JUDGMENT : The appellant is the sole accused before the learned Special (Sessions Judge), Bagalkot (for short ‘trial Court’) in Special Case No. 83/2009. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 01.03.2011 convicted the appellant for the offences 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C. Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable u/S 7 of the P.C. Act and furter sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable u/s 13(1)(d) punishable u/S 13(2) of the P.C. Act. 2. The above judgment of conviction and sentence is called before this Court on various grounds which I am going to discuss little later. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, the original appellant/ accused died. The legal representatives of the deceased appellant filed I.A. Nos.1 and 2/2019 seeking grant of special leave to prosecute the appeal. Vide orders dated 10.04.2019 this Court has allowed I.A. Nos.1 and 2/2019, condoned delay of 85 days in filing the special leave application and also leave was granted to the legal representatives of the deceased appellant to continue and prosecute the appeal. 4. Before adverting to the grounds urged and as elaborated by the learned counsel for the appellant and also the submissions made by the learned Special counsel for Lokayuktha, I would like to have brief factual matrix of the case and cursory look at the evidence on record led by the prosecution. The deceased appellant was sole accused before the trial Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’ for convenience and avoiding confusion) working as a Village Accountant at Halaki Ningapur Sarja in Mudhol taluk in Bagalkot District during the relevant point of time, particularly as on the date of commission of the alleged offences. A person by name Govind son of Ranawwa Gasti (P.W.2) has lodged a complaint on 11.09.2008 before the Police Inspector, Lokayuktha (P.W.12) making allegations that the complainant has approached the accused for obtaining a certificate of death of complainant’s sister-in-law Smt. Bandawwa. The accused had demanded a bribe of Rs.1,000/-from the complainant. A person by name Govind son of Ranawwa Gasti (P.W.2) has lodged a complaint on 11.09.2008 before the Police Inspector, Lokayuktha (P.W.12) making allegations that the complainant has approached the accused for obtaining a certificate of death of complainant’s sister-in-law Smt. Bandawwa. The accused had demanded a bribe of Rs.1,000/-from the complainant. As the complainant was not willing to pay that amount he lodged a complaint before the Lokayuktha Police. The complaint is marked at ex.P.24 wherein he has categorically stated that the brother of the complainant died about 4-5 months prior to the complainant and thereafter his wife also died on 29.09.2007. In order get transfer of the records which were in the name of the brother of the complainant into the name of the brother’s children, he went to the accused in order to get the death certificate of his brother’s wife. In that context it was alleged that, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/-as bribe for the purpose of doing official favour as noted above. On the basis of the above said complaint the Police have registered a crime in No. 6/2008 for the offences punishable u/S 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The Police have also secured P.Ws.1 and P.W.3 as panch witnesses to their office conducted pre-trap proceedings by handing over Phenolphthalein tainted currency notes to the complainant and also explaining as to what will happen if the accused touches the said currency notes and if his hands are washed in sodium carbonate solution, specifically stating that the accused if receives the amount and if hands are washed, the resulted solution will turn to pink. The Investigating Officer has also instructed the complainant as well as the panch witnesses and another person by name Ramanna who had been to the Police station along with the complainant go to the office of the accused and enquire about their work and thereafter if the accused demands for the money then only they have to pay the tainted currency notes. If the accused receives the same the complainant has to give a pre-instructed signal by rubbing his face with his dhoti. If the accused receives the same the complainant has to give a pre-instructed signal by rubbing his face with his dhoti. Accordingly, it is the further case of the prosecution, the complainant and the witnesses-P.W.1 and the friend of the complainant went to the office of the accused after due deliberation, the accused has received the said tainted currency notes and put the same into his pocket. After getting the pre-instructed signal the Police went inside and caught the accused red-handed and thereafter the trap panchanama was said to have been drafted as per Ex.P.2. Thereafter, the Police have also provided an opportunity to the accused to explain and his statement was also recorded. The Police after thoroughly investigating the matter found sufficient materials to prosecute the accused, hence filed the charge sheet for the above said offences. The trial court after securing presence of the accused, who was on bail, framed charges against the accused for the above said offences and tried the accused. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused examined as many as 12 witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.46 and material objects M.Os.1 to 10. the accused was also called upon to enter into the defence evidence, if any, after recording his statement u/S 313 of Cr.P.C. as the accused did not choose to lead any evidence. After hearing the arguments on both the sides, the trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. 5. On cursory look at the evidence of the prosecution, P.W.1 is the shadow witness who accompanied complainant, fully supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.2 is the complainant though he has supported the case of the prosecution but he has turned hostile to the prosecution to some extent. P.W.3 is another panch witness who also supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.4 and 5 were the independent private witnesses said to have been present at the time of the incident, they also turned hostile. P.W.6 Ramanna is the friend of the complainant supported the case of the prosecution but to some extent he has also turned hostile. P.W.7 is the Tahasildar, the official superior of the accused who has spoken about the existence of the work with the accused pertaining to the complainant. P.W.6 Ramanna is the friend of the complainant supported the case of the prosecution but to some extent he has also turned hostile. P.W.7 is the Tahasildar, the official superior of the accused who has spoken about the existence of the work with the accused pertaining to the complainant. P.W.8 is an Engineer who has visited the spot and drawn sketch of the scene of offence, P.w.9 is the person who carried the FIR to the jurisdiction Court after registration of the case, P.w.10 is the sanctioning authority who accorded sanction to prosecute the accused, P.W.11 is the Police personnel participated in the raid and assisted the I.O. to conclude the investigation, P.W.12 is the I.O. who has investigated the matter and laid the charge sheet against the accused. 6. Now let me consider the grounds urged before this Court as elaborated by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, the complainant himself has not spoken about the demand of any money from the complainant. Though there is some evidence to show that the accused has received the money but the conversation that has been taken place between the complainant and the accused shows that he never demanded any money for the purpose of showing any official favour. Even the other witnesses have also not supported the case so far as the demand is concerned. There are contradictions and omissions in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 are concerned. P.W.6 only says that he and P.W.2 only present but he never spoken about the presence of P.W.1 and the said portion has not been subjected to cross examination. It is an admitted fact that several persons present in the office but the Police have not, in fact, recorded the statement of those witnesses who were present who would have stated as to what exactly happened in the office of the accused. 8. The learned counsel also contended that the appreciation made by the trial court is not proper and correct. Even when the amount is said to have been recovered from the accused which is bereft of any demand, no offence u/S 7 or u/S 13(1)(d) is attracted. In this context he has taken me through the entire evidence, and also cited several rulings, which I am going to discuss little later. 9. Even when the amount is said to have been recovered from the accused which is bereft of any demand, no offence u/S 7 or u/S 13(1)(d) is attracted. In this context he has taken me through the entire evidence, and also cited several rulings, which I am going to discuss little later. 9. Per contra, learned Spl.P.P. for the Lokayuktha submitted that, though the complainant himself has not supported the case of the prosecution but all the material particulars he has supported the case of the prosecution which is fully supported by the evidence of shadow witnesses. The Court has to examine the overall evidence of all the witnesses in order to ascertain whether the evidence of the complainant-P.W.2 has to be altogether rejected or accepted. He also contended that the Investigating Officer’s evidence, during the course of cross examination is not disturbed with regard to the recovery of tainted currency notes at the hands of the accused. When once the tainted currency notes are recovered from the accused and which is supported by the acceptance by the accused without there being any explanation, the presumption u/S 20 arises in favour of the prosecution. Therefore, he contended that, the accused has not given any explanation as to why he has received that money from the complainant. There is no dispute with regard to the receipt of the tainted currency notes by the accused from the complainant because the complainant, shadow witnesses and other witnesses have fully supported this portion of the case of the prosecution and the same has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Once the recovery based on demand and acceptance is proved, then the burden shifts on the accused to establish that the said amount was received by him towards any legal remuneration or legal amount due from the complainant. Otherwise, the provision u/S 7 of Sec. 13(1)(d) are attracted. Therefore, for all these reasons the learned counsel contended that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. 10. Before adverting to the evidence on record the Court has to bear in mind what are the ingredients that the prosecution has to prove in order to establish Sec.7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.. 11. Therefore, for all these reasons the learned counsel contended that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. 10. Before adverting to the evidence on record the Court has to bear in mind what are the ingredients that the prosecution has to prove in order to establish Sec.7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.. 11. Section 7 of the P.C. Act postulate that, whoever being a public servant accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever other than the legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or for bearing to do any official act or in showing or for bearing to show, in exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or dis-service to any person, then he is said to have committed offence. Therefore, the acceptance or obtaining or agreeing to accept or attempt to obtain any gratification other than the legal remuneration as a motive for doing some official favour or disfavour, is a prime ingredient of the section. The word ‘gratification’ is not restricted to any particular gratification or gratification estimable in money. Likewise, “Legal remuneration” are not restricted to any fee which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all legal liability which he is permitted by the Government organization, which he is suppose to accept. A motive or reward means, a person who receives a gratification for doing what he is not suppose to do though not in a position to do or refuse to do any official act to favour the complainant while discharging his duty as a public servant, also comes within this expression. 12. Sec. 13(1)(d) under which a charge has been framed against the accused postulates that, a public servant is said to have committed misconduct u/S (d) if he (i) by corrupt or illegal means obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding the office as a public servant obtains for himself or any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. 13. 13. For the purpose of this Section, the prosecution has to prove that the accused has obtained any pecuniary advantage or a valuable thing by illegal means while holding the office as a public servant without any public interest. Therefore, it clearly envisages that if there is no legal fee to be payable or any legal liability by any person and if it amounts to an illegal gratification for the purpose of showing an official favour, the prosecution can be said to have proved an offence, if there is any demand or acceptance of such money is proved. 14. In this backdrop the Court has to examine whether in this particular case the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of the money by the accused and the same was demanded and accepted as an illegal gratification and the same is not a legal remuneration payable by the complainant and the same was demanded and accepted abusing his position as a public servant for the purpose of showing an official favour to the complainant in this case. 15. There is no dispute in this case that the accused is a public servant, there is no much dispute with regard to the accused was found with the tainted currency notes with him and the same was recovered from him. There is also no dispute that the accused, who is the competent authority to do the work of the complainant. In this background the Court has to examine whether the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance or any gratification which in turn amounts to illegal gratification, which is not a legal remuneration payable by the complainant for the purpose of doing or for bearing to do some official act by the accused and further that the accused has received the said money on demand by abusing his position as a public servant or the said amount was received by him without any public interest. Thereby, it can be safely said that, the accused by corrupt or illegal means by abusing his position as a public servant on demand obtained a pecuniary advantage for the purpose of doing some official favour while discharging his duty as a public servant. 16. Thereby, it can be safely said that, the accused by corrupt or illegal means by abusing his position as a public servant on demand obtained a pecuniary advantage for the purpose of doing some official favour while discharging his duty as a public servant. 16. Before adverting to the important material facts as I have already observed that there is no dispute with regard to the sanction granted by P.W.10 to prosecute the accused, learned counsel for the appellant also not argued much so far as this aspect is concerned. P.W.10, in fact, one Mr. Srivara, who was working as Deputy Commissioner of Haveri District, has deposed before the Court that on 18.04.2009 he received a letter from Police Director General, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru, along with first information report, mahazar drawn in the case and material objects recovered in this case, complaint and the entire documents pertaining to the case. On the basis of said materials on record the Police Director General has requested for granting sanction to prosecute the accused. He has further deposed that he has gone through the entire documents sent for his consideration and he found there are sufficient materials to inculpate the accused to the crime and therefore he has granted sanction to prosecute the accused, as per Ex.P.37. Nothing worth has been elicited in the course of cross-examination, even in the course of cross-examination he admitted that what are the materials he has gone through. He denied the suggestion that, without enquiring into the materials and without looking into the records he mechanically issued the sanction order. On careful perusal of the sanction order and the evidence of the witness it is crystal clear that the sanctioning authority after going through the entire material on record issued the sanction order. Moreover, the sanction order was not questioned earlier at any point of time before any Court of law. Therefore, the sanction order is fully supported by the evidence of P.W.10. There is no reason to discard the said evidence. Hence, the sanction order at Ex.P.37 is valid and the evidence of P.W.10 deserves to be believed. 17. Now the next question is with regard to the evidence of the material witnesses. Therefore, the sanction order is fully supported by the evidence of P.W.10. There is no reason to discard the said evidence. Hence, the sanction order at Ex.P.37 is valid and the evidence of P.W.10 deserves to be believed. 17. Now the next question is with regard to the evidence of the material witnesses. The complainant-P.W.2, shadow witness-P.W.1 and another panch witness-P.W.3 and P.Ws.4 and 5 who are also alleged to have been present at the time of trap and P.W.6-friend of the complainant are the main witnesses required to be meticulously examined by this Court in order to ascertain whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 18. As I have narrated earlier main concentration of the argument of the learned counsel is that the complainant himself has not supported the case with regard to the demand of any amount towards bribe though the amount has been received by him and recovered from him but in the absence of any demand the offence u/S 7 and 13(1)(d) are not attracted. It is contended that several persons though present were not examined by the I.O. Therefore, the conduct of the I.O. is doubted. Therefore, the court has to examine the evidence of these witnesses in its entirety to ascertain whether the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of Rs.1,000/-by the accused. 19. Though it is mechanically denied in the course of cross examination but P.Ws.1 to 3 and the I.O-P.W.12 have categorically stated about entrustment proceedings taken place in the Police station. On that particular day entrusting the tainted currency notes to P.W.2 and giving instructions to P.Ws.1 to 3 to the effect that P.ws.1 and 2 should go together to the office of the accused and talk with the work of the complainant and on demand only the said demanded amount has to be paid to the accused. If he accepts the same, thereafter the complainant has to give a pre-instructed signal by rubbing his face with his dhoti. These facts have been established in the evidence of theses witnesses. Mere denial of these factual aspects in the course of cross examination is not sufficient so as to discard the evidence so far as this aspect is concerned. If he accepts the same, thereafter the complainant has to give a pre-instructed signal by rubbing his face with his dhoti. These facts have been established in the evidence of theses witnesses. Mere denial of these factual aspects in the course of cross examination is not sufficient so as to discard the evidence so far as this aspect is concerned. Therefore, the complainant going to the Lokayuktha Office and lodging a complaint against the accused and thereafter the I.O. securing the presence of the witnesses and thereafter conducting the pre-trap proceedings by tainting the currency notes produced by the complainant with phenolphthalein powder and washing the hands of the witnesses who counted the said currency notes with sodium carbonate solution which solution turn into pink colour and thereafter the I.O. explaining the chemical reaction between sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein and also explaining that if the accused receives such currency notes, if his hands are washed, the hand wash also turn to pink in colour and thereafter handing over the currency notes to the complainant with a direction to the complainant and other two witnesses to go to the office of the accused and to pay amount if the accused demands and observe whether he keeps the money and thereafter to give pre-instructed signal to the Police, are all the facts which are established before the Court. 20. The witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 and the I.O. and particularly P.W.6 have also stated that they have gone to the office of the accused together and they talked with the accused at about 5.00 p.m. in the evening and thereafter on demand they paid the accused an amount of Rs.1,000/-and he received the said amount from his hands and thereafter kept them in his right pant pocket and afterwards P.W.2 has given the pre-instructed signal to the Police. 21. Though all these witnesses have stated in the above said manner, the learned counsel has drawn my attention that except P.W.1, the other witnesses, P.Ws2 and 6 have not stated about any demand by the accused but they have only stated about the receipt of the money and keeping the amount by the accused in his pocket, which I would discuss that portion of the evidence in detail little later. 22. P.Ws.4 and 5 who are also the witnesses alleged to be present on that particular point of time. 22. P.Ws.4 and 5 who are also the witnesses alleged to be present on that particular point of time. They did not support the case of the prosecution fully with reference to any demand or acceptance but they have stated that they were present when the I.O. and other witnesses entered the office of the accused and P.w.4 has specifically stated that the Police have washed hands of the accused with the sodium carbonate solution and the hand wash of the accused turned to pink in colour and they also recovered an amount of Rs.1,000/-from the accused. 23. As I have already narrated that there is no much argument addressed by the learned counsel with regard to the contradicting pre-trap proceedings to the effect that, after receiving the pre-instructed signal from P.W.2, the I.O. along with his Police personnel and P.W.3-another panch witness entered into the office of the accused and enquired the complainant, P.w.2 and P.W.1 as to what happened and thereafter immediately prepared sodium carbonate solution, washed hands of the accused which resultant solution turned to pink in colour. Both the hand wash of the accused were taken and the resultant solution turning pink and also preserving the said solution in various bottles is also not much disputed. The witnesses have also stated that the accused person was called upon to say as to where he kept the said amount, then the accused has produced the tainted currency notes from his right side pant pocket. The said amount was tallied with the amount noted by the panch witnesses in the Lokayuktha office and found them tallied and thereafter the said currency notes were also seized in a cover. The I.O. also seized the pant, subjected the pant right side pocket to sodium carbonate solution wash and the resultant solution also turned to pink in colour. The pant and the solution were separately sealed. Thereafter the I.O. has collected records from the office of the accused. 24. Very peculiarly enough the accused has not denied the above said facts of recovery of tainted currency notes from him. As could be seen from the written statement given by the accused which is not at all denied in the course of recording statement u/S 313 of Cr.P.C. by the accused that he has not given any such statement. 24. Very peculiarly enough the accused has not denied the above said facts of recovery of tainted currency notes from him. As could be seen from the written statement given by the accused which is not at all denied in the course of recording statement u/S 313 of Cr.P.C. by the accused that he has not given any such statement. In his statement at the time of trap which is marked at Ex.P.4 he has stated that on the day of the trap the complainant-Govindappa and another witness Ramanna had visited his office and asked for the death certificate of the sister-in-law of the complainant and the accused gave the same to them but abruptly the complainant has forcibly thrusted the amount to the hands of the accused, before the accused telling them that he do not want any money, by that time, the Police came and trapped the accused. The photographs marked at Ex.P.5 to 23 disclose the post-trap proceedings conducted by the Police which has not been virtually denied by the accused. Even in the course of 313 statement, the evidence of P.W.4 with regard to the conducting of the post trap proceedings as stated by him has not been denied. Likewise the statement of P.W.7 has also not been denied with regard to the existence of the work with the accused with regard to the giving of the death certificate pertaining to the brother’s wife of the complainant and also P.W.7 giving information about work in the revenue department and also the work which was pending with the accused. The place of incident and the sketch drawn by P.W.8 are also not denied in the statement of the accused recorded u/S 313 of Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the same has been admitted by him. 25. While answering the questions put u/S 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused also has given answer to question No.3 that, on that particular date he has not demanded any amount, but on the day of the trap the complainant voluntarily went to the office and forcibly thrusted the money to his hands inspite of the accused refusing to receive the same. When the Lokayuktha Police came inside, the accused was frightened and he kept the amount in his pocket. When the Lokayuktha Police came inside, the accused was frightened and he kept the amount in his pocket. Therefore, the above said admission on the part of the accused though not in the nature of confession but clears out the doubt that giving of money by P.W.2 to the accused, whether it was on demand accepted or it was thrusted to the hands of the accused, has to be determined. 26. Even as I have already noted above that these procedural aspects have not been seriously taken into consideration for arguments except seriously arguing that there was no demand but the amount was thrusted by the complainant to the hands of the accused, though the work has already been done by the accused. In this background whether the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused has to be meticulously looked into, particularly referring to the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and P.W.6. Now I will consider the evidence of these witnesses so far as this aspect is concerned. 27. Before adverting to the evidence of the above said important witnesses, I feel it just and necessary to quote some of the rulings relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. 28. The learned counsel mainly concentrated by citing some rulings that the demand of bribe amount by the accused on the relevant date of trap is ‘sine quo non’ established by the prosecution and further principle that if the alleged bribe amount even if it is recovered it is bereft of demand, then no conviction can be held under the provisions of Sec.7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act. 29. In a decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 665 between Som Prakash V. State of Punjab, the apex Court has observed that, “accepting illegal gratification – witnesses forming part of raiding party not independent – evidence regarding handing over money to accused unbelievable. Therefore, the conviction is not sustained.” In the above said case, the High Court has expressed doubt about veracity of the witnesses who claimed that money was actually handed over in his presence. Therefore, it ended in acquittal. 30. Not only on the basis of the above said principle, though witnesses formed part of riding party not independent, the Court also observed that evidence of such witnesses is unbelievable. Therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained. Therefore, it ended in acquittal. 30. Not only on the basis of the above said principle, though witnesses formed part of riding party not independent, the Court also observed that evidence of such witnesses is unbelievable. Therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained. Therefore, the Court has to examine the evidence of this witness to ascertain whether because of the said witnesses form part of riding party that alone is sufficient to discard his evidence in the absence of any other material to disbelieve him. 31. In AIR 2000 SC 3562 (State of Madhya Pradesh V. J.B. Singh), the apex Court has observed that, “the accused, a Police Officer alleged to have demanded money for releasing complainant who was being detained and which he got pursuant to said demand. Complainant himself turned hostile – Statement made by prosecution witness is that Sub-Inspector told him that accused be paid some money for releasing complainant – Can not be held to be statement to establish fact of demand – No material to establish alleged payment”. Therefore, in this context it is to be understood that in the absence of sufficient material evidence from the complainant himself who turned hostile and no other material is believable, in such an eventuality only the Court cannot convict the accused. 32. In another decision of this court in Crl. A. No. 1339/2010 (B.N. Swamy V. The State of Karnataka) delivered on 27.03.2005, this court has observed that, “when the riding party immediately rushed to the office of the accused after complainant gave the prearranged signal, they noticed the public were present in the office and the co-employees of the accused were also present. When so many people were present in the office of the accused and in the presence of all of them accused received the bribe amount from the complaint is also very difficult for the court to accept the same. Lokayuktha Police has not taken any steps to record the statement of one or two such independent persons confining it only to the statement of witnesses taken by him”. Therefore, taking it into consideration the High court has acquitted the accused. The above said ruling, in my opinion, is to be applied depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 33. In this particular case, admittedly PWs4, 5 and 6 are the witnesses who were present at the time of the trap. Therefore, taking it into consideration the High court has acquitted the accused. The above said ruling, in my opinion, is to be applied depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 33. In this particular case, admittedly PWs4, 5 and 6 are the witnesses who were present at the time of the trap. P.W.6, in fact had been to the office of the accused along with the complainant and P.w.1. It is not the case of the prosecution that some other persons were also present at that particular point of time. Therefore, PWs 4 and 5 who are the independent witnesses were examined by the I.O. in the case. Out of them P.W.5 has turned hostile, P.w.4 has partially supported the case. Therefore, it becomes duty of the Court to appreciate that evidence whether in any manner that would be helpful to either the prosecution or to the accused. 34. In another ruling reported in 2015 3 SCC 247 between M.R.Purushotham V. State of Karnataka, the apex Court at paragraph No. 8 has made an observation that, “the complainant did not support the prosecution case in so far as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint before LW-9 and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made demand, the evidence of PW1 and the contents of Ex.P.11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused.” On understanding the above decision again it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In my opinion, merely because the complainant turns hostile, it should not be in omnibus manner the said evidence of the complainant has to be rejected. The Court has to evaluate the entire evidence of the complainant and other evidence adduced by the prosecution to arrive at a conclusion whether there was any evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused. 35. The Court has to evaluate the entire evidence of the complainant and other evidence adduced by the prosecution to arrive at a conclusion whether there was any evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused. 35. Yet another ruling reported in 2015 Cr.R.293 (S.C.) between C.Sukumaran V. State of Kerala, the apex Court has observed that, “In order to prove Section 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) demand of illegal gratification by the accused is sine quo non for constituting offence under the provisions of the act. Neither demand aspect nor acceptance of bribe money can be verified from witnesses of prosecution. There is huge disparity between money allegedly demanded and paid to appellant by complainant. Burden to prove accusation against appellant for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) lies on prosecution. Phenolphthalein test cannot be said to be conclusive proof against appellant. Thee is no demand for illegal gratification on part of appellant under section 7. As such, question of acceptance of illegal gratification from complainant under provision of Section 13(1)(d) also does not arise. If the above said principle is applied the court has to examine the facts of the case in order to ascertain whether phenolphthalein test and other tests establish recovery of money/ bribe amount from the accused and whether the same was received by the accused on demand for to show any official favour in favour of the complainant. Therefore, again it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 36. Last but not the least, the learned counsel has also relied upon a decision of this Court reported in ILR 2016 KAR 2737 between The State of Karnataka by Nyamathi Police Station, Honnalli Taluk vs. Sri Kantharaj wherein this Court has observed and laid down principle which is a well known principle and long tested principle that: “If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has to be taken into consideration and if that view is favourable to the accused to acquit him, the appellate Court or the trial Court should not venture upon to convict the accused.” 37. I have absolutely no dispute so far as the principles laid down in the above said case. I have absolutely no dispute so far as the principles laid down in the above said case. However, as I have already narrated, in order to apply the above said principles, the facts and circumstances of each case has to be tested by the touchstone of appreciation of evidence. 38. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon some rulings in this context. In a ruling reported in (1980) 2 SCC 390 between Hazari Lal V. State (Delhi Administration), wherein the apex Court has observed that, “under the Prevention of corruption Act, acceptance of illegal gratification – passing of money to the possession of the accused can be proved by direct as well as circumstantial evidence – Circumstances leading to the only inference of acceptance of money by the accused – presumption u/S 114 of the Evidence Act and Section 4(1) of P.c. act also raised against the accused. If the accused fail to rebut the presumption his conviction u/S 5(2) r/w Sec. 5(1)(d) of the P.C. Act is upheld.” The apex Court also observed that, “in criminal trial, particularly in trap cases, the Court may accept the evidence of a Police Officer who laid the trap even without any corroboration, if his evidence is so trustworthy and credible for acceptance because the Officer is a public servant and it should be taken that he has done his duty in accordance with law unless it is rebutted.” In another ruling of the apex Court reported in (1996) 10 SCC 360 between State of U.P. V. Ramesh Prasad Misra and Another) the apex Court has observed at head note ‘D’ with reference to the hostile witness that, “Portion of the evidence of a hostile witness which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted. The fact that the witness resiled from the earlier statement made u/S 161 of Cr.P.C without giving any reasons as to why the I.O. would record the statement u/S 161 of Cr.P.C. incorrectly, raises doubt of their subsequent version in favour of the accused”. 39. In another decision reported in , dealing with the similar situation like witnesses turned hostile, the apex Court observed that, “it is trite that only because a witness, for one reason or the other, has to some extent resigned from his earlier statement by itself may not be sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case. 39. In another decision reported in , dealing with the similar situation like witnesses turned hostile, the apex Court observed that, “it is trite that only because a witness, for one reason or the other, has to some extent resigned from his earlier statement by itself may not be sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case. Keeping in view the materials available on record, it is permissible for the court of law to rely upon a part of the testimony of the witness who has been declared hostile.” 40. Looking to the above said rulings it is crystal clear that both the counsels are concentrating with regard to the evidence of the complainant himself who partially turned hostile to the prosecution. According to the learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the demand and the learned counsel relied upon various rulings. In order to persuade the court that even though the complainant’s evidence is to be completely re-evaluate by the appellate court to come to the conclusion, whether his evidence can be still relied upon with other evidence to hold that the prosecution has proved its case with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe amount. 41. On careful perusal of the entire decisions it should be borne in mind, of course the prosecution must prove the case projected by it beyond reasonable doubt by sufficient and credible evidence. If there is any serious doubt arising out of the prosecution evidence which go to the root of the prosecution case and if that doubt is not clarified by the prosecution by other evidence, in such an event, only the accused is entitled for benefit of reasonable doubt. However, the court should be always awake and alert in order to ascertain whether such doubt is a mere doubt or is so strong enough to cut root of the prosecution case itself. The doubt which rationally thinking man will reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy though unwittingly it may be or is afraid of the logical consequences, if that benefit was not given to the accused. Therefore, it is to be understood that the doubt should not be vacillating. The doubt which rationally thinking man will reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy though unwittingly it may be or is afraid of the logical consequences, if that benefit was not given to the accused. Therefore, it is to be understood that the doubt should not be vacillating. The Court should be always think and appreciate the evidence unmindful of consequences only in order to ascertain from the surrounding circumstances and appreciating the other evidence available on record to find out whether it is a reasonable and strong doubt in favour of the accused. It does not mean that the evidence must be so strong as to exclude even a remote possibility that the accused could not have committed the offence. If that were so, the law would fail to protect the society as in no case such possibility be excluded. Therefore, the doubt should not be fanciful, appreciation of evidence should not be on conjunctures or surmises or untenable which result in deflecting the course of justice. 42. So far as the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, the Court should be very careful in analyzing and appreciating the evidence on record because of the reason corruption is not to be judged by a degree, as the corruption destroys society from progressing, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of the Country. Now a days corruption has reached to such a stage that it has become uncontrollable menace to the society. One may think that, a day may come that if the Courts are not properly handle the cases of corruption, it may lead to the conclusion that, ‘unless total destruction of the world, there cannot be reconstruction’. 43. In various decisions of the apex Court, the apex Court has observed that, “corruption corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance”. Therefore, the courts should be very vigilant in appreciating the evidence on record. 44. 43. In various decisions of the apex Court, the apex Court has observed that, “corruption corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance”. Therefore, the courts should be very vigilant in appreciating the evidence on record. 44. So far as it relates to availability of two views as argued by the learned counsel, the Court also bear in mind that rule that where two views are possible, the finding of the trial Court should not be disturbed if it is an acquittal but it does not mean that in every case where the trial court acquits the accused by giving him benefit of reasonable doubt, the appellate court in the appeal cannot convict him, otherwise no appeal against acquittal can be allowed and error committed by the trial Court ever be corrected. Therefore, the Court has to be vigilant in considering the case of the prosecution and the defence of the accused in such a manner to administer proper justice by properly, meaningfully, according to law adjudicating the rights of the parties. Even the State has also an important institution which is set up for protection of the public at large. Therefore, in this background, the Court has to examine the evidence on record. 45. In fact, P.W.1 has stated that prior to lodgment of the complaint he had been to the office of the accused and accused told that complainant has to meet the Tahasildar and make an application for issuance of the death certificate pertaining to the wife of the brother of the complainant, then the accused told him that he has to deposit some fee. Then the complainant told the accused, as the Tahasildar has already passed on order why any fee has to be deposited, the accused thereafter met P.w.6-Ramanna and he told that the accused has demanded bribe amount by way of fee, then both of them had been to the Lokayuktha office and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.24. Though he has stated that he do not know what has been written in the complaint but he has categorically admitted that the Lokayuktha Police have read over the contents of the complaint at that particular point of time. This clearly discloses that it is not the Police themselves have prepared any complaint but it was prepared by P.W.6, read over to the complainant and lodged the same. 46. This clearly discloses that it is not the Police themselves have prepared any complaint but it was prepared by P.W.6, read over to the complainant and lodged the same. 46. Though he has stated that the accused has not demanded any amount by way of bribe but he reiterated that he told him to pay by way of fee. In pursuance of the same, he produced an amount of Rs.1,000/-as demanded by the accused before the Lokayuktha Police and pre-trap proceedings have been conducted. 47. It is further stated by P.W.1 that at about 5.30 p.m. on the day of the trap, himself, P.W.1 and P.W.6 all of them went inside the office of the accused, then the complainant questioned the accused with regard to his work and asked for death certificate of his sister-in-law. Then the accused told him that he has to pay the fee, then the complainant told him that he has already visited the office 5 or 6 times and the accused has been telling him to pay the fee, therefore, by saying so, he gave the money to the accused, i.e., Rs.1,000/-and requested him to do his work. It is further stated that the accused told him that he has not asked Rs.1,000/-but he only told the accused to pay the fee, then the complainant told the accused to take money and do his work, then the accused has received the said amount of Rs.1,000/-from his hands and kept the said amount in his pant pocket. Thereafter, the complainant went out and gave pre-instructed signal. 48. This witness has been cross-examined by the prosecution. In the course of cross-examination he has admitted that he has gone to P.W.6 when the accused has demanded bribe and told him that the accused has demanded bribe and it is suggested that the witness is telling lie before the Court in order to save the accused, if possible, by saying that, the accused has not demanded any bribe, inspite of that, P.W.6 and the complainant forcibly gave that money. He also further stated that when the Lokayuktha Police came inside the office then he told before them that the accused has demanded Rs.1,000/-and received the same from him and thereafter the post-trap proceedings were conducted. 49. The above said evidence of the witness has not been subjected to cross-examination by the defence counsel. He also further stated that when the Lokayuktha Police came inside the office then he told before them that the accused has demanded Rs.1,000/-and received the same from him and thereafter the post-trap proceedings were conducted. 49. The above said evidence of the witness has not been subjected to cross-examination by the defence counsel. Therefore, the evidence if it is meaningfully appreciated, it clears out the doubt that prior to lodging of the complaint, the demand made by the accused was spoken to in the nature bribe but during evidence the accused told him to pay the fee and thereafter only P.W.2 handed over money to the accused and he in fact received the said amount, counted and kept in his pant pocket. Further when the Lokayuktha Police came, P.W.2 has categorically stated that the accused has demanded and thereafter received the money. Therefore, on meticulous and meaningful appreciation of the evidence, it cannot be said that there was no demand at all by the accused, whether in the nature of fee the accused could have demanded that money or received that money is also a point that has to be considered by the Court. 50. As I have already made note in the above said paragraphs that the accused has not taken the defence that there was any due by the complainant to be paid by way of any fee for the purpose of issuance of such certificate as prayed by the complainant. It is not brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the appellant that, whether any fee was due or payable in accordance with any law or rule to the accused for the purpose of getting the said death certificate as prayed by the complainant. Therefore, in the absence of such elucidation of facts, it cannot be said that the accused could have received that money by way of fee. No effort has been made by the accused to give any receipt for having received such money and it is also not his defence that he was about to give any receipt for having received the money to the complainant. Unless such a defence is taken by the accused and established at least by preponderance of probabilities, it cannot be said that the accused has received that money either by way of fee or any amount due from the complainant. 51. Unless such a defence is taken by the accused and established at least by preponderance of probabilities, it cannot be said that the accused has received that money either by way of fee or any amount due from the complainant. 51. In the above said backdrop whether the prosecution has adduced some more evidence to establish the demand by the accused and the case of the prosecution is strengthened, is also a fact that has to be looked into by the Court. 52. P.W.1 is the shadow witness who went along with the complainant and P.W.6 on that day. He was having knowledge of the complaint averments which was disclosed by the Lokayuktha Police in their office during the pre-trap proceedings. This witness has deposed that on 11.09.2008 at about 5 p.m. the complainant, this witness and one Ramanna-P.W.6, all of them went to the office of the accused and they went inside the office which is a private house taken by way of rent, at that time some 4 or 5 persons were there inside the office. This witness stood at a distance where he could see the transaction between the complainant and the accused and also could hear the conversation. 53. He further deposed that the complainant went near the accused along with P.W.6 and asked for the death certificate of his brother’s wife, then the accused asked whether he has brought Rs.1,000/-and thereafter as demanded by the accused the accused, the complainant has removed the tainted currency notes and paid the same to the accused and accused received them in his hand, counted them and kept the same in his right side pant pocket. Therefore, it is crystal clear from the evidence of this witness in the examination-in-chief that the accused has demanded and accepted the said bribe amount. 54. In the course of cross-examination it is suggested that this witness was not at all there at the spot where he could watch and hear the conversation between the accused and the complainant and it is suggested that he has been deposing falsehood with regard to demand and acceptance of the money by the accused. Very peculiarly enough there is absolutely no suggestion to this witness with reference to the thrusting of the money to the hands of the accused by the complainant and P.w.6. Very peculiarly enough there is absolutely no suggestion to this witness with reference to the thrusting of the money to the hands of the accused by the complainant and P.w.6. Even thrusting of the money is not suggested to PW2-complainant as the entire evidence of P.W.2 has not been subjected to any cross-examination. 55. So far as the recovery of tainted currency notes, as I have already noted there is no dispute even the accused has also admitted the same in his statement recorded u/S 313 of Cr.P.C. as well as Ex.P.4 at the earliest point of time when the IO questioned the accused about the recovery of tainted currency notes from him as to how he got that money. Therefore, the explanation by the accused is not at all put to the mouth of the witness in order to probabalize the defence of the accused. 56. P.W.3 is the another panch witness. He reiterated about the pre-instructed signal being given by P.w.2 and thereafter he entered the office of the accused with the Lokayuktha Police and conducting of the post-trap proceedings with reference to washing of the hands of the accused and recovery of the tainted currency notes from him. In the course of cross-examination by the accused except putting suggestion that he has been deposing falsehood nothing worth has been elicited. Even there is no suggestion whatsoever with reference to the accused giving his statement before Lokayuktha Police nor it is stated that the accused has given explanation that the amount has been thrusted to his hands by P.Ws.2 and 6. 57. It is not that the prosecution has placed evidence of the above said two witnesses though they were called as riding parties, apart from that, the prosecution has also examined another important witness P.W.6-Ramanna who was the close associate of P.W.2. P.W.6 has deposed that prior to lodgment of the complaint, the complainant told him that the accused has demanded an amount of Rs.1,000/-for the purpose of doing the work of the complainant, then he told him to lodge a complaint before the Lokayuktha Police. Therefore, both of them gone to the Lokayuktha Office and lodged a complaint. He has also spoken about the pre-trap proceedings which has not been denied by the accused. 58. Therefore, both of them gone to the Lokayuktha Office and lodged a complaint. He has also spoken about the pre-trap proceedings which has not been denied by the accused. 58. So far as the trap incident is concerned, he stated that, on that particular day they went to the office of the accused and they told that, as talked with the accused on the previous day, they brought an amount of Rs.1,000/-, the accused received the said amount, counted them and kept that amount into his right side pant pocket and thereafter the complainant gave pre-instructed signal. After that, the Lokayuktha Police rushed to the office of the accused and conducted post trap proceedings, washed the hands of the accused and recovered notes and washed the pant pocket of the accused. Therefore, it is crystal clear that he is an independent witness who supported the case of the prosecution and P.W.1 has also fully corroborated the evidence of this witness in the course of cross-examination. Very importantly it is suggested that when they requested the accused to give the death certificate on the basis of the order of the Tahasildar, the accused told them that if they give Rs.1,000/-then only he would do the work, otherwise wither it is the order of the Tahasildar or the Deputy Commissioner, he would not do any work. This factum, in fact, is elicited in the cross-examination. Except denying the evidence given by this witness before the Court nothing worth has been elicited. Even there is no suggestion to this witness that the complainant and this witness have forcibly thrusted the amount to the hands of the accused. 59. Apart from the above, P.W.4 also, who was present at the time of the incident, though he has not fully supported the case but he stated that, on that day he was also present near the office of the accused and he has observed Lokayuktha Police entering the office of the accused and washed the hands of the accused and recovered an amount of Rs.1,000/-. In the course of cross-examination, of course, it is suggested that immediately after the Police entered the office of the accused, they asked the accused to remove the money and then washed his hands but the witness has reaffirmed as to what he has stated in his examination in chief that the Police have first washed hands of the accused and later recovered the tainted money. Of course P.w.5 has not supported the case of the prosecution except stating that he has seen the complainant and other witnesses on that day but he do not know what happened to on that day. Very peculiarly, the learned Judge has noted that, when the witness entered the witness box he saluted the accused and thereafter gave evidence. This apparently shows that this witness must have been persuaded by the accused. Even otherwise, as I have already narrated there is overwhelming evidence available on record. 60. In the above said facts and circumstances, the complainant, in fact, though has turned hostile but his evidence is not so unbelievable with regard to the demand of money by the accused. He only stated that he demanded the said amount by way of fee. As I have already narrated that no fee was due, the accused could not have demanded the said amount by way of fee. Therefore, though the complainant has not stated in so many words with regard to demand by way of bribe by specifically using the word ‘bribe’ but by analyzing the evidence on record and appreciating the surrounding circumstances, even the Court can definitely come to the conclusion that the accused has demanded that money only by way of bribe, though the nomenclature used by him was by way of fee, it can be safely acted upon such evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused. 61. The intelligence of the complainant turning hostile materially, if possible to safeguard and save the interest of the accused, such attitude of the parties should always be curbed by the Court and in any manner should not be encouraged for giving benefit of doubt of that particular evidence of the complainant to the accused. 61. The intelligence of the complainant turning hostile materially, if possible to safeguard and save the interest of the accused, such attitude of the parties should always be curbed by the Court and in any manner should not be encouraged for giving benefit of doubt of that particular evidence of the complainant to the accused. Therefore, in my opinion, though some doubt is created in the mind of the Court with regard to the hostility of the complainant, it is only a flimsy doubt and it can never be said that it would cause any damage to the prosecution case. Even otherwise, from such evidence of PW2, the demand was proved by the prosecution by other cogent and convincing evidence. Therefore, the prosecution, in my opinion, has successfully established beyond reasonable doubt the offence committed by the accused. 62. Once the recovery of the money on the basis of demand and acceptance by the accused is established, then it raises a presumption u/S 20 of the P.C. Act wherein the said provision reads as follows: 20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.— (1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption may fairly be drawn. 63. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption may fairly be drawn. 63. On understanding of the above said provision it is clear that once the public servant has accepted or obtained any undue advantage from any person, then it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved that he accepted undue advantage as a motive or reward u/S 7 of the Act to do official favour while discharging his duty as a public servant. It is not that the accused had no work with him pertaining to the complainant. In Ex.P.4 the accused himself has admitted that, he has actually given the said certificate to the complainant and thereafter the amount was thrusted to him. When once that document was given, where was the necessity of the complainant thrusting the money, if there was really no demand by the accused. Therefore, the Court has to draw presumption in favour of the prosecution that the said amount was received by the accused to perform his public duty and the same amounts to dishonest performance of the public duty by the accused. 64. Even on perusal of Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Act, as I have already extracted, the said provision also says that, “if public servant while holding the office as a public servant, obtains for himself or to any person any valuable thing or take advantage without any public interest by corrupt or illegal means, then it can be safely said that he has committed offence u/S 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. Therefore, looking from any angle, even after re-appreciation of the entire materials on record, I absolutely find no error committed by the trial Court in convicting and sentencing the accused. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, I pass the following order. ORDER Appeal dismissed.