JUDGMENT : K. Somashekar, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Spl.Case No.67/2004 dated 2.7.2011 convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(l)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused was sentenced to suffer RI for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, and RI for a period of one year and to pay of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount, to further undergo RI for three months and six months respectively for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act respectively. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 01.12.2003 at about 15.05 hrs in Gubbi, the accused being a public servant who was serving as Second Division Surveyor in the office of Taluk Surveyor, Gubbi is alleged to have demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.300/- from CW. 1 with a motive to favour him in exercise of his official duty, thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. 3. Subsequent to registration of crime, PW.6 - J.B.Rangaswamy, the Police Inspector of Lokayukta, Tumkur secured P.W.5-Lakshminarasimharaju to act as panch witness. Accordingly, he drew the pre-trap mahazar as per Ex.P4 in the presence of panch witnesses and also in the presence of PW.3 -B.Shankaraiah based on a complaint as per Ex.P3 and so also, produced M.O.6 - 3 currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination. During the pre-trap mahazar, PW.6 held demonstration in the presence of PWs.4 and 5 that if the Government servant comes into contact with tainted currency notes which is applied with phenolphthalein powder, then his fingers will be dipped into sodium carbonate solution and the same shall turn pink into colour. This demonstration was done by PW.6 in front of the panch witnesses. During the pre-trap mahazar, PW.6 gave certain instructions to PWs.4 and 5 and also in the presence of PW.3 who is the author of the complaint at Ex.P3 and also facilitated with M.O.6 - currency notes. Subsequent to drawing the pre-trap mahazar, PW.6 led the team consisting the panch witnesses and also, PW.3 to the office of the accused where he was working as Second Division Surveyor. Subsequent to drawing the pre-trap mahazar, PW.6 led the team consisting the panch witnesses and also, PW.3 to the office of the accused where he was working as Second Division Surveyor. PW.3 tendered the tainted currency notes of Rs.300/- to the accused. Subsequently, PW.3 - Shankaraiah came out from the office of the accused and gave signal to PW.6 by wiping of his face with handkerchief. Subsequent to receipt of signal extended by PW.3, PW.6 rushed to the office of the accused where PW.3 had tendered the tainted money to accused and kept in his short pocket. M.O.6 was verified by PW.5 on which the phenolphthalein powder was applied and also noted the number of currency notes, which were tallied. 4. Subsequent to drawing of trap mahazar as per Ex.P5 in the presence of PWs.4 and 5 and so also, in the presence of PW.3 -Shankaraiah, M.O.6 was seized. Thereafter, PW.6 secured documents as per Ex.P7 - survey mahazar and application given to survey office as per Ex.P8 wherein the wife of PW.3 Shankaraiah has subscribed her signature. Ex.P9 is the attendance register and so also, programme register as per Ex.PlO. Ex.P12 is the chemical examiner's report. These are all the documents secured by PW.6 and laid the charge sheet against the accused before the Court below. 5. Subsequent to laying of charge sheet, the Court below framed charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, whereby the accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. Subsequently, the prosecution in order to substantiate its case, examined in all PWs.l to 6 and got marked Exs.Pl to 14 and M.Os.l to 11. Subsequent to closure of evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined as required under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 to enable the incriminating statement appeared against him, whereby the accused declined the truth of the evidence of prosecution. Subsequently, the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under section 233 of Cr.P.C., 1973 But the statement of accused was got marked as per Ex.Dl and signatures of PW.4 and 5 as per Exs.Dl(a) and Dl(b). The trial Court after hearing arguments advanced on behalf of prosecution and so also, the defense counsel and on appreciation of the material evidence available on record, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences. The trial Court after hearing arguments advanced on behalf of prosecution and so also, the defense counsel and on appreciation of the material evidence available on record, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences. It is this judgment which is challenged under this appeal, by urging various grounds. 6. Heard Sri Pavan Chandra Shetty, counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri Venkatesh S.Arbatti, Spl.P.P. for respondent-Lokayukta. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the validity of sanction order as per Ex.P2 and has come to the conclusion that the sanction order is valid under law. Without proving the sanction order to prosecute the accused, the judgment rendered by the court below is illegal and untenable. Whereas in the sanction order, PW.2 who is the sanctioning authority has mentioned that he had looked into the record that there was written explanation of PW.4 and PW.5 which has no bearing in the case except they arraigned as the witnesses. Therefore, PW.2 being the sanctioning authority had mechanically issued the sanction order for prosecution. 8. Further, in the evidence of PW.2, it is elicited that the amount received by the accused is the legal remuneration for issuance of survey sketch, if a private surveyor is engaged by a party. The same is reflected in Ex.D 1, which is the written explanation furnished by the accused when the explanation was called for. But the Court below has failed to appreciate this evidence and concluded that the sanction order is a valid order, therefore it requires for re-appreciation. 9. It is further contended that the court below has erred in coming to the conclusion that the charge framed against the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt. As per the complaint, the charge against the accused is that he demanded and accepted Rs.300/- as bribe for issuance of survey sketch copy of his land. But the charge framed against the accused is that the accused demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.300/- for measurement of land of the complainant. Therefore, the same is contradictory to the oral and documentary evidence available on record. 10. Further, it is contended that PW.3 in his evidence has stated that he has never filed any application before the survey office for measurement of land which is contrary to the charges framed against him. Therefore, the same is contradictory to the oral and documentary evidence available on record. 10. Further, it is contended that PW.3 in his evidence has stated that he has never filed any application before the survey office for measurement of land which is contrary to the charges framed against him. Further, he has stated that appellant/accused had issued notice to him for survey of land and admitted that appellant had measured and surveyed the land. This evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW.6 - IO and as per the documentary evidence as per Exs.P6 to P8 which negates the charge framed against the appellant/accused. This material contradiction has not been appreciated by the Court below. 11. It is further the contention of the appellant's counsel that PW.3 who is the complainant himself has admitted that there were private surveyors empanelled by the Government for surveying the land and issuance of survey sketch. PW.6 being the IO even though examined CW.4 who is a licensed private surveyor, he never tried to investigate that for issuance of survey sketch copy, the party has to pay necessary fees of Rs.300/- to the Government to get the said copy. To that effect, GO. bearing No.RD 208 BHUDASA 97(P) dated 6.7.1999 at Sl.No.46(h) has been notified. Therefore, it could be noticed by the evidence that both the witnesses had the knowledge of legal remuneration to be paid to get the said survey copy by legal means and further suggestion was also made to both the witnesses that Rs.300/- has to be paid as legal fees for getting the copy of survey sketch through the survey office. But, the trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that there was demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant from the complainant which is not a legal remuneration. On perusal of the totality of evidence, it is clear that the appellant had asked PW.3 to give Rs.300/- for the purpose of issuance of sketch copy as Government fees and received the same and also told that he will engage some licensed surveyor as discussed earlier at the time of survey of land on 12.11.2003 for the said purpose by depositing Rs.300/- to the Government. This evidence of PW.3 who is the author of the complaint and PW.4 who is the independent witness clearly corroborates and substantiates the probability which is explained in Ex.D1 - the written explanation of the appellant which has not been denied by any of the witnesses during the course of trial. Therefore, the explanation given by the appellant as per Ex.D1 clearly establishes that the amount received by him is towards legal remuneration and not an illegal gratification as alleged by the prosecution. 12. Further, as per the evidence of PW.3 and PW.6, the appellant had no authority to issue the survey sketch copy. His duty was to survey the land and to report before the higher authority. But the trial Court has given a go bye to this material aspect and believed the evidence of PW.4 which is contradictory to the evidence of PW.3 and Ex.PI. The allegations against the appellant/accused as per Ex.P 1 is concocted to suit the case of the prosecution. The defense taken by the appellant is substantiated by the evidence of PW.3 and PW.6 and as per Exs.P6 to P8 and Ex.D1. Therefore, the credence of complaint filed by PW.3 and documentary evidence is contradictory to the case of the prosecution. The trial court has failed to appreciate that the appellant did not demand and much less accepted any illegal gratification on 01.12.2003 at the place of occurrence, when the trap was laid. He contends that mere recovery of money cannot establish proof of the prosecution theory. If the genesis of the incident is not established, it cannot be presumed that prosecution case is proved against him. Further, it is contended that the trial Court has not put any incriminating questions during the course of examining the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 which has resulted in failure of justice to the case of the appellant. Therefore, in this appeal it requires re-appreciation of evidence of PW.3 who is the author of the complaint at Ex.P3 and so also, in his presence that pre-trap mahazar and trap mahazar was conducted by PW.6 being the IO. But the trial Court erroneously came to the conclusion that the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused from PW.3 is not a legal remuneration. But the trial Court erroneously came to the conclusion that the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused from PW.3 is not a legal remuneration. The trial Court has given more credentialed to the evidence of PW.3 and so also to the documentary evidence, which is contradictory to the theory of the prosecution. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case, has placed reliance on the following authorities: (2015) 3 SCC 247 : (2015 Cri LJ 72 (SC)) - M.R.Purushotham v. State of Karnataka 14. In this judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held "Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) and Section 7 - illegal gratification - demand not proved - acquittal restored - appellant a Second Division Surveyor allegedly demanded bribe for issuance of survey sketch, and was caught red-handed while taking bribe - complainant disowned making the complaint and stated that accused had not demanded anything from him and he did not know what was written in complaint - However, PW.3 stated that he accompanied complainant to the house of accused, wherein, complainant gave the sum of Rs.500 to accused as illegal gratification - trial court acquitted accused - High Court on basis of statement of PW.3 convicted accused under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act - Held, demand of bribe has not been proved by prosecution - mere possession and recovery of currency notes from accused without proof of demand do not constitute offence under Section 13(l)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act - Conviction and sentence set aside. 15. In the instant case the accused being a Second Division Surveyor was working in Taluka Survey office at Gubbi. PW.6, being the Police Inspector who led the team consisting PW.3, the complainant and PWs. 4 and 5 being the panch witnesses. These witnesses were present in the office of Lokayukta, Tumkur and in their presence MO.6 currency notes said to have been produced by the complainant and on that notes, phenolphthalein powder was smeared and the same was tendered to the accused by PW.3. But whereas PW.3 did not support the case of the prosecution and he has given a go by to the version of complaint at Ex.P3 and so also, mahazars at Exs.P4 and P5 said to have been conducted by PW.6. But whereas PW.3 did not support the case of the prosecution and he has given a go by to the version of complaint at Ex.P3 and so also, mahazars at Exs.P4 and P5 said to have been conducted by PW.6. But MO.6 tainted currency notes was found in the possession of accused and the same was seized by PW.6 by drawing mahazar as per Ex.P5. Relying on the above judgment, Petitioner's counsel contends that mere possession and recovery of currency notes, it cannot be held that the accused demanded and accepted the bribe in a sum of Rs.300/- (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014 Cri LJ 2433 (SC)) - B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh 16. In this judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe - In absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification or use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position for obtaining any valuable thing or for gaining pecuniary advantage, the abovesaid offences do not stand established - mere possession and recovery of currency notes not sufficient to constitute offence." 17. 2015 AIR SCW 2828 : AIR 2015 SC (Cri) 1200 - RPS Yadav v. CBI In this judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has extensively dealt with scope of Sections 7 and 13 of the P.C.Act. It is held that "Section 7, Section 13 - Illegal gratification - Proof - Accused a public servant alleged to have demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 1,500/- through co-accused from complainant running a tailoring shop for issuance of licence to him - although evidence of complainant and trap witnesses upto point of recovery of bribe amount from co- accused based on alleged direction of accused is not in conflict - But no evidence showing as to whether co-accused carried direction of accused by handing over tainted money to accused and whether tainted currency notes were recovered from accused - Demand, acceptance and recovery was chronologically proved as against accused not proved - conviction of accused set aside. 18. 18. In the instant case petitioner's counsel contends that mere washing of left hand and right fingers of the accused by dipping into the bowl containing sodium carbonate solution and the same turning into pink colour, it cannot be said that accused demanded and accepted the bribe money as per MO.6, for issuing survey sketch report. It is a usual practice of hand wash of the accused in a bribe case. But it is a duty cast upon the prosecution to produce legally acceptable evidence by subjecting the complainant to examination. But PW.3 who has subscribed his signature turned hostile in respect of allegation made in the complaint and so also statement recorded by PW.6. Merely because PWs.4 and 5 supported the case of prosecution, it cannot be said that theory of the prosecution it is found to be a gospel truth in respect of mahazars at Exs.P4 and P5. Therefore, petitioner's counsel contends that the above reliance is squarely applicable to the case on hand. 19. ILR 2010 KAR 1983 - State of Karnataka v. Anand Gururao Deshpande. This Court in the above case held that "there has to be an evidence establishing the demand and acceptance of the gratification. It is only on such evidence invoking of Section 20 for drawing presumption against the accused arises. The factum of acceptance of amount, if it is not proved by the prosecution then drawing a presumption under Section 20 may not arise. 20. In the instant case to come to conclusion as to whether there was demand and acceptance, the only witness who can speak is PW.3 who is the author of the complaint at Ex.P3 and he also subscribed his signature on Ex.P4 and P5. But PW.3 did not withstand the case of prosecution in respect of complaint and so also, statement said to have been given by him before the Police Inspector, Lokayukta. In this judgment, this Court has also referred to the decision of Apex Court in A.Subair v. State of Kerala wherein it is held that "mere recovery of currency notes denomination, by itself cannot be held to be proper or sufficient proof of the demand and acceptance of bribe." (2006) 13 SCC 305 : AIR 2007 SC 489 - V.Venkata Subbarao v. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P. 21. In this reliance, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that'' Section 20 - Presumption under, regarding acceptance of illegal gratification -raising of - prerequisite for - held, that the said presumption cannot be raised when demand by accused is not proved - Prevention of Corruption act, 1947, Section 4. 22. A reference has made been to Kalyan Singh v. State of M.P. (Reported in (2006) 12 Scale 577) wherein it is held that "the High Court while dealing with the matter, in our considered opinion, failed to apply the proper tests in deciding a case where a judgment of acquittal has been recorded. The views of the learned trial Judge cannot be said to be wholly unsustainable. It is now well known that if two views are possible, the appellate court shall not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of acquittal. We do not, however, mean to lay down the law that the High court, in a case where a judgment of acquittal is in question, would not go into the evidence brought on record by the prosecution or by the State but we would like to point out that even if the High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court, it is incumbent on the High court to arrive at the conclusion that no two views are possible." 23. In the instant case, PW.3 is said to be the author of complaint at Ex.P3. After securing PWs.4 and 5 and in their presence PW.6 conducted pre-trap mahazar and trap mahazar as per Exs.P4 and p5. But PW.3 has turned hostile and he did not withstood his version of statement made before the IO and also the averments made in the complaint. But the prosecution has to lead cogent evidence to satisfy the essential ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe amount to do official favour. Therefore, this reliance is applicable to the present case on hand regarding the grave man of charge against accused. But the prosecution has to lead cogent evidence to satisfy the essential ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe amount to do official favour. Therefore, this reliance is applicable to the present case on hand regarding the grave man of charge against accused. (vi) (2000) 5 SCC 21 : AIR 2000 SC 3377 - Meena (Smt) w/o Balwant Hemke v. State of Maharashtra In this judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has extensively addressed the issues relating to Sections 5(1)(d) r/w Section 5(2) - Penal Code, 1860 - Section 161 - trap-evidence - held, mere recovery of the currency note and positive result of the phenolphthalein test not enough in the peculiar circumstances of the case, to establish guilt of the appellant on the basis of perfunctory nature of materials and prevaricating type of evidence - charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt - criminal trial - prosecution -failure to examine or produce. 2005 Cri L J 1136 - State of H.P. v. Sukhdev Singh Rana The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment has dealt with Section 7, Section 13(2) - Acceptance of illegal gratification -Proof - in absence of evidence regarding demand of bribe money be accused - conviction is improper. Criminal Appeal No.975/2014 disposed on 12.08.2015 (Reported in(2015) 6 Kant LJ 263) This Court while allowing the above appeal has held that "the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt of the offence of bribery. Accused No. 1 has been convicted mainly on the corroborative piece of evidence rather than substantive piece of evidence. Evidence of shadow witness is also not convincing. There is no cogent evidence to establish that accused No.1 demanded the bribe amount from the complainant, nor there is positive evidence to the effect that accused No. 1 received the bribe amount on behalf of accused No.2" Laws (KAR) (2006) (3) 129 - State of Karnataka v. K.T.Hanumanthaiah This Court in the above cited decision while dismissing the appeal has held that "the impartial shadow witness to the trap proceedings is taken with an object of proving the case of demand and acceptance of bribe by independent corroboration Only on the basis of interest testimony of P.W.l it is not safe to base conviction. The order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is sound and proper." AIR 1987 SC 2402 : (1988 Cri LJ 152 (SC)) - G. V.Nanjundaiah v. State (Delhi Administration) In this reliance, it is held that "Section 5(i)(d) - offence under - proof - charge that accused (an engineer) accepted bribe from contractor working under him - testimony of contractor not found trustworthy - factum of acceptance of bribe not properly established -finding that accused was honest and his service record showing him to be an officer of integrity - not owning any immovable or movable property - held, guilt of accused not proved." Placing reliance on the aforesaid authorities, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the instant case, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to show that the accused has demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.300/- as an illegal gratification for issuance of survey sketch copy. The evidence of PWs.4 and 5 said to be the panch witnesses who were secured by PW.6 and in their presence and also in the presence of PW.3 who is said to be the author of complaint as per Ex.P3, the pre-trap mahazar and trap mahazar as per Exs.P4 and P5 were conducted. But PW.3 did not withstood to the averments made in the complaint. PW.6 has not understood the very purpose of choosing panch witnesses who accompanied the complainant for trapping the accused. Mere because, the shadow witness have given evidence for the prosecution, the same has to be in conformity with the evidence of PW.3 in respect of demand and acceptance of bribe amount. But PW.3 has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused in respect of demand and acceptance of bribe as narrated in the theory put forth by the prosecution. The evidence of PW.3 is contradictory to the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 in respect of pre-trap mahazar and trap mahazar and further contradictory to the evidence of PW.6, the IO who conducted the investigation. But the trial Court has misdirected as well as misinterpreted the evidence of these material witnesses and there are infirmities and illegalities found in the impugned judgment by the trial Court. But the trial Court has misdirected as well as misinterpreted the evidence of these material witnesses and there are infirmities and illegalities found in the impugned judgment by the trial Court. Therefore, in this appeal the impugned judgment has to be revisited and so also, the entire evidence on record has to be re-appreciated, if not, certainly it would cause greater injustice to the accused. These are all the contentions as taken by the learned counsel for the appellant and seeking to allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction rendered by the trial Court. Per contra, Sri.Venkatesh.S.Arbatti, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-Lokayukta has drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of PW.3-B.Shankaraiah, who filed the complaint as per Ex.P3 before PW.6-J.B.Rangaswamy, the IO, who investigated the entire case and laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequent to registration of the case in Cr.No.5/2003, FIR has been filed as per Ex.P11 and PW.6 secured PW.4-Sri.G.V.Narayanamurthy, who is the Panch witness in respect of Pre-trap Mahazar as per Ex.P4 and also PW.5- Sri. Lakshmina-Rasimharaju, who is also one of the panch witness. In the presence of PW.4 and PW.5, PW.6 drew Pre-trap Mahazar as per Ex.P4 and also Trap Mahazar as per Ex.P5. During the Pretrap Mahazar, PW.6, the Police Inspector of Lokayukta, Tumkur briefed the averments made in the complaint as per Ex.P3 to the aforesaid PW.4 and PW.5. PW.6 applied phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes and PW.5 counted the said tainted currency notes and placed on the table. Further, the hand wash of PW.5 was washed in the Sodium Carbonate solution and it turned to pink colour. Accordingly, the sample solution of the Sodium Carbonate has been seized in the presence of panch witnesses and also in the presence of PW.3- B.Shankaraiah, who is the author of the complaint as per Ex.P3. One sealed bottle containing the sample solution of Sodium Carbonate and one sealed bottle containing the resultant wash of the finger of PW.5 namely Lakshminarasimharaju, who have been secured as panch witness in respect of Pre-trap Mahazar at Ex.P4 which was held in the office of the Police Inspector, Lokayukta in Tumkur were seized and marked as MO. 1 and MO.2. 1 and MO.2. PW.3-B.Shankaraiah has produced three tainted currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination as per MO.6 on which, phenolphthalein powder has been applied on both sides of the said currency notes. The number of said currency notes have been noted down by PW.5- Sri.Lakshminarasimharaju and that amount has been kept in the shirt pocket of the complainant. PW.4-G. V.Narayanamurthy is said to be shadow witness who accompanied PW.3 to the office of the accused. The accused demanded and accepted gratification of Rs.300/ - to do official work by working as a Second Division Surveyor in Taluka Office, Gubbi. The same has been revealed in the complaint at Ex.P3 and so also Ex.P4-Pre-trap Mahazar and Ex.P5-Trap Mahazar. Subsequent to drawing of Pre-trap Mahazar in the presence of PW.4 and PW.5, PW.6 being the Police Inspector who secured the aforesaid panch witnesses and also team member to the office of the accused on 01.12.2003 at about 15.5 hours in Gubbi Taluka Office wherein accused demanded and accepted the bribe amount in a sum of Rs.300/- from PW.3-B.Shankaraiah. The same has been revealed in the evidence of PW.3 and so also the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5. The said tainted currency notes were seized from the possession of the accused and marked as Mo.6. These are all the evidence adduced by the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused that the accused being a Government Servant has demanded and accepted bribe in a sum of Rs.300/- from PW.3 which were marked as MO.6. 24. It is relevant to note that PW.3-B.Shankaraiah who is the author of the complaint, is said to have turned hostile but his evidence is in conformity with the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5, who are the panch witnesses to pre-trap mahazar as per Ex.P4 and so also trap mahazar as per Ex.P5. Their evidence is in further conformity with the evidence of PW.6- J.B.Rangaswamy, the investigating officer who laid the charge sheet against the accused to prove the guilty as contended by Spl.P.P. PW.2-Muddurangappa, is the sanctioning authority accorded sanction to prosecute the case against the accused as per Ex.P2. There is no dispute that the accused is said to be a Government Servant and also being doing official favour to PW.3, the complainant with regard to issuance of certified copy of survey report. There is no dispute that the accused is said to be a Government Servant and also being doing official favour to PW.3, the complainant with regard to issuance of certified copy of survey report. But the accused has demanded and accepted bribe in a sum of Rs.300/-. Therefore, the evidence of PW.3 in support of complainant at Ex.P3 so also the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 in respect of pre-trap mahazar as per Ex.P4 and also trap mahazar as per Ex.P5 are found corroborated with each other inclusive of evidence of PW.6, who being the police inspector, who laid charge sheet against the accused. 25. The trial Court had considered the evidence of aforesaid witnesses and also the testimony of PW.3, PW.4 and PW.5 and Ex.P4-pre trap mahazar and Ex.P5-trap mahazar. Even though these witnesses have been subjected to cross- examination at length, nothing has been worth while elicited to disbelieve the theory of the prosecution as putforth to prove the guilt of the accused that he demanded bribe and accepted bribe in a sum of Rs.300/- which was secured and marked as MO.6. 26. The second limb of argument advanced by learned special public prosecutor for lokayukta is that Ex.p1 is the sketch map of the trap prepared by PW.l. In his evidence, itreveals that PW .4 is said to be panch witnesses who accompanied with him and shown the place of scene of crime. Accordingly, he prepared the sketch report as per Ex.PI. PW.l has been subjected to cross-examination. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW. 1 who is the Authority and drew the sketch map of scene of crime. 27. PW.5, who was working as SDA in Tumkur Regional Transport Officer accompanied with the complainant to the office of the accused as on the relevant date and also relevant time. Therefore, it cannot be disbelieved the testimony of PW. 1 in respect of Ex.Pl, the sketch report and so also the evidence of PW.3 in respect of Ex.P3, the complaint and so also the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 in respect of Ex.P4-pre trap mahazar and Ex.P5-trap mahazar said to have been drawn by PW.6, the Investigating Officer who laid the charge sheet in respect of receipt of bribe in a sum of Rs.300/- which is marked as M0.6. The said bribe amount has been seized by PW.6 in the presence of PW.3-B. Shankaraiah and also in the presence of PW.4, who being the shadow witness and PW.5 who said to be acted as panch witness during trap mahazar at Ex.P5. Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances of the case put forth by the prosecution, it appears that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused who demanded and accepted the bribe in a sum of Rs.300/- from PW.3. The preponderance of probability is on the part of the prosecution. Therefore, the same does not call for any interference of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Act relating to the accused who had demanded and accepted bribe in a sum of Rs.300/-.The accused who is stated to be Government Servant and working as a Second Division Surveyor in Taluka Survey Office at Gubbi has demanded and accepted bribe in a sum of Rs.300/- as a gratification from PW.3-B.Shankaraiah by abusing his position as a public servant. The evidence adduced by the prosecution has been considered by the trial Court and has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the aforesaid offence by demanding and accepting bribe in a sum of Rs.300/-which was found in his possession. 28. In support of his contention, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Lokayukta has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases: M.Narsinga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported [ AIR 2001 SC 318 : (2001 Cri LJ 515 (SC))]. 29. This reliance is facilitated by the learned Special Public Prosecutor regarding scope of Section 20 of the Act. The prosecution has proved that the accused received gratification from the complainant. Presumption under Section 20 of the Act is compulsory and not discretionary. Therefore, this reliance squarely applies to the present case on hand where the accused has demanded and accepted bribe in a sum of Rs.300/- which is marked as MO.6. Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab [ AIR 2015 SC 1206 : (2015 Cri LJ 1442 (SC))]: 30. Presumption under Section 20 of the Act is compulsory and not discretionary. Therefore, this reliance squarely applies to the present case on hand where the accused has demanded and accepted bribe in a sum of Rs.300/- which is marked as MO.6. Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab [ AIR 2015 SC 1206 : (2015 Cri LJ 1442 (SC))]: 30. In this case, though the complainant had turned hostile but his evidence cannot be brush aside because he has given bribe amount as per demand made by the accused. The same has been produced before the police inspector of Tumkur. Subsequently, that amount has been seized in the presence of PW.4 and PW.5 and also applied the phenolphthalein powder and the said amount has been tendered to the accused in the presence of the shadow witness. The said tainted currency notes have been recovered from the possession of the accused. Therefore, presumption as envisaged under Section 20 of the Act would get attracted. Accordingly, convicted the accused and sentenced him. Therefore, this reliance is applicable to the case on hand where this accused has demanded and accepted the bribe in a sum of Rs.300/- which is marked as MO.6. Therefore, reading in its entirety, the evidence of PW.3-B.Shankaraiah cannot be brushed aside. However, his evidence is found in conformity with the evidence of PW.4, the shadow witness and PW.5, who accompanied the complainant to the office of the accused and also tendered bribe in a sum of Rs.300/- which was seized in the presence of PW.4 and PW.5 by drawing trap mahazar as per Ex.P5. The accused has been trapped by PW. 6, the Police Inspector in his office and also caught hold with the said currency notes and the same has been seized from the possession of the accused. Therefore, presumption could be drawn against the accused to hold that he demanded bribe to do official favour for issuance of survey report. Therefore, this reliance is applicable to the present case on hand. Hazari Lai v. State (Delhi Administration) [ AIR 1980 SC 873 : (1980 Cri LJ 564 (SC))]: 31. The sole testimony of investigating officer could be relied upon. Therefore, this reliance is applicable to the present case on hand. Hazari Lai v. State (Delhi Administration) [ AIR 1980 SC 873 : (1980 Cri LJ 564 (SC))]: 31. The sole testimony of investigating officer could be relied upon. The criminal trial - witness - 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 113 and 114 illustration (b) - criminal trial - appreciation of evidence. In this reliance, learned counsel addressed the issues at paragraphs Nos.9, 10 and 11. Therefore, rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of such officers should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration. In the facts and circumstances of the case, PW.6 being the Police Inspector who laid the charge sheet against the accused including the evidence of PW.4, PW.5 and PW.3- B.Shankaraiah, who is the author of the complaint as per Ex.P3 drew the pre-trap mahazar as per Ex.P4 by holding the demonstration in their presence by preparing Sodium carbonate solution and also washing the hands of the accused, who being a Government Servant, if he had come in connection with the Sodium Carbonate Solution, his hands turned into pink in colour. In the instant case, PW.4 and PW.5 said to be panch witnesses and PW.6 in their presence, drew pre-trap mahazar as per Ex.P4 and also trap mahazar as per Ex.P5 but there is no prudence which has crystallizes the rules and laws. But in the instant case PW.3 and PW.4 said to have been examined on the parts of the prosecution that they have been stated in their evidence in respect of pre-trap mahazar at Ex.P4 and so also trap mahazar at Ex.P5 said to have been conducted by PW.6, Investigating Officer and their evidence corroborates with each other. Therefore, the trial Court has appreciated the evidence and rightly come to the conclusion that the accused has demanded and accepted the bribe amount in a sum of Rs.300/- which were marked as MO.6. Therefore, this decision squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case. Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt of N.C.T. of Delhi) Criminal Appeal No. 1669/2009 (AIR Online 2019 SC 515). 32. Therefore, this decision squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case. Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt of N.C.T. of Delhi) Criminal Appeal No. 1669/2009 (AIR Online 2019 SC 515). 32. In this judgment, it is observed that "in the light of the consistent view taken by this Court in various judgments, we have some reservations in respect of the observation and findings recorded by this Court in P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2015) 10 SCC 152 : AIR 2015 SC 3549 . The matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders". 33. This decision is also placed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for Lokayukta relating to the accused demanding and accepting bribe from PW.3, who is the author of the complaint. The same is corroborated with the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 who were secured as panch witnesses by PW.6 in respect of pre-trap mahazar at Ex.P4 and trap mahazar at Ex.P5. However, the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused that the accused had demanded and accepted bribe in a sum of Rs.300/- which has been rightly appreciated by the trial Court. The Spl.PP by placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments, seeks for dismissal of the appeal as devoid of merits and to confirm the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in Spl.C.No.67/2004. 34. It is in this context of the contentions as taken by learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.PP for the respondent -Lokayukta, it is relevant to refer to the evidence of PW.3-B.Shankaraiah, who is the author of the complaint and who filed complaint as per Ex.P3. PW.3-B.Shankaraiah being the retired Government Servant attained superannuation in the year 1994. Subsequently, he being the aboard of Kallur in Gubbi Tlauk, owned 1 acre % guntas of property situated in Kallur village of Gubbi Taluk. His wife namely C.S.Kotamma had purchased land in the year 1999 to an extent of 2 acres 16 guntas. The said land was purchased by some other person namely Boralingaiah by executing the registered sale deed. He cannot remember that neither himself nor his wife C.S.Kotamma have filed application for measuring aforesaid land. His wife namely C.S.Kotamma had purchased land in the year 1999 to an extent of 2 acres 16 guntas. The said land was purchased by some other person namely Boralingaiah by executing the registered sale deed. He cannot remember that neither himself nor his wife C.S.Kotamma have filed application for measuring aforesaid land. But the accused who was working as a land Surveyor in Taluk Office at Gubbi had issued notice to him stating that he is visiting the land for doing survey and asked him to be present. Accordingly, the accused visited the land and surveyed it. Accused asked for Rs.300/- saying that he would set right all records relating to the land. But the accused expressed his inability to pay the aforesaid amount. PW.3 being the Government Servant and receiving retrial benefits on the first of the next month, the same has been stated in his evidence that the accused had demanded Rs.300/- in terms of bribe in order to prepare the sketch report. Because of the demand made by the accused, he approached PW.6- J.B.Rangaswmay, who was working as police inspector of Lokayukta, Tumkur and filed a complaint as per Ex.P3. But during the course of filing of the complaint, the Police Inspector who examined as PW.6 gave Micro cassette tape recorder to record the conversation in respect of the bribe amount. But the Police Inspector of Lokayukta did not produced the said micro cassette tape recorder in order to record the conversation that took in between him and the accused neither prior to drawing of trap mahazar nor after the accused demanding bribe as narrated in the complaint as per Ex.P3. 35. There is no dispute that MO.6 said to be tainted currency notes were seized from the possession of the accused under Ex.P5-trap mahazar. But the vital aspect with regard to micro cassette tape recorder is that the same has been handed over to the complainant by PW.6, the police inspector and the same has not been found place on the part of the prosecution and even the police inspector has not made any effort to seize the micro-cassette tape recorder said to have been handed over to PW.3 to record conversation in between him and the accused. This aspect has not been noticed by the trial Court by giving importance to the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 in respect of pretrap mahazar at Ex.P4 and also trap mahazar at Ex.P5 said to have been conducted by PW.6, the police inspector who laid charge sheet against the accused. 36. PW.3-B.Shankaraiah, in his evidence, has stated that he gave the microcassette tape recorder to the Lokayukta Police. But the same has not been either produced or seized under seizure mahazar. This important aspect has not been considered by the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused that he demanded bribe amount as narrated in the pretrap mahazar at Ex.P4 drawn by PW.6, being the police inspector who received the complaint as per Ex.P3. 37. CW.6- Dilip Singh, is said to have produced the currency notes before the Police Inspector, Lokayukta during the course of pretrap mahazar said to have been conducted in the office of the Police Inspector, Lokayukta. The evidence of PW.3 and PW.6 does not corroborate with each other, since the currency notes are stated to be produced by one Dilip Singh, constable who is sighted as CW.6 in the charge sheet. The distance between the Ganesha temple and the office of the accused is about one furlong. The tainted currency notes of Rs.300/-marked as MO.6 is said to have been tendered by PW.3 to the accused and thereafter remained there itself. Subsequent to extending signal by wiping face from hand kerchief, PW.6 rushed to the office of the accused and the accused has been trapped and the currency notes were seized from the possession of the accused. But PW.3 has stated in his evidence that the currency notes were dipped into the water and that water turned into pink in colour. The solution was seized in a bottle. It is PW.3 who remained in the office of the accused till 5.00 p.m. and got typed some matter, but he do not remember subscription of his signature on any document but he has seen Ex.P4, the pre-trap mahazar and trap mahazar at Ex.P5 where he has subscribed his signature. He had seen the application submitted by his wife Smt.C.S.Kotamma to the office of the Tahsildar, which is marked as Ex.P6. The signature of his wife was marked as Ex.P6(a). The Mahazar prepared at the time of survey is marked as Ex.P7. 38. He had seen the application submitted by his wife Smt.C.S.Kotamma to the office of the Tahsildar, which is marked as Ex.P6. The signature of his wife was marked as Ex.P6(a). The Mahazar prepared at the time of survey is marked as Ex.P7. 38. The application given by his wife Smt.C.S.Kotamma to the survey office was marked as Ex.P8 and her signature is marked as Ex.P8(a). But he do not remember that he had given any statement before the I.O. Therefore, the evidence of PW.3 and so also the evidence of PW.6, the Police Inspector who laid charge sheet against the accused by drawing the pre-trap mahazar at Ex.P4 in his office and so also trap mahazar as per Ex.P5 in the office of the accused and so also the application as per Ex.P6 and so also survey Mahazar as per Ex.P7 and so also the application given by Smt.C.S.Kotamma as per Ex.P8 appears to be clouds of doubts. 39. There is no dispute that MO.6, the tainted currency notes is said to have been seized by PW.6 from the possession of the accused. But the same has not been established by the prosecution by putting forth cogent and acceptable evidence to probablize that the accused had demanded bribe in a sum of Rs.300/- with the denomination of Rs.100/-each and the same has been found in the possession of the accused. But the accused said to have been given explanatory statement as per Ex.D1. In that statement PW.4 and PW.5 who are panch witnesses have subscribed their signature as per Ex.Dl (a) and Dl(b). The totality of the explanatory statement given by the accused as per Ex.D1 and so also the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 who were secured as Pancha witnesses in respect of pre-trap mahazar at Ex.P4 and trap mahazar at Ex.P5 appears to be inconsistent. 40. PW.3 the author of the complaint, turned hostile partially but on subsequent examination, certain aspects has been elicited. However, the evidence of PW.3 in respect of the complaint at Ex.P3 and PW.4 and PW.5, who are the panch witnesses secured by PW.6 at the time of drawing of Ex.P4 and P5 are inconsistent and also contradictory to each other and further, contrary to the evidence of PW.6 being the Investigating Officer, who laid the charge sheet against the accused. 41. PW.2 is the Competent Authority, who sanctioned and issued Ex.P2. 41. PW.2 is the Competent Authority, who sanctioned and issued Ex.P2. There is no dispute about the sanction accorded to the prosecution to prosecute the case against the accused. The sanction is accorded based upon the material documents produced or forwarded by the Competent Authority. Therefore, in this case, Ex.P2 is issued by PW.2, who is the Joint Director of the land records where the accused was working as a Second Division Surveyor in the Taluka Office, Gubbi. There is no dispute with regard to sanction accorded to the prosecution to prosecute the case against the accused. But the same ought to have been appreciated by the trial Court. But the trial Court has given credentiality to the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5, who were secured as panch witnesses in respect of Pre-trap mahazar at Ex.P4 and trap mahazar at Ex.P5 inclusive of PW.6, the Police Inspector, who is said to be Investigating Officer who laid charge sheet against the accused and said to have looked into the motive in filing of the complaint by PW.3 as per Ex.P3 and also he produced currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination of three in number which were marked as MO.6. But the said currency notes were said to have been produced by CW.6- Dilip Singh. 42. However, PW.3-Sri.B.Shankaraiah, who is the author of the complaint and he being the Government Servant working in the Health Department subsequent to retirement as Government Servant, was desiring to do some real estate business along with one Sridhar Rao. The said Sridhar Rao has not been cited as witness in order to disclose the fact that he and PW.3 were intended to do the real estate business. This vital aspect has not been collected by PW.6, Police Inspector of Lokayukta. 43. No doubt the bribe amount involved in the present case is only Rs.300/-. But the demand and acceptance of the said amount by the accused as per the narration made in the Complainant is required to be established by the prosecution by putting forth cogent, corroborative and acceptable evidence. There is no dispute that FIR at Ex.PI 1 is said to have been recorded by PW.6 and also proceeded for investigation by securing panch witnesses i.e, PW.4 and PW.5. There is no dispute that FIR at Ex.PI 1 is said to have been recorded by PW.6 and also proceeded for investigation by securing panch witnesses i.e, PW.4 and PW.5. As per the ingredients of Sections 7 and Section 13(1) the PC Act, the same has to be established by the prosecution without giving any doubt relating to the evidence essential for conviction of the accused. 44. Learned Spl.P.P for Lokayukta has drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 in respect of Pretrap Mahazar as per Ex.P4 and Trap Mahazar as per Ex.P5. These Mahazars said to be drawn by PW.6 not only in the presence of these two pancha witnesses but so also in the presence of PW.3- B.Shankaraiah. Therefore, it is on the part of the prosecution to put forth cogent and corroborative evidence to prove the same to secure conviction. 45. It is true that PW.3-B.Shankaraiah, is the author of the complaint at Ex.P3. There is no dispute that PW.6 said to be an Investigating Officer, who laid charge sheet against the accused and so also who drew the pre-trap mahazar and trap mahazar as per Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 respectively. But the material witnesses are PW.3, PW.4 and PW.5 and the entire case revolves around the evidence of these witnesses. PW.6 being Investigating Officer had been subjected to cross-examination and also incisive cross-examination has been done by the defence counsel to establish the guilt of the accused. But the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. If there arises any doubt in the case put forth by the prosecution, the benefit of such doubt shall always be in favour of the accused, it is the doctrine of the criminal justice system. 46. In this aspect, learned SPP submits that the preponderance of probability is vital in nature on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, there is no dispute about tainted currency notes said to have been seized from the possession of the accused under Ex.P5, trap mahazar and it is in the presence of PW.4 and PW.5 so also in the presence of PW.3, who is the author of the complaint at Ex.P3. But PW.3, has been partially turned hostile and he did not absolutely supported the case of the prosecution. But PW.3, has been partially turned hostile and he did not absolutely supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, there are clouds of doubts in the theory put forth by the prosecution. Therefore, in this appeal it requires revisiting of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court and to re-appreciate the entire evidence of PW.3 in respect of complaint at Ex.P3 so also Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, the pre-trap mahazar and trap mahazar respectively which are vital in nature insofar as the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act are concerned. 47. Merely because that left shirt pocket of the accused has been washed with sodium carbonate solution and the same turned into pink in colour, it cannot be said that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe amount which were marked as MO.6. But PW.3-B.Shankaraiah, who is author of the complaint in his cross-examination has stated that he do not remember where he had subscribed his signature in the trap mahazar marked as Ex.P5 said to have been conducted by PW.6, the Police Inspector in the office of the accused. But PW.3- B.Shankaraiah did not affix his signature at Ex.P5. Even though PW.3 has turned hostile, thereafter he was subjected to cross-examination but his evidence runs contrary to the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 who are the material witnesses to the case of the prosecution. 48. The entire case of the prosecution has been revolving around Ex.P5-trap Mahazar where the accused has demanded and accepted bribe in a sum of Rs.300/- as an illegal gratification to show official favour to issue certified sketch report in respect of the land which stands in the name of Smt.C.S.Kotamma, who is none other than the wife of PW.3, Sri.B.Shankaraiah. Therefore, in this appeal, it is required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record whereby the trial Court has given more credentiality to the evidence of PW.3, PW.4 and PW.5. The trial Court has misdirected as well as misinterpreted the evidence of the vital prosecution witnesses. The trial court cannot come to the conclusion that the accused had demanded and accepted bribe amount, unless it is established by the prosecution by putting forth cogent, corroborative and acceptable evidence. The trial Court has misdirected as well as misinterpreted the evidence of the vital prosecution witnesses. The trial court cannot come to the conclusion that the accused had demanded and accepted bribe amount, unless it is established by the prosecution by putting forth cogent, corroborative and acceptable evidence. But the trial Court had given more importance to the evidence of PW.3-B.Shankaraiah but his evidence is contradictory to the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 relating to pre-trap Mahazar and trap mahazar as per Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 respectively. 49. There is no dispute that the accused was a Government Servant. The prosecution ought to have established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. When the matter of acceptance of the bribe has not been established properly by the prosecution, certainly it would cause greater injustice to the accused. The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective on the part of the prosecution in respect of accused demanding and muchless accepting the illegal gratification. 50. Mere recovery of currency notes from the possession of the accused by itself cannot be held to be proper or sufficient proof of the demand and acceptance of bribe, unless the same has been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court ought to have considered the evidence in respect of the explanatory statement given by the accused as per Ex.Dl. Therefore, in this appeal, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court needs interference, if not, certainly it would lead to great injustice to the accused. 51. Therefore, in my opinion the appeal requires to be allowed and the accused deserves to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(l)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accordingly, proceed to pass the following. ORDER Appeal preferred by the appellant/accused under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 is hereby allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in Spl.C.No.67/2004 dated 02.07.2011 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. If any bail bond is executed by the accused, the same stand cancelled. If any fine amount is deposited by the accused, the same shall be returned, on proper identification. Appeal allowed.