case, the appellant was so fearless two days before that he demanded bribe money from P.W.3 in the outdoor of the hospital in presence of other patients, he would not have asked P.W.3 to put the money in the pen stand rather he would have accepted the money in his own hands from P.W.3 and either kept it in his pant or shirt pocket or in the drawer of the table as there was nobody to see it. On the other hand, if the appellant was afraid that there was possibility of being trapped in case of acceptance of money from P.W.3 directly with his own hands, in ordinary course he would not have asked P.W.3 to keep the money in the pen stand on the table which could easily be detected by anybody. P.W.3 admitted to have stated before the Vigilance Police that the appellant went inside another room to boil water before he came to the downstairs and further admitted that the said statement is correct. Similarly P.W.2 has stated in the crossexamination that adjacent to room no.34, there was an indoor room and that the doctor came out of room no.34 followed by P.W.3 after some time. Therefore, there was ample opportunity for P.W.3 to plant the tainted money in the pen stand in the temporary absence of the appellant which would have taken a few seconds. Therefore, there was ample opportunity for P.W.3 to plant the tainted money in the pen stand in the temporary absence of the appellant which would have taken a few seconds. The learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department placed reliance in case of State of A.P. -Vrs.- R. Jeevaratnam reported in A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 4095 wherein the Hon’ble Court disbelieved the explanation furnished by the respondent that the tainted money must have been put into his brief case when he had gone to the bath room as both P.Ws.1 and 2 denied that the respondent went to the bath room. The case in hand is distinguishable from the facts of R. Jeevaratnam (supra) inasmuch as here P.W.3 admitted that in between his entry to room no.34 and exit, the appellant had been to the adjoining room to boil water. The appellant himself has stated before the trap laying officer (P.W.6) that while P.W.3 was sitting in front of him in a stool, he left to the dressing room for some work. Therefore, P.W.3 had scope and opportunity to plant money in the pen stand unlike the case of R. Jeevaratnam (supra). Conduct of the appellant:- The conduct of the appellant immediately after P.W.6 challenged him to have received bribe money from P.W.3 is very relevant. P.W.1 has stated that on examination, the appellant stated that he had not accepted any money from P.W.3 and that he had not demanded bribe from P.W.3 either on the previous day or on that day and that on that day at about 11.00 a.m. P.W.3 came to him and wanted to take a fitness medical certificate from him though he was not treated at R.G. Hospital and that he denied to issue the same but on repeated request, he issued the certificate. P.W.1 has further stated that the appellant stated that he left the room to the dressing room for some work while P.W.3 was sitting in front of him in a stool and after returning to room no.34, he called P.W.3 to outside and locked the room. P.W.2 has stated that when the Vigilance D.S.P. challenged the appellant to have demanded and accepted the bribe, he denied to have demanded or accepted any money. P.W.6, the trap laying officer has stated that he had mentioned the explanation given by the appellant in the detection report Ext.2. P.W.2 has stated that when the Vigilance D.S.P. challenged the appellant to have demanded and accepted the bribe, he denied to have demanded or accepted any money. P.W.6, the trap laying officer has stated that he had mentioned the explanation given by the appellant in the detection report Ext.2. On perusal of the detection report (Ext.2), it reveals that on examination of the appellant, he not only denied to have demanded or accepted any bribe money but further stated that on that day at about 11.00 a.m. P.W.3 came to him and wanted to take a medical fitness certificate from him though he was not treated at R.G. Hospital and he denied to issue the same but on repeated request of P.W.3, he issued the certificate and that he left to the dressing room for some work while P.W.3 was sitting in front of him on a stool and after returning to the room, he called P.W.3 to outside and locked the room. When the appellant on being confronted by the trap laying officer (P.W.6) about the acceptance of bribe money, without fumbling or getting panicked gave a spontaneous explanation right at the moment when the crime is allegedly committed and there was no opportunity to fabricate such explanation or concoct a story, the explanation becomes admissible as res gestae within the meaning of Section 6 of the Evidence Act. P.W.1 has stated that the hand washes of both the hands of the appellant were taken in colourless sodium carbonate solution and there was no change in colour. P.W.6 has also stated that he took the washes of both the hands of the appellant in sodium carbonate solution and the colour of the solution did not change. The hand wash of the appellant collected in a bottle and marked as ‘C’ was sent for chemical examination and it was found to be faintly pink and phenolphthalein was detected in the sodium carbonate solution. The learned trial Court has not given any importance to the finding of phenolphthalein in the hand wash of the appellant as there was every possibility of contamination of phenolphthalein powder to the hands of the appellant from the hand of P.W.3 while taking and returning the medical fitness certificate. The learned trial Court has not given any importance to the finding of phenolphthalein in the hand wash of the appellant as there was every possibility of contamination of phenolphthalein powder to the hands of the appellant from the hand of P.W.3 while taking and returning the medical fitness certificate. A Court has to be more careful, cautious and meticulous in scrutinizing the evidence on record when the accused has not touched the tainted money nor such money was recovered from his personal belongings. If the money is recovered from inside any object even from the room where the accused was present, the Court has to keep in mind whether there was any possibility of tainted money being planted by the decoy witness cunningly without the notice of the accused. Situation may so arise where the accused may not be in a position to say as to how the tainted money was recovered from his room or from inside any object in his room. In absence of his knowledge, he may not take a specific plea except pleading ignorance. In such a situation, the Court is not absolved of its responsibility to scan the evidence with eagle eyes so that an innocent person gets justice and frees himself from unnecessary harassment and victimization. 10. Recovery of bribe money:- Even though recovery of the tainted money from the pen stand is not disputed by the appellant but since there was possibility of planting the money by P.W.3 without the notice of the appellant, mere recovery of the tainted money is not sufficient to fasten his guilt in the absence of any clinching evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. In case of Sita Ram -Vrs.- The State of Rajasthan reported in 1975 Criminal Law Journal 1224, the evidence of the complainant was rejected and it was held that there was no evidence to establish that the accused had received any gratification from any person. On that finding the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not drawn. All that was taken as established was the recovery of certain money from the person of the accused and it was held that mere recovery of money was not enough to entitle the drawing of the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. All that was taken as established was the recovery of certain money from the person of the accused and it was held that mere recovery of money was not enough to entitle the drawing of the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In case of Suraj Mal -Vrs.- The State (Delhi Administration) reported in 1979 Criminal Law Journal 1087, it was held that mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it was paid was not sufficient when the substantive evidence in the case was not reliable to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money. Therefore recovery of tainted money from the pen stand kept on the table in room no.34 is in itself not such an incriminating circumstance basing on which a verdict of guilt can be passed against the appellant. 11. The submission of the learned counsel for the Vigilance Department that there was no earthly reason on the part of P.W.3 to bring false accusation against the appellant had there been no demand, is not convincing. Motive behind false implication operates in the mind of the informant and it is very often not within the reach of the accused. The appellant may not be in a position to know the motive of P.W.3 in implicating him falsely. In case of Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit (supra), it was held that different motives operate on the mind of different persons in making of unfounded accusations. When the evidence of P.W.3 regarding demand of bribe money by the appellant and instruction given by the appellant to him to keep the money in the pen stand is not acceptable in view of the discussions above made, merely because the appellant fails to say what was the specific motive on the part of P.W.3 to falsely implicate him in the crime, the evidence of P.W.3 would not be automatically accepted. 12. 12. Learned counsel for the Vigilance Department placed reliance in the case of State of West Bengal -Vrs.- Kailash Chandra Pandey reported in A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 119 wherein it is held that the Appellate Court should be slow in re-appreciating the evidence as the trial Court has the occasion to see the demeanour of the witnesses and it is in a better position to appreciate the evidence and the Appellate Court should not lightly brush aside the appreciation done by the trial Court except for cogent reasons. I am of the humble view that it is the duty of the Appellate Court to see if there is any error in the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court. The sustainability of the judgment of the trial Court depends upon the soundness of the reasons given in support of the findings and the conclusion. An Appellate Court should not adopt the reasoning given by the trial Court without evaluating the evidence at all otherwise it would not be a legal judgment in the eye of law. As a first Court of appeal, the High Court must apply its independent mind and record its own findings on the basis of its own assessment of evidence. 13. In view of the foregoing discussions of the evidence, it is apparent that the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities. The reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court is faulty and genuine material evidence available on record in favour of the appellant has been overlooked and it appears that the impugned judgment is one sided in favour of the prosecution. I am fully satisfied that sufficient, cogent and reliable evidence is not available on record which established the guilt of the appellant. Once the story of demand falls through, the authenticity of trap becomes highly doubtful because acceptance of bribe germinates through demand. In the absence of any clinching evidence relating to the demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant and the fact that there is possibility of planting the tainted money, I am of the view that the guilt of the appellant has not been established beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, I am constrained to give benefit of doubt to the appellant. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction of the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act and the sentence passed thereunder is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The appellant is on bail by virtue of the order of this Court. He is discharged from liability of his bail bond. The personal bond and the surety bond stand cancelled. Appeal allowed.