JUDGMENT: This criminal appeal is preferred challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Prl. Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Mysore in Special case No.69/2004 dated 26.06.2010 convicting the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The factual matrix of the appeal is that the accused was working as FDA at Nataka Karnataka Rangayana, Kalamandira, Mysore. It is stated that on 27.08.2002, accused demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- from C.W.1 – Aluru Doddaningappa who was working as Attender in the Rangayana, as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for showing official favour that is to submit the records pertaining to the arrears of salary of C.W.1 to the higher authority for sanction. In this regard, CW.1 gave a complaint to the Lokayukta Police on 28.08.2002 and based on the said complaint, the Lokayukta Police Inspector conducted Entrust mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and later the trap was laid and seizure mahazar was conducted. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Subsequent to laying of charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences, the accusation was read over and explained to the accused and he did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to substantiate the case against the accused, in all examined seven witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and also got marked M.Os.1 to 9. 4. Subsequent to the closure of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the accused was examined as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. but the accused denied the incriminating statement appeared against him and he did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On the part of the accused Exs.D1 to D3 were got marked. 5. 5. The trial Court after hearing the arguments advanced by the counsel for the accused and the Special Public Prosecutor for the Lokayukta, rendered the impugned judgment convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months imprisonment. It is this judgment which is challenged under this appeal by urging various grounds. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused and learned Spl.P.P. for the respondent – Lokayukta. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the court below erred in convicting the appellant based on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which is highly interested, contradictory, unreliable and artificial. He contends that the evidence of PW.1 said to be the author of complaint as per Ex.P1 is full of material omissions and contradictions and the same does not speak about the demand or acceptance as alleged by the prosecution. 8. He further contends that the Court below has committed serious error in convicting the appellant relying on the sanction order as per Ex.P5 issued by PW.6 which is not a valid order and the same was not accorded as per law. The trial Court erred in convicting the appellant since PW.2 who is a panch witness to Ex.P2 – Entrust Mahazar is a stock witness and thus, he being a untrustworthy witness, his evidence could not have been relied by the trial Court. The conviction of the appellant based upon his evidence is bad in law. 9. He further contends that the Court below ought to have taken the defence statement as recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the documents as per Exs.D1 to D3 which clearly shows that a false case is foisted against the appellant. Further, it is contended that Court below committed serious error in convicting the appellant relying on Ex.P4 which has been seriously disputed and the prosecution has failed to prove the same in accordance with law. The court below ought to have appreciated the fact that PW.7 - IO who conducted the investigation has admitted that when the hands of the accused were subjected to wash, it did not change its colour. The court below ought to have appreciated the fact that PW.7 - IO who conducted the investigation has admitted that when the hands of the accused were subjected to wash, it did not change its colour. Under the circumstances, non-examination of chemical examiner is fatal to the case of the prosecution and the court below ought to have extended the benefit of doubt to appellant and acquitted him. 10. It is the further contention of the appellant’s counsel that there was no official work pending as on the date of the trap and there was no evidence of demand of Rs.5,000/- and the complaint was given at 10.30 a.m. and the panch witnesses were also secured at the same time and no disciplinary enquiry is conducted in the Department and mere recovery of tainted amount itself is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. 11. Further it is contended that PW.1 – complainant in his evidence, in one breath he states that he wrote the complaint in his house and in another breath, he says that he wrote the same in the Lokayukta Office, hence, there is a contradiction in his statement and further, the documents seized are not produced before the Court. The evidence of panch witnesses – PW.2 who is a stock witness and PW.4 who is a shadow witness is not consistent and corroborative. Hence, relying upon their evidence has caused great injustice to the case of the appellant. 12. PW.6 being the sanctioning the authority who accorded sanction as per Ex.P5 after going through the contents in the complaint at Ex.P1. Further, FIR as per Ex.P6 and Ex.P8 – rough sketch and FSL report at Ex.P9 were also produced before PW.6. After going through the same, PW.6 has accorded sanction as per Ex.P5 to prosecute the case against the accused. But it is the contention of the accused that the sanction was accorded within 4 days of assuming his office and without applying the mind. Hence, the said sanction is not a valid sanction and he is not the competent authority to give sanction. 13. But it is the contention of the accused that the sanction was accorded within 4 days of assuming his office and without applying the mind. Hence, the said sanction is not a valid sanction and he is not the competent authority to give sanction. 13. Further it is contended that the Court below has erred in relying upon Section 20(1) of the P.C.Act, wherein the ingredients are not proved by the prosecution and hence, the conviction and sentence is based on conjectures and surmises and the same is bad in law. The independent witnesses though were available in the office, have not been cited as prosecution witnesses which vitiates the case of the prosecution. 14. He further contends that the Court below has committed serious error in relying upon the evidence of PW.1 coupled with evidence of PW.2 and PW.4 which is not corroborated to each other and the same is untrustworthy as their evidence suffers from serious illegalities and irregularities. The evidence of PW.4 who is a shadow witness is also not consistent and does not corroborate to the evidence of PW.1 and the contents of Ex.P1 complaint and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court below is illegal, erroneous and the same has resulted in mis-carriage of justice. 15. The evidence of PW.4 who is a shadow witness is also not consistent and does not corroborate to the evidence of PW.1 and the contents of Ex.P1 complaint and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court below is illegal, erroneous and the same has resulted in mis-carriage of justice. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the following decisions: State vs. K.Narasimhachary (2005 AIR SCW 6275) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “Allegation of demand of bribe – Accused merely a recommending authority and not the valuation or the final authority – Accused also not a outward clerk for issuance of property valuation certificate – Also, said certificate was already forwarded and signed by the final authority before alleged demand of bribe by accused – Aforesaid circumstances create, suspicion about demand of bribe – Accused’s acquittal was proper.” Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishan Chander vs. State of Delhi reported in AIR 2016 Supreme Court 298 has held that “Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S.7, S.13(1)(d) – Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.145 – Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.162 – Bribe – Demand and acceptance of – Is sine qua non for constituting offence under S.7 and 13(1)(d) – Accused police constable alleged to have demanded bribe for releasing brother of complainant on bail – Complainant turning hostile on point of demand and acceptance of bribe by accused police constable – Panch witness did not hear conversation between accused and complainant at time when complainant had approached him to give bribe money – Investigating Officer’s evidence silent as to contents of statement of complainant recorded under S.161 Cr.P.C. – Contradictory statements made by complainant regarding demand in cross-examination not proved by examining Investigating officer – Factum of demand not proved – Convicting set aside” In Banarsi Dass vs. State of Haryana (2010) 4 SCC 450 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has addressed the issues extensively relating to “recovery of money from the accused by itself is not enough in absence of substantive evidence of demand and acceptance – it is settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that conviction of accused cannot be founded on basis of inference – offence should be proved against accused beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or even by circumstantial evidence if each link of chain of events is established pointing towards guilt of the accused – prosecution has to lead cogent evidence in that regard so far as it satisfies essentials of a complete chain duly supported by appropriate evidence – High Court erred in drawing inference of demand and receipt of illegal gratification from fact that money was recovered from accused.” Further it is held that, “Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Ss.5(2) and (1)(d) – illegal gratification – demand and voluntary acceptance of – evidence to prove – absence of – contradiction between statements of prosecution witnesses – factors justifying benefit of doubt in favour of accused – conviction reversed – Pws.10 and 11(senior police officers to whom complaint made) not present when money was demanded and accepted by appellant – accused – prosecution primarily relied on material witnesses PWs. 2 (complainant) and 4 (taxi driver engaged by PW 2 to visit appellant) who both turned hostile – however, appellant convicted under S.5(2), PC Act, 1947 and S.161 IPC by placing reliance upon statements of PWs 10 and 11.” In T.K.Ramesh Kumar vs. State through Police Inspector, Bangalore reported in (2015) 15 SCC 629 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extensively addressed the issues relating to Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. It is held that “demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by appellant from complainant PW.1 in presence of complainant’s father for issuing khata certificate of property alleged – testimony of PW.2 indicating that he had no definite knowledge as to whether his father’s application for issuance of khata extract was received by appellant – Held, said aspect was an important piece of evidence which was very material for purpose of recording finding on important issue of demand of illegal gratification – both trial court as well as first appellate court failed to evaluate said aspect, and consequently erred in recording finding of re demand of illegal gratification – besides, non-examination of complainant’s father by IO in whose presence alleged demand was made, was fatal to the prosecution case in face of material contradictions in the allegations made in complaint Ext.P1 against appellant testimony of PW.1 – criminal trial – appreciation of evidence – contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments.” 16. Placing reliance on the above decisions learned counsel for the appellant submits that the aforesaid decisions are squarely applicable to the present case on hand. In the instant case, the accused is said to be working as FDA at Rangayana, Mysore who is alleged to have demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant who was also working as Attender in the said Rangayana as illegal gratification to do official favour. Therefore, PW.1 who went to the Lokayukta Police Station gave a complaint as per Ex.P1. Based upon the said complaint FIR was recorded as per Ex.P6. PW.7 being the IO secured PW.1 and PW.2 and 4 said to be the panch witnesses. In their presence, he conducted entrust mahazar as per Ex.P2. Subsequently, as per the instructions of PW.7, trap was laid and seizure mahazar as per Ex.P3 was conducted. Explanation of the accused was secured as per Ex.P4. 17. PW.7 being the IO secured PW.1 and PW.2 and 4 said to be the panch witnesses. In their presence, he conducted entrust mahazar as per Ex.P2. Subsequently, as per the instructions of PW.7, trap was laid and seizure mahazar as per Ex.P3 was conducted. Explanation of the accused was secured as per Ex.P4. 17. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 said to be author of the complaint at Ex.P1 and also examined PW.2 who is the stock witness and PW.4 said to be the shadow witness. PW.1 also partially turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it is contended that there was no work pending before the accused as on the date of the trap and there is no evidence of demand of bribe of Rs.5,000/-. PW.7 being the IO in his evidence admits that when the hands of the accused were subjected to wash, it did not change its colour. In this regard, the chemical examiner has not been examined and the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, the sanction order accorded by PW.6 is also not a valid sanction. However, the theory as put forth by the prosecution by examining PW.1 coupled with the evidence of PWs.2 and 4, their evidence runs contrary to each and further contradictory to the evidence of PW.7, being the IO who has done the investigation thoroughly and laid the charge sheet against the accused. This evidence has not been appreciated by the trial Court in a proper perspective manner. There is total denial of demand and acceptance. Therefore, in this appeal it requires re-appreciation of evidence of PWs.1, 2, 4 and 7 who are the vital witness on the part of the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused. There are clouds of doubt in the theory as put forth by the prosecution. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is not trustworthy being full of inconsistencies and therefore, when there is doubt, the benefit of such doubt should always be in favour of the accused. Therefore, counsel for the appellant contends that the aforesaid decisions are squarely applicable to the case on hand. Hence, considering all these grounds the learned counsel for the appellant seeks for interference of this Court and prays for setting aside the judgment rendered by the Court below in Spl.C.No.69/2004. 18. Therefore, counsel for the appellant contends that the aforesaid decisions are squarely applicable to the case on hand. Hence, considering all these grounds the learned counsel for the appellant seeks for interference of this Court and prays for setting aside the judgment rendered by the Court below in Spl.C.No.69/2004. 18. Per contra, learned Spl.P.P. for the respondent vehemently contends that the discrepancies pointed out by the appellant’s counsel in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are minor discrepancies. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused in order to put up the arrears of salary file pertaining to the complainant/PW.1 to the higher authority, demanded a bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- from P.W.1 as illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration to do an official favour. He was trapped based on the complaint lodged by the complainant as per Ex.P1. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has accepted an amount of Rs.5,000/- as bribe by misusing his official position and thereby, he has committed an offence of criminal misconduct. PWs.1 and 4 have supported the case of the prosecution and both of them in their evidence have stated that during the trap laid by PW.7, the accused demanded the money and collected the same and kept the same in his pant pocket and thereafter, the trap was held and all the formalities were done. The Court below has rightly noted that the receipt of bait money is admitted and explanation given as per Ex.P4 has not been substantiated by the accused. The Court below has rightly pointed out that there is an acceptance and receipt of amount of Rs.5000/- and the chemical report marked as per Ex.P9 also confirms the contents of phenolphthalein powder on the tainted notes and no explanation was offered in this regard. Therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has demanded and accepted the bribe and money and the evidence available on record is consistent and corroborative and the Court below has rightly convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act. 19. In support of his contentions, the learned Spl.P.P. relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: M.Narasing Rao Vs. 19. In support of his contentions, the learned Spl.P.P. relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: M.Narasing Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 2001 SC 318 ). Placing reliance on the above decision, it is contended that presumption under Section 20 of the P.C.Act is compulsory and not discretionary. Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 2015 SC 1206 ). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S.13, 20 – Bribery case – Demand, acceptance and recovery of money from accused – proved in entirety by testimony of prosecution/trap witness – further appellant-accused was caught red handed with currency notes – no explanation given by him as regards recovery of notes – thus legitimate presumption can be drawn that accused had received or accepted said currency notes on his own volition – conviction of accused, held was proper.” Hazari Lal vs. State (Delhi Administration) – AIR 1980 SC 873 / (1980) 2 SCC 390 . In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “Criminal trial –Witnesses – trap witness – In the facts and circumstances of a particular case court may accept the evidence of a police officer who laid the trap without any corroboration – Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 133 and 114 illustration (b) – Criminal Trial – Appreciation of evidence.” CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1669/2009 Mrs. Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) dated 28.02.2019 The issue regarding “the question whether in the absence of evidence of complainant/direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, is it not permissible to draw inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution” was referred to the larger Bench for consideration. Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar and another vs. State of Kerala AIR 1981 SC 1237 In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “the prosecution evidence no doubt suffers from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies, etc., go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the incongruities obtaining in the evidence. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies, etc., go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the incongruities obtaining in the evidence. In the latter, however, no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases.” 20. Based on the above reliance, learned Spl.P.P. submits that the ingredients of Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act does not require pendency of work before the concerned accused who is said to be the public servant. In the instant case, a presumption can be drawn that the accused-appellant had received or accepted the currency notes on his own volition. The factum of presumption and the testimony of PW.2 and 4 shows that the prosecution has been able to prove demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount. The recovery of the money coupled with other circumstances leads to the conclusion that the accused has received illegal gratification for doing official favour and in the present case there is no material to rebut the presumption, therefore, the court below has rightly convicted the accused and the same does not call for interference of this Court. Hence, prays that the appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. 21. It is in this context of the contention as taken by the learned counsel for the appellant and counter made learned Spl.P.P. for the respondent and so also, the reliance placed by them are concerned, the point that arise for consideration is whether the Court below was right in convicting the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 22. The case of the prosecution is that the accused being a public servant working as F.D.A. in Nataka Karnataka Rangayana, Mysore, demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant – Aluru Doddaningappa, who was also working as an Attender in the said Rangayana, to show an official favour and accepted an amount of Rs.5,000/- on 27.08.2002 as illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration by misusing his official position as a public servant and thereby is guilty of criminal misconduct. 23. 23. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 also got marked M.Os.1 to 9. Ex.P1 is the complaint, Ex.P2 is the Entrustment Mahazar, Ex.P3 is the Seizure Mahazar, Ex.P4 is the explanation of the accused, Ex.P5 is the sanction order, Ex.P6 is the FIR, Ex.P7 is the covering letter, Ex.P8 is the rough sketch and Ex.P9 is the FSL report. 24. On behalf of the accused, Exs.D1 to D3 were got marked. Ex.D1 is the receipt for having made payment, Ex.D2 is the letter and Ex.D3 is the related documents. 25. M.O.1 is ten notes of Rs.500/- each, M.O.2 is the bottle containing right and left hand wash solution of accused, M.O.3 is the Phenolphthalein powder, M.O.4 is the bottle containing right hand wash, M.O.5 is the bottle containing left hand wash, M.O.6 is the bottle containing wash of pant packet, M.O.7 is the pant, M.O.8 is the cover containing Sodium Carbonate powder and M.O.9 is the bottle containing sample distilled water. 26. PW.1 who is the complainant in his evidence has stated that he was entitled for arrears of salary in a sum of Rs.57,000/- and out of that Rs.21,000/- and Rs.23,000/- was paid in two installments and balance amount was not paid. In this regard, he gave an application to the accused. The duty of the accused was to put up the file and place it before the higher ups, for which he is said to have demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- for doing the official favour. When the complainant refused to pay the same, he kept the file pending till the demand is met. Hence, PW.1 lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta Police. PW.7 being the IO conducted the entrustment/demonstration mahazar as per Ex.P2 by securing the panch witnesses. Thereafter, they went to Rangayana and PW.1 and PW.4 went to the office of the accused and accused received the amount and after counting the same, he kept it in his pant pocket. As per the instructions of PW.7 signal was given to them by PW.1 and 4. Thereafter, they went to Rangayana and PW.1 and PW.4 went to the office of the accused and accused received the amount and after counting the same, he kept it in his pant pocket. As per the instructions of PW.7 signal was given to them by PW.1 and 4. The IO along with other staff came there and thereafter, PW.1 showed the accused to the police, they washed the hands of accused in sodium solution which turned into pink colour and the amount was recovered at his instance, the documents were seized under the mahazar and thereafter, the accused gave his explanation. 27. PW.1 was subjected to cross-examination in part by the SPP wherein it is elicited that the Entrustment mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P2 and seizure mahazar as per Ex.P3 and identified the notes as M.O.1 and he stated that he collected Rs.5,000/- from the Police thereafter. Further, PW.1 was subjected to cross-examination by the defence counsel, wherein it is elicited that along with the accused, one Rajesh and Raghuram were also working as First Division Assistant. He denied the suggestion that there was an ill-will against this accused in connection with granting of casual leave, but he admitted that a Memo was given to PW.1 for non-attending of duty and he admitted that in connection with the arrears of salary, letters, correspondence took place. Further, he also denied the suggestion that whatever the work was pending with the accused, he attended the same. 28. PW.2 – Ashok is the panch witness who states that he went to Lokayukta office and entrustment mahazar was conducted in the office of Lokayukta and thereafter, went to Rangayana Office with the complainant and after sometime, they came and gave the signal as per the instructions to the Police, after that, the accused was held by them. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that when PW.1 and PW.4 were subjected to enquiry, they revealed that the accused after taking the money kept the same in pant pocket and his hands were washed and the notes were removed from the pocket of the accused. The pant pocket of the accused was also washed and the same turned into pink colour. The pant pocket of the accused was also washed and the same turned into pink colour. In the cross-examination he has stated that no name is mentioned in the pant which is marked as M.O.7 and he cannot tell how many documents were seized at the office of the accused and he signed the documents on 29.08.2002 in the office of Lokayukta and Ex.D1(a), D2 and D3 were confronted. Further, he has stated that the accused did not give any explanation in front of him and there is no written order about deputing him to the office of Lokayukta. 29. PW.3 – T.N. Dasegowda, the then Deputy Director of Rangayana in his evidence has stated that the complainant was working as Library Assistant and he came to know the trap made against the accused and the accused was attending the arrears bills and after attending, the accused had to send the same to Director of Rangayana. In his cross-examination he has stated that he did not witness the trap, but it came to his knowledge. 30. PW.4 – Srinivas is the shadow witness. In his evidence he has stated that himself and PW.2 both went to Lokayukta office and demonstration was done and entrustment mahazar was also conducted by observing the formalities. Thereafter, they went to the office of the accused at Rangayana and the complainant spoke to the accused and he was observing standing at some distance and accused demanded the money and complainant removed the money from the pocket and gave it to the accused and he counted the same twice and kept the same in the pant pocket and thereafter, signal was given to the Police and the complainant pointed out the accused saying that he received the money and his hands were subjected to wash in sodium solution and the same turned to pink colour. Thereafter, mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P3. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that he went to Lokayukta Office at around 10.30 a.m. and he cannot tell whether the Attendance Register pertaining to him was seized or not by the Lokayukta police and prior to the trap he did not visit the Rangayana Office, but however, he says that the Entrust Mahazar was drawn from 11.00 a.m. to 12. noon. 31. noon. 31. PW.5 T.K.Ramachandra, said to be working as Section Officer at Kannada and culture Directorate Office has stated in his evidence that he received a letter stating that the accused referred the name of this witness while giving his explanation stating that he collected the money to pay to him but he did not demand any such amount and at no point of time, he contacted the accused. But in the cross-examination it is elicited that there was reference for arrears of salary and no enquiry was made whether Rs.57,000/- was paid in favour of the complainant and he is not aware of any representation given by the complainant regarding non-payment of arrears. 32. PW.6- Chidambara Jambe is said to be the Sanctioning authority. He has stated in his evidence that he found prima facie material to accord sanction as per Ex.P5. In the cross examination it is elicited that he did not enquire the Director of Rangayana and also did not enquire any other staff. 33. PW.7 – B.G. Achar, the IO who conducted the investigation thoroughly and laid the charge sheet against the accused. He stated in his evidence that as per Ex.P1 complaint was given by PW.1–complainant. He conducted the demonstration mahazar by securing PWs.2 and 4 - two panch witnesses, collected the amount from the complainant and phenolphthalein powder was applied to the said notes. Thereafter, they all went to the office of the accused, where complainant and PW.4 had met the accused and payment was made by them and thereafter, signal was given. Immediately, all of them rushed to the office of the accused and the complainant pointed out the accused and explained the conversation that took place between them. The accused was subjected to hand wash by using sodium solution which turned into pink colour. M.O.1 – ten notes of Rs.500/- each was also seized from the pant pocket of the accused. Explanation was obtained from the accused as per Ex.P4 and documents in respect of the work pending with the accused was also seized. As per Ex.P8-spot sketch was also prepared and seizure mahazar was conducted as per Ex.P3 and recorded the statement of some of the witnesses. PW.7 was thoroughly cross-examined by the defence side, wherein he denied several suggestions made by the defence counsel. 34. As per Ex.P8-spot sketch was also prepared and seizure mahazar was conducted as per Ex.P3 and recorded the statement of some of the witnesses. PW.7 was thoroughly cross-examined by the defence side, wherein he denied several suggestions made by the defence counsel. 34. There is no dispute that PW.1 said to be complainant is the author of complaint at Ex.P1. But the accused said to be working as FDA at Rangayana as where he demanded bribe in a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant in order to show official favour for forwarding the bill regarding arrears which is required to be considered by the higher ups. But the work which was required to be attended by the accused as FDA was not pending before him. Despite of it, PW.1 approached the Police Inspector and gave a written complaint as per Ex.P1. But PWs.2 and 4 who are the panch witnesses on the part of the prosecution and they have been secured by making a letter correspondence to act as a panch witnesses. In their presence entrustment mahazar as per Ex.P2 was conducted as to how that the solution turned into pink colour if the accused hands were washed when it comes in contact with currency notes which are applied with phenolphthalein powder. 35. Having gone through the evidence of prosecution, it is relevant to note here that PW.1 in his evidence states that he gave an application to prepare the arrears bill and the same was pending with the accused and for putting up the said file he demand bribe of Rs.5,000/-. But whereas it is the contention of the appellant/accused that as on the date of the said trap, no work was pending with him and the application was given on 10.08.2002 and on 16.08.2002 itself he had put up the said file. In this regard, in the cross-examination of PW.3 - Deputy Director of the concerned department who is the recommending authority, it is elicited that the complainant has received an amount of Rs.21,901/- at the first instance and again some more amount later and in total he has received an amount of Rs.43,801/-. In Ex.D2 – letter he has affixed his signature. Further it is also elicited that he did not witness the trap. 36. In Ex.D2 – letter he has affixed his signature. Further it is also elicited that he did not witness the trap. 36. However, in this appeal, it is required to be considered whether the accused demanded and accepted the bribe money as alleged by the prosecution. PW.1 states that he went along with PW.4 and the accused was sitting in his seat in the office and he requested him to do his work and the accused enquired him whether he has brought the money. PW.1 gave the money and the accused received the same and after counting the same, he kept in his pant pocket and thereafter they gave the signal and his hands were subjected to wash in the sodium solution which turned to pink colour and he gave the explanation as per Ex.P4. It is relevant to note here that PW.1 – who is the author of the complaint as per Ex.P1 states that initially he wrote the complaint in his house but further he states that he wrote the complaint in the office of the Lokayukta. Further, PW.4 who is a shadow witness also reiterated the same in his evidence. In cross-examination, it is elicited that the Entrustment Mahazar was held between 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 pm. and at that time he was also there and he could not hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused, however he was standing at the distance of 5 feet and a suggestion was made that he was sent along with PW.1 to hear the conversation, but he said that not only for hearing the conversation but also to watch the things that were taking place at the spot i.e., demand and acceptance of the bribe money. Further, he stated that he cannot tell what are the words used in the explanation given by the accused. These inconsistency and contradictions in the evidence of the PW.1 coupled with the evidence of PW.4 who is a shadow witness has not been considered by the Court below while convicting the accused for the aforesaid offence. 37. PW.2 is said to be the stock witness and he did not accompany the complainant, but he was along with the Lokayukta Police. 37. PW.2 is said to be the stock witness and he did not accompany the complainant, but he was along with the Lokayukta Police. In the cross-examination it is elicited that he did not enquire the complainant when he gave the money to Lokayukta police in the Lokayukta office and that the entrustment mahazar was drawn from 10.50 a.m. to 11.50 a.m. and he signed the documents on 29.08.2002 at Lokayukta office and he did not witness the fact of giving the explanation of the accused. The contention of the appellant’s counsel is that the explanation of the accused as per Ex.P4 was taken forcefully and there is total denial of demand and acceptance but the Court below committed serious error in convicting the accused relying on Ex.P4 which has been seriously disputed by the accused. 38. The further contention of the appellant’s counsel is that in the cross-examination of PW.7 who is the IO has admitted that when the pant of the accused subjected to wash in sodium solution, it did not change its colour. M.O.6 is the bottle containing wash of pant pocket. In this regard the FSL Chemical Examiner has not been examined which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Hence, if there is doubt in the theory as put forth by the prosecution, then the benefit of the doubt has to be in favour of the accused. But the court below erred in not considering this aspect of the matter. 39. It is contended that both the complainant and PWs.2 and 4 said to be panch witnesses went to the Lokayukta office at around 10.30 a.m. But as per Ex.P1 – complaint it discloses that the case was registered at 10.15 a.m. and not at 10.30 a.m. A perusal of Ex.P2 – Entrustment mahazar discloses that the mahazar was drawn from 10.50 a.m. to 11.50 a.m. but PWs.2 and 4 says that the mahazars were drawn from 11.a.m. to 12.00 p.m. and there are contradictions between the evidence of PW.1, complainant and that of evidence of PWs.2 and 4 who are the panch witnesses. Thus, the Court below has erred in relying upon the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4 which does not corroborate with each other. 40. Thus, the Court below has erred in relying upon the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4 which does not corroborate with each other. 40. In this case it is to be noted that PW.2, who is said to be stock witness and PW.4, who is said to be shadow witness to the entrustment mahazar as per Ex.P2 and seizure mahazar as per Ex.P3, their evidence is inconsistent and not corroborative to evidence of PW.1 with regard to demand and acceptance. The evidence on record brings out the fact of the currency notes being recovered from the pocket of the accused and his hands being tested positive, yet they themselves are not sufficient to hold that the accused demanded illegal gratification from the complainant and received the same. Therefore, the evidence of prosecution witnesses appears to be not trustworthy and appears to be full of inconsistencies. 41. The entire case of the prosecution is revolving around the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 in respect of allegation made in complaint as per Ex.P1 and the fulcrum of Ex.P2 – entrust mahazar and so also the fulcrum of Ex.P3 – seizure mahazar said to be conducted in their presence. PWs.1 and 4 have categorically stated that the accused has money and collected the said bribe amount from the complainant and also kept the same in his pant pocket. PW.5 who is the official in the office of the accused as where the accused demanded certain amount from the complainant to do his official favour. PW.5 was secured as a witness on the part of the prosecution, but nothing worthwhile has been elicited to believe the theory of the prosecution. However, the evidence of PW.5 is contrary to the evidence of PW.1 – author of the complaint. 42. However, at a cursory glance of evidence of PW.1 coupled with the evidence of PWs.2 and 4 and so also the evidence of PW.7 said to be the IO who conducted the investigation, there appears clouds of doubts in the theory put forth by the prosecution. But the same has not been appreciated by the trial Court in a proper perspective manner. Therefore, in this appeal, the entire evidence of the prosecution has to be re-appreciated as the trial Court has misdirected as well as misinterpreted the evidence of PW.1 in respect of Ex.P1 and so also the evidence of PWs. But the same has not been appreciated by the trial Court in a proper perspective manner. Therefore, in this appeal, the entire evidence of the prosecution has to be re-appreciated as the trial Court has misdirected as well as misinterpreted the evidence of PW.1 in respect of Ex.P1 and so also the evidence of PWs. 2 and 4 as per Ex.P2, entrust mahazar and Ex.P3 – seizure mahazar in respect of currency notes at M.O.1. But however in the totality of the circumstances of the entire evidence let in by the prosecution it appears that there are clouds of doubt which has to be re-appreciated in this appeal. The prosecution has not put forth cogent, corroborative and acceptable evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused. 43. At this juncture, learned Spl.PP for respondent Lokayukta submits that the ingredients of Section 7, 13(1) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act does not require any pendency of work before the accused who is said to be a Government servant. However, in the instant case, the accused said to be working as FDA in Rangayana as where the complainant was also working as Attender who had approached the accused with regard to certain bill in respect of arrears of salaries to him. But accused demanded bribe in a sum of Rs.5,000/- and thereafter, the complainant gave a written complaint to the Lokayukta Police. But he has turned hostile to certain extent. Subsequent to treating hostile, he has been crossexamined with permission only in a suggestive form of answer has been elicited. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 is nothing worthwhile and there is no credentiality on the part of the prosecution. But however, in this appeal re appreciating the evidence of PW.1 coupled with the evidence of PWs.2 and 4 who were secured as panch witnesses by PW.7, the IO, in order to prove the contents at Exs.P2 and P3. But at a cursory glance of the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 4 and PW.7 on the part of the prosecution it appears that there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 44. But at a cursory glance of the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 4 and PW.7 on the part of the prosecution it appears that there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 44. Therefore, in terms of the aforesaid findings and reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused that the accused has demanded and accepted the bribe amount as narrated in the complaint and in trap mahazar. Therefore, whenever there is doubt in the case of the prosecution, the benefit of such doubt shall always be in favour of the accused. Accordingly, I have to proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal preferred by the appellant/accused is hereby allowed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in Spl.C.No.69/2004 dated 26.06.2010 is hereby set-aside. The accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.