JUDGMENT : RANG NATH PANDEY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and perused the record. 2. The aforesaid criminal appeals have been preferred by the accused-appellants, namely, A.K. Gaba, Dushyant Kumar and Alok Gupta who are involved in Criminal Case No. 05 of 1997, arising out of Case Crime No. RC 1(A)/1995, State vs. R.K. Srivastava and Others, under sections 120-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) read with Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station C.B.I./S.P.E. District Lucknow. Since, all the above three criminal appeals have arisen from the same case crime, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. These appeals assail the correctness of the judgment and order dated 26.07.2014 passed by learned Special Judge, P.C. Act, C.B.I. (West), Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 05 of 1997, arising out of Case Crime No. RC 1(A)/1995, State vs. R.K. Srivastava and Others, under section 120-B of I.P.C. read with Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988, Police Station C.B.I./S.P.E. District Lucknow, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants namely, A.K. Gaba, Dushyant Kumar and Alok Gupta, convicted as under: (a) Accused-appellant, namely Shri R.K. Srivastava has been convicted and sentenced Under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act - Four years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 40,000/- with default stipulation of one year's additional rigorous imprisonment. (b) Accused-appellant, namely Shri R.K. Srivastava has been convicted and sentenced Under Section 13(1)D read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act - Five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default stipulation of one year's additional rigorous imprisonment. (c) Accused-appellants, namely Shri A.K. Gaba, Shri Dushyant Kumar and Sri Alok Gupta have been convicted and sentenced Under Section 120-B, IPC, read with under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act - Four years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 40,000/- to each with default stipulation of one year's additional rigorous imprisonment to each. (d) Accused-appellants, namely Shri A.K. Gaba, Shri Dushyant Kumar and Sri Alok Gupta have been convicted and sentenced Under Section 120-B, IPC, read with under Section 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act - Five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 40,000/- to each with default stipulation of one year's additional rigorous imprisonment to each. (d) Accused-appellants, namely Shri A.K. Gaba, Shri Dushyant Kumar and Sri Alok Gupta have been convicted and sentenced Under Section 120-B, IPC, read with under Section 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act - Five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/- to each with default stipulation of one year's additional rigorous imprisonment to each. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that on 05.01.1995, R.K. Srivastava, Superintendent, Central Excise, A.K. Gaba, Inspector, Central Excise and Alok Gupta, Inspector, Central Excise had visited M/s. Prime Products, Kursi Road, Barabanki and also inspected the adjoining factory, namely, M/s. Amoli Ceraplast Ltd. R.K. Srivastava along with other co-accused persons had seized all the available records of M/s. Amoli Ceraplast Ltd. without giving any acknowledgment. Thereafter, the complainant Kuldeep Tiwari, Retainer Consultant, visited the office of R.K. Srivastava on 10.01.1995 at about 10.00 p.m. and asked him to return all the documents which they have taken away with them from the factory but R.K. Srivastava had said to the complainant that unless he made the payment of Rs. 80,000/- as an illegal gratification, the documents will not be returned to him. Feeling aggrieved, complainant, Kuldeep Tiwari lodged an Fist Information Report (hereinafter referred to as F.I.R.) with Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. Lucknow. 5. Thereafter, on 10.01.1995, at about 7.00 p.m. complainant along with shadow witness visited the office of R.K. Srivastava, where accused-appellants, namely, A.K. Gaba and Alok Gupta were also present at that time, R.K. Srivastava had demanded Rs. 80,000/- as an illegal gratification. 6. On 14.01.1995, complainant along with the shadow witnesses again visited the residence of Shri R.K. Srivastava with Rs. 80,000/- where the accused himself P.K. Srivastava were allegedly also found sitting there. 7. The team of the C.B.I. raided the house of accused-appellant, namely, R.K. Srivastava and Rs. 60,000/- were recovered from bedroom and Rs. 20,000/- were also recovered from the pocket of jacket of P.K. Srivastava, brother of R.K. Srivastava. 8. Both hands of R.K. Srivastava, P.K. Srivastava and Dushyant Kumar were dipped in the solution on this, solution was turned pink. As such, R.K. Srivastava and other accused persons were allegedly caught red-handed. Thereafter, the investigation was conducted and the charge-sheet was submitted against about six persons. 9. 8. Both hands of R.K. Srivastava, P.K. Srivastava and Dushyant Kumar were dipped in the solution on this, solution was turned pink. As such, R.K. Srivastava and other accused persons were allegedly caught red-handed. Thereafter, the investigation was conducted and the charge-sheet was submitted against about six persons. 9. To bring home the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as seventeen witnesses, namely PW-1 Shri Aral Kumar Srivastava, Retired I.A.S. PW-2 Shri J. Mohan Das Bhat, Retired from Canara Bank, PW-3 Shri Subhash Chandra, Retired, Secretary, D.G.C.E.I. PW-4, Shri Kuldeep Tiwari, Industrial Advisor, PW-5 Shri R.K. Sharma, in Service, Syndicate Bank, PW-6 Shri Captain Ranveer, Retired Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, PW-7, Shri N.P. Tiwari, Retired, Additional S.P./C.B.I. PW-8 Shri Rajesh Rastogi, Marketing Manager, Mahakaleshwar, Kan. Unnao, PW-9 Shri Devki Nandan, Retired, Teacher, PW-10 Shri Suresh Chandra Mishra, Driver Central Excise Department, PW-11 Shri Sharad Khanna, C.A. Model Examine Company, Kanpur, PW-12 Shri R.P. Singh, PW-13 Shri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, Manager Lift Life Biotic Private, Limited, PW-14 Shri Suresh Chandra Gupta, Retired, Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, PW-15 Shri Ramakant, Retired, PW-16 Shri Vikramaditya, Pairokar Officer in present and PW-17 Shri Ganga Ram, Retired, Additional Commissioner, Custom and Central Excise Department. 10. Incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the appellants-under Section 313, Cr.P.C. in which they have stated that no recovery as alleged has been made and the prosecution sanction has been granted under pressure of C.B.I. It has further been stated that they did not demand any bribe. They have falsely been implicated in the present case with mala fide intention. The documents have been prepared and proved in an arbitrary manner and on the basis of same wrong charge sheet has been submitted against them. In defence, seventeen witnesses have been adduced by the accused-appellants. 11. The very first argument on behalf of the accused-appellants is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the necessary ingredient for the offence of receiving illegal gratification which is mandatory in order to bring have the guilt of the appellants under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 12. All the prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case except P.W. 5. who had stated in his testimony that accused appellants were involved in taking illegal gratification. 13. 12. All the prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case except P.W. 5. who had stated in his testimony that accused appellants were involved in taking illegal gratification. 13. Further, there is no evidence available on record which could prove that appellants had ever demanded the bribe or they had accepted voluntarily any amount of the bribe, in support of this contention, he has placed reliance in the case of Suraj Mal vs. State, (1979) 4 SCC 725 : AIR 1979 SC 1408 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantiative evidences in the case is not reliable mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charges of prosecution against the accused, in absence of any evidence to prove the payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. 14. In support of the aforesaid contention placed reliance in the case of State of Kerala vs. C.P. Rao, (2011) 6 SCC 450 : 2012 AIR SCW 2879 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has again held that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused and there has to be corroboration of the testimony of the complainant regarding the demand of bribe. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the entire judgment of the trial court is based on surmises, conjectures and hypothesis. The learned lower court unnecessarily given undue weight-age on the cases based on circumstantial evidence and unnecessarily elaborated the concept of motive and intention so as to giving the shape of conviction to the facts and circumstances available on record. 16. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the accused-appellants were found only of counting of money because no part of the alleged bribe was recovered from the possession of the accused-appellants. In support of this, reliance has been placed in the case of Sri. R.P.S. Yadav vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 11 SCC 642 : 2015 AIR SCW 2828 where the Hon'ble the Apex Court has set aside the judgment of conviction of the alleged accused to whom the alleged amount was passed over or handed over and subsequently was given to the appellants. 17. R.P.S. Yadav vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 11 SCC 642 : 2015 AIR SCW 2828 where the Hon'ble the Apex Court has set aside the judgment of conviction of the alleged accused to whom the alleged amount was passed over or handed over and subsequently was given to the appellants. 17. On the basis of the above arguments, it is summarized that the necessary and essential ingredients of "demand" and "acceptance" of the bribe money is absolutely lacking in this case, so far as the accused appellants are concerned. The explanation of the accused- appellants regarding their presence in the home or outside the house of R.K. Srivastava for discharging the protocol duty of R.K. Pandey is found consistent with the evidence of DW- 4 (Sri Chandra Bhan Dubey) who booked the Guest House for R.K. Pandey and the statement of PW-10 Driver Suresh Chandra Misra, who told in his testimony that he was directed by Dr. R.K. Shrivastava in evening of 13.01.1995 that as Assistant Collector R.K. Pandey was coming from Allahabad so, he, alongwith Dushyant Kumar would be receiving Pandey, so he should come to them on 14.01.1995, the learned Trial Court has totally discarded this piece of the witnesses on the ground unknown to the law. 18. Further reliance has been placed in the case of. P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2015) 10 SCC 152 : AIR 2015 SC 3549 : 22. In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the imperative prerequisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined in B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P. (2014) 13 SCC 55 : 2014 AIR SCW 2080 in unequivocal terms, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It has been propounded 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. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. The proof of demand, thus, 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 Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (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. Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act would also not arise. 19. It is also argued by the counsel for the appellants that while all the three Inspectors, including both the appellants, were charged under Section 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the IPC but main accused and alleged chief conspirator R.K. Srivastava was not charged under Section 120-B of IPC. Thus, the appellants were subjected to trial without linkage with prime accused who alone is allegedly involved in demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe amount in whole case. Both the appellants, namely, A.K. Gaba and Alok Gupta were not present in the official chamber of R.K. Srivastava on 10.01.1995 which is evident from the statements/cross-examinations of many prosecution witnesses. 20. It is also argued that there is no evidence on record that the accused-appellants, charged for criminal conspiracy, ever met to hatch conspiracy of alleged crime in any manner after discharging their official duty in valid manner on 07.01.1995. The name of the accused-appellants, was included in FIR dated 10.01.1995 on hearsay basis since complainant Kuldeep Tewari (PW-4) was not present on 07.01.95 in factory. 21. Kuldeep Tewari, complainant has stated in his testimony that he had a tape recorder to record the conversation that took place in the evening of 10.01.1995 and this recording was never adduced as evidence which could pin point the participants of the alleged meeting on 10.01.1995. Tape Recorder has been concealed by the prosecution in order to implicate A.K. Gaba and Alok Gupta falsely. Tape Recorder has been concealed by the prosecution in order to implicate A.K. Gaba and Alok Gupta falsely. The Learned Trial Court has also ignored concealment of vital evidence i.e. Tape Recorder, concealed by the prosecution in the judgment causing grave injustice to appellants, namely, A.K. Gaba and Alok Gupta. 22. The judgment dated 26.07.2014 reveals that while passing the judgment, learned Trial Judge has not discussed the details of cross examination of the Prosecution witnesses. Thus, the appellants were denied natural justice as evidence emerging out from cross- examination conducted by defense on prosecution witnesses. This omission has resulted in to erroneous judgment. 23. Appellants have been falsely implicated in this case as there is no evidence of any wrong doing on appellants' part. Appellants have assigned only role in the entire sequence of events is related to discharge of appellants official duty, wherein appellants followed the directions of appellants' superior officer to accompany the team constituted for checking the factory premises of M/s. Amoli Ceraplas Ltd. and that too under the leadership of appellants the then Superintendent and controlling officer Shri R.K. Srivastava. 24. On the other hand, Sri S.B. Pandey, learned A.S.G. has supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by learned trial court. He has submitted that the findings of conviction recorded by learned trial court are based on correct appreciation of evidence and they do not call for any interference by this Court. Thus, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 25. The Learned trial Court's order is based on presumption, as the Judge has used the words "Sambhavtah" and "Prateet hota hai" many times before presuming as to why the complainant Kuldeep Tewari did not implicate appellants. This is against the entire spirit of law as no person can be inculpated and exculpated at the same stake. The very uses of these words shake the confidence in the justice system and unless and until the guilt of the accused is proved up to hilt by cogent & corroborative evidence, every accused is liable to be discharged. 26. It is well settled position of law 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 P.C. Act. 26. It is well settled position of law 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 P.C. Act. The same legal principle has been held by the Apex Court in the case of B. Jayaraj, P. Satyanarayana Murthy, Kishan Chander and Rakesh Kapoor upon which reliance is rightly placed by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants. The relevant paragraphs from the cases read as under: (i) B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P. (2014) 13 SCC 55 : 2014 AIR SCW 2080: "It is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) is concerned as 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 established. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand." (ii) P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2015) 10 SCC 152 : AIR 2015 SC 3549 : "Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) - Proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) - Prosecution's failure to prove demand for illegal gratification would be fatal - A person cannot be convicted merely on recovery of the amount from him." (iii) Krishan Chander vs. State of Delhi, (2016) 3 SCC 108 : AIR 2016 SC 298 : "23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore, would fail. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two 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 Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder." (iv) Rakesh Kapoor vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2012) 13 SCC 552: "S. 7 - Demand of bribe - Proof - Necessity - PW-1 complainant stating that demand was made to him over mobile phone, but admittedly no call details furnished - PW-18 IO stating that PW-1 had received demand over landline, and hence, no call details could be secured - Held, in absence of any material/evidence for demand of bribe, conviction of appellant unsustainable - Besides, licence for running hotel, for which alleged bribe was demanded was already issued and in hands of PW-1 before alleged occurrence - Hence, appellant entitled to benefit of doubt." 27. In a recent enunciation by the Apex Court to discern the imperative pre-requisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined in B. Jayaraj in unequivocal terms, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It has been propounded 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. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. 28. For all the reasons stated above, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt and accordingly is entitled to acquittal. 29. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. 28. For all the reasons stated above, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt and accordingly is entitled to acquittal. 29. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the judgment and order dated 26.07.2014 passed by learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, C.B.I. (West), Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 05 of 1997, arising out of Case Crime No. RC 1(A)/1995, State vs. R.K. Srivastava and Others, under section 120-B of I.P.C. Read with Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Police Station C.B.I./S.P.E. District Lucknow is hereby set aside. Appellants A.K. Gaba, Dushyant Kumar and Alok Gupta are acquitted on benefit of doubt of the charges levelled against them. 30. Appellants A.K. Gaba, Dushyant Kumar and Alok Gupta are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail-bonds and sureties stand discharged. 31. The Senior Registrar is directed to ensure compliance by forwarding a certified copy of this judgment to the court concerned forthwith.