JUDGMENT : Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 21.12.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIV-cum-Special Judge, Vigilance (Anti-Corruption Bureau), Hazaribagh in Special Case No. 11 of 2012 whereby and where under the learned court below has held the appellant-accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. For the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the appellant-accused has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one and a half months. It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant (P.W.6) –Rekha Devi was an Angan Bari Sewika-cum-Contractor for Building Construction of Angan Bari Centre and the appellant-accused, on the date of occurrence was posted as an Assistant in Block Office, Padma. The complainant alleged that the appellant-accused was demanding Rs.4000/- for part payment for completing the process of her file related to the said Angan Bari Centre as bribe. After several requests being made by the complainant, the appellant-accused agreed to complete the work upon receiving the bribe of Rs.1,500/- but as the complainant does not want to pay the bribe, she approached the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi. Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh verified the allegations made by the complainant in her complaint against the appellant-accused on 04.06.2012. Upon the complaint being found to be true, the F.I.R. of this case was registered. A trap was laid and thereafter the appellant-accused was caught red handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- and upon his hand being washed with sodium carbonate solution, the colour of the solution turned pink. Charge sheet in the case was submitted after completion of the investigation. A trap was laid and thereafter the appellant-accused was caught red handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- and upon his hand being washed with sodium carbonate solution, the colour of the solution turned pink. Charge sheet in the case was submitted after completion of the investigation. Charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against the appellant-accused for the occurrence which took place on 06.06.2012. The appellant-accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and he was put to trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined 9 witnesses besides proving the relevant documents which has been marked exhibits. 5. Out of the 9 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.6 –Rekha Devi is the complainant of the case. She identified the complaint submitted by her with the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi and also identified her signature over the G.C. Note Memorandum. She denied having submitted the complaint against the appellant-accused and submitted that her signature is only appearing on the said application. She further stated that nothing happened with her nor she stated anything before the I.O. At this stage she was declared hostile and even though the prosecution put leading questions to her still she did not support the case of the prosecution. She did not identify the appellant-accused in Court. In her cross-examination, she stated that she never met the appellant-accused and she does not know, where the appellant-accused worked. She further stated that she did not read the contents of the papers upon which she put her signature nor the contents of the same were read over to her. She has further stated that she was told that her signatures have been obtained in the papers relating to the construction of the building. 6. P.W.5 –Jagdish Prasad is one of the trap witness. He has stated that the occurrence took place on 06.06.2012 at about 12:00 noon. He was working as a Nazir in the Block Office of Padma. At the relevant time, the appellant-accused was posted as an Assistant in Block Office. There was a noise in the room where the appellant-accused was sitting. Upon going there, the P.W.5 saw 10-12 persons were there and the appellant-accused was standing. He was working as a Nazir in the Block Office of Padma. At the relevant time, the appellant-accused was posted as an Assistant in Block Office. There was a noise in the room where the appellant-accused was sitting. Upon going there, the P.W.5 saw 10-12 persons were there and the appellant-accused was standing. The P.W.5 was shown some water of pink colour and three notes of Rs.500/- denominations each were also shown to the P.W.5. The Vigilance people obtained the signature of the P.W.5 on the seizure list and the P.W.5 also identified the signature on the seizure list. The records were not given in his presence. The appellant-accused was arrested. P.W.5 identified his signature on the arrest memo of the appellant-accused. He was not examined by the Vigilance Inspector. At this stage, the P.W.5 was also declared hostile. Upon being put leading questions by the prosecution, the P.W.5 stated that in his presence, the body of the appellant-accused was searched and three notes of Rs.500/- denomination each were recovered from the right hand of the appellant-accused. The numbers of the seized notes were compared in his presence with the numbers mentioned in the G.C. Note Memorandum and voluntarily, he signed on the papers. In his cross-examination, he stated that nobody paid any money in his presence. 7. P.W.1- Keshav Kumar Choudhary is the Inspector of Police. He has stated about the complaint made by the complainant-P.W.6. P.W.1 has further stated about the registration of the case and constitution of the trap team. He has stated in detail about the pre trap preparations. On 06.06.2012 at about 06:30 am, the trap team departed in Government Vehicle to Padma and reached there at 11:30 am. The Investigating Officer of the case and P.W.2 were directed to remain present with the complainant. At about 12:10 P.M. P.W.6 after giving the amount to the appellant-accused came out of the office wiping her face. Thereafter, the two Inspectors caught hold of one hand each of the appellant-accused. Three notes of Rs.500/- denomination each were seized from the hand of the appellant-accused. P.W.5- Jagdish Prasad and P.W.4- Devendra Kumar Das agreed to be the eye witness. The numbers of the seized notes were compared with the numbers of the notes mentioned in the G.C. Note Memorandum. Three notes of Rs.500/- denomination each were seized from the hand of the appellant-accused. P.W.5- Jagdish Prasad and P.W.4- Devendra Kumar Das agreed to be the eye witness. The numbers of the seized notes were compared with the numbers of the notes mentioned in the G.C. Note Memorandum. Both the hands of the appellant-accused were washed in sodium carbonate solution one by one, the colour of the solution turned pink and the same were kept in separate bottles and seized. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that three notes of Rs.500/- denomination each was of the complainant. 8. P.W.2- Awdhesh Kumar Singh identified the report of verification. He has also identified the other documents. He further stated that the occurrence took place on 06.06.2012 at 12:10 pm. On being demanded by the appellant-accused from the complainant, the complainant gave him three notes of Rs.500/- denomination each. Upon taking the bribe amount, the P.W.2 who was standing at the entrance of the office caught hold of the right hand of the appellant-accused and Police Inspector Nawal Kishore Prasad caught hold of the left hand. He identified the appellant-accused who was present at the court at the time of examination of P.W.2. The numbers of notes were compared with the numbers of the notes mentioned in the G.C. Notes Memorandum. The body of the appellant-accused was searched and thereafter both the hands of the appellant-accused were washed in presence of witnesses. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that he cannot say how many rooms were there in the building were trap was laid. There were three tables in the room in which trap was laid. He cannot say towards which direction the main door of the said room was. He does not remember as to whether he has stated that the bribe amount went to the left hand of the appellant-accused or not. 9. P.W.3- Dina Nath Singh is the Assistant Engineer of P.W.D. He has stated that on 05.06.2012 he was posted at Building Construction Department. On that day, he was deputed as the Special Magistrate. Upon the same, he reached the Vigilance Bureau and a trap team was constituted. P.W.3 reached Padma in a Jeep. Thereafter, the complainant was called to Padma. Three notes of Rs.500/- denomination each was handed to the complainant by the officers of the Vigilance Bureau. On that day, he was deputed as the Special Magistrate. Upon the same, he reached the Vigilance Bureau and a trap team was constituted. P.W.3 reached Padma in a Jeep. Thereafter, the complainant was called to Padma. Three notes of Rs.500/- denomination each was handed to the complainant by the officers of the Vigilance Bureau. The complainant went to the Block office and P.W.3 and others were at a distance of 1000-1200 feet. Thereafter, they reached the Block office. P.W.3 saw that the appellant-accused were caught hold of by the officers of the Vigilance Bureau by both his shoulders. Three notes of Rs.500/- denomination each was in the hands of the appellant-accused. He identified the notes. P.W.3 has also stated about washing of the hands of the appellant-accused with sodium carbonate solution and the colour of the solution turning pink. In his cross-examination, P.W.3 has stated that the documents on that table where the appellant-accused was sitting were only seized. 10. P.W.4- Devendra Kumar Das is an Executive Magistrate. He has stated that the occurrence is of 06.06.2012 at 12 noon. On the date of occurrence, the P.W.4 was working as an Assistant in Padma Block. The appellant-accused was also working there. Both the appellant-accused and the P.W.4 were sitting in the same room. P.W.4 saw that the team of Vigilance Bureau came and caught hold of both the hands of appellant-accused and commanded him to bring out the currency notes. Thereafter, the appellant-accused took out the notes from the pocket of his shirt. The money was counted and three notes of Rs.500/- denomination each were there. Thereafter, the fingers of both his hands of the appellant-accused were washed and the colour of the solution became pink. The signature of P.W.4 was obtained on the seized notes and the bottle of the solution. The numbers of the notes were compared. P.W.4 in his cross-examination has stated that he cannot say how the money came to the possession of the appellant-accused. 11. P.W.7- Shankar Oraon has stated that on 29.05.2012 the complainant submitted an application before the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance Bureau) which was verified by P.W.2. He identified the various documents. P.W.7 has also stated about the constitution of the trap team and he has also stated about the pre trap preparations. In presence of the members of the trap team, the appellant-accused was caught red handed. He identified the various documents. P.W.7 has also stated about the constitution of the trap team and he has also stated about the pre trap preparations. In presence of the members of the trap team, the appellant-accused was caught red handed. After finding the allegations to be true, the P.W.2 submitted the written report. In his cross-examination, P.W.7 has stated that he was a member of the trap team as well as the I.O. of this case. No staff members of the office were made witness. He was outside the office at a distance at the time of giving and taking of the money. 12. P.W.8- Arjun Gope produced the material exhibits of the case in the court. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the materials produced by him in court were not seized in his presence. 13. P.W.9- Nawal Kishore Prasad was also the member of the trap team. He has stated that on 06.06.2012 at about 06:30 am, the trap team left for Padma and reached there on 11:30 am. The verifying officer and the complainant went to the appellant-accused in Block office and upon the appellant-accused demanding the said money, the complainant gave Rs.1500/- to him and thereafter came out and gave the signal. After receiving the signal, the members of the trap team went near the appellant-accused and P.W.2 caught hold of his right hand while P.W.9 caught hold of the left hand of the appellant-accused. From the right hand of the appellant-accused, Rs.1500/- were recovered. The numbers of the notes were compared with the numbers of the notes mentioned in the G.C. Note Memorandum and the same were tallied. In his cross-examination, P.W.9 stated that he cannot say in which direction the main door of the room was and how many rooms were there in that room. 14. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant-accused was recorded regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against the appellant-accused. The appellant-accused denied the allegation made against him and also denied all the material questions put to him and he pleaded innocence. 15. Learned court below after taking into consideration the evidence in record convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused as already indicated above. 16. Mr. The appellant-accused denied the allegation made against him and also denied all the material questions put to him and he pleaded innocence. 15. Learned court below after taking into consideration the evidence in record convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused as already indicated above. 16. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in record that the complainant (P.W6) has denied that the appellant-accused ever demanded any bribe from her and she even did not identify the appellant-accused who was present in Court at the time of her deposition in Court in this case. It is next submitted by Mr. Gupta that the evidence in record is insufficient to establish the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 7 or 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of the bribe amount from the appellant-accused. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-accused that P.W.2 who allegedly verified the complaint has not whispered a word as the verification having ever been done by him and though the P.W.2 claims to be an eye-witness to the occurrence yet he is not a trustworthy witness as he has failed to explain that if the tainted money was recovered from the right hand of the appellant-accused immediately upon the same having being received by the appellant-accused by his right hand how the sodium carbonate solution in which the fingers of the left hand of the appellant-accused was washed also turned pink as all the witnesses of the prosecution have stated that upon both his hands of the appellant-accused being washed in sodium carbonate solution, the colour of the both the solutions turned pink. It is also submitted by Mr. It is also submitted by Mr. Gupta that as P.W.4 who being an Executive Magistrate on the date of his deposition and thus a responsible officer of the State is expected to depose the truth, and he is undisputedly the eye witness of the occurrence has in no uncertain manner stated that the P.W.4 was sitting in the same room as that of the appellant-accused and in that room altogether three tables were placed at the time of occurrence but the P.W.4 has not stated anything about the demand and acceptance of money rather he has categorically stated that he has no knowledge as to how the money came to the possession of the appellant-accused. As per the version of the P.W.4, the appellant-accused brought out the money from his pocket and this testimony made in examination-in-chief was not even controverted by the prosecution which is contrary to the testimonies of other witnesses including P.W.2 who claims to be the eye witness to the occurrence. Hence, it is submitted that in the absence of any proof of the said essential ingredients of demand, acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant-accused this is a fit case where the appellant-accused be acquitted at least by giving him the benefit of doubt. 17. Mr. T.N. Verma, learned counsel for the A.C.B. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the testimony of P.W.6 that she put her signature on the G.C. note memorandum shows that she was present at the time of preparation of G.C. note memorandum which took place a day before the alleged occurrence on 06.06.2012 but she has not supported the case of the prosecution to help the appellant-accused with some ulterior motive. Hence, it is submitted that as there is no challenge to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that a pre trap memorandum was prepared and tainted money was handed over to the complainant and there was recovery of the tainted money as both his hands of the appellant-accused upon being washed in sodium carbonate solution, the colour of the solution turned pink. Hence, it is submitted that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the charges both for the offences punishable under Sections 7 as well as under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hence, it is submitted that the learned trial court having rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 18. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the evidence in record, it is crystal clear that P.W.6-complainant who could have been the best witness for the prosecution to establish the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant-accused; has not supported the case of the prosecution. She has categorically stated that nothing happened and she never made any complaint against the appellant-accused. P.W.4 as per the case of the prosecution undisputedly was a person who was sitting in the same room with the appellant-accused and thus was expected to see the alleged occurrence including the alleged demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant-accused; has expressed his ignorance of the manner by which the tainted money came into the pocket of the appellant-accused. Though the P.W.2 claims that he was the eye witness to the occurrence and as per the version of P.W.2 the moment the appellant-accused received tainted bribe money by his right hand, the P.W.2 immediately caught hold of his right hand, this excludes the left hand of appellant-accused from coming in contact with the tainted money and thereby his left hand being tainted with phenolphthalein powder is ruled out and this contradicts the testimony of P.W.4 according to which the appellant-accused on being challenged by the officers of the Vigilance Bureau brought out the money from the pocket of his shirt. Hence the testimony of P.W.4 is certainly not of unimpeachable character to base a conviction overlooking the other evidence contradicting his testimony as already discussed above. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence in record is insufficient to establish the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance for establishing the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the appellant-accused. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence in record is insufficient to establish the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance for establishing the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the appellant-accused. It is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not be sufficient to bring home the charges for the offence punishable under Section 7 or 13 (2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the said Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55 , paragraph nos.8 and 9 of which reads as under:- “8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar 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 (Ext. P-11) before LW 9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW 1 and the contents of Ext. 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. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. 9. Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 , paragraph no.23 has also held that the proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence of the evidence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore, would fail. 19. Because of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence in record is insufficient to establish the ingredients of demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant-accused which are essential to establish the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and thus this is a fit case where the appellant-accused be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. 20. 20. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 21.12.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-XIV-cum-Spl. Judge Vigilance (A.C.B.), Hazaribag in Special Case No.11 of 2012 being not sustainable in law is set aside and the appellant accused- Binod Kumar Paswan is acquitted of all the charges by giving him the benefit of doubt. 21. The appellant-accused- Binod Kumar Paswan is on bail. In view of his acquittal, the appellant-accused is discharged of the liability of his bail bond. 22. In the result, this appeal is allowed. 23. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith.