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 27.06.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in R.C. No. 05(A)/2018-R whereby and where under the learned court below has held the appellant-accused guilty and convicted him for having committed 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 three years 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) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the appellant-accused was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant-Sanjeet Kumar Singh is a farmer from whom the appellant-accused, who was an employee of Food Corporation of India, Paddy Procurement Centre of Hariharganj in the District of Palamau, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/-. The complaint of the complainant was verified and found correct by Sri Ravindra Kumar Bharti and basing upon his report after verification, the F.I.R. of the case has been registered. Subsequent to registration of the F.I.R., a trap was laid. The appellant-accused was caught red handed while accepting the bribe amount and his hands were washed with Sodium Carbonate Solution upon which the colour of the solution turned pink. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant-accused for having committed 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. Separate 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. Upon the appellant-accused pleading not guilty to the charges, he was put to trial. 4. Separate 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. Upon the appellant-accused pleading not guilty to the charges, 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. Form the side of the defence altogether 9 witnesses were examined. 5. Out of the 9 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.5 -Sanjeet Kumar Singh is the complainant of the case. He has stated that the appellant-accused demanded Rs.4,000/- for weighing the paddy of the P.W.5. The appellant-accused was the Depot in-charge. The P.W.5 complained over mobile phone to the C.B.I. at Ranchi. He stated about pre-trap memorandum in detail. He went with the C.B.I. team to the Hariharganj Paddy Procurement Centre and met the appellant-accused along with the P.W.6. He told the appellant-accused that he has brought the money, he was asked to be brought for the appellant-accused. Then the appellant-accused told to keep the money in the sack of the paddy. Thereafter the P.W.5 kept the money where the appellant-accused told him to keep. After receiving the signal, the C.B.I. Officers came there and caught hold of the appellant-accused. Thereafter the number of the notes were compared with the numbers mentioned earlier and the same tallied. Thereafter a solution was prepared in a glass tumbler and the fingers of the appellant-accused were dipped in the same and the colour of the solution turned pink. The said solution was kept in a bottle and sealed. The currency notes were kept in an envelope and were sealed. Thereafter the search of the appellant-accused was made at the Paddy Purchase Centre and Rs.30,000/- apart from the bribe amount was recovered. He identified the appellant-accused in the court. At this stage, the P.W.5 was declared hostile and upon being put leading questions by the prosecution, the P.W.5 has denied the suggestion that he told the I.O. that on being demanded by the appellant-accused, the P.W.5 gave the money in his right hand, rather it is a fact that as per the direction of the appellant-accused, he kept the money in the sack. In his cross-examination, the P.W.5 has stated that the appellant-accused at the paddy sale and purchase centre did not demand any money from the P.W.5 directly. The appellant-accused told that money is required but he did not demand the money. After reaching the Paddy Purchase Centre, the P.W.5 kept the money over the sack. At that time, the appellant-accused was getting his work done. Thereafter, 4-5 C.B.I. personnel reached and one of them caught hold of the appellant-accused and another person picked up the currency notes from the sack. The P.W.5 did not know reading or writing English. He signed the papers on which something in English was written. On being told by the C.B.I. Officers, he signed the same. 6. P.W.6 -Maqsood Alam is an electrician posted at Daltonganj Post Office. He has stated that on 06.03.2018, on the orders of the senior officers, he went to the Circuit House of Daltonganj with his associate Shiv Kumar Sao at 08:30 A.M. He has stated in detail about the pre-trap preparations and he also identified his signature on several documents. Thereafter, they went to Hariharganj Paddy Purchase Centre. After that, P.W.6 & P.W.5 went to meet the appellant-accused. The members of the C.B.I. team were nearby. The appellant-accused demanded the money which the P.W.5 kept in the sack over which the appellant-accused was sitting. The appellant-accused picked up the same. After that, the P.W.6 signaled and the members of the C.B.I. team came there. The fingers of the appellant-accused were washed in white solution by which the colour of the solution turned pink. He has also stated about sealing of the bottle in which sodium carbonate solution which turned pink was kept. At this stage, the P.W.6 was declared hostile. On being put leading questions, he denied making the statement before the I.O. that upon the appellant-accused demanding the said money, the P.W.5 gave the same in his right hand rather as per the instruction of the appellant-accused, the P.W.5 kept the money on the sack. In his cross-examination, he has stated that his statement was not recorded by the I.O. The appellant-accused did not take any money from the informant. In his presence, the appellant-accused did not demand any money for giving or taking. 7. P.W.1- Amit Bhusan is the General Manager of Food Corporation of India. In his cross-examination, he has stated that his statement was not recorded by the I.O. The appellant-accused did not take any money from the informant. In his presence, the appellant-accused did not demand any money for giving or taking. 7. P.W.1- Amit Bhusan is the General Manager of Food Corporation of India. He has proved the sanction for prosecution which has been marked Exhibit -1. 8. P.W.2-Raju Kumar was posted as the Purchase Officer of Food Corporation of India at Hariharganj in the year 2018. He has proved the letter accompanying weighment check memo and acknowledgment form addressed to the complainant which was marked Exhibit -2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that no signature or seal of the person who has issued the same is appearing on the same. 9. P.W.3- Sheo Kumar Sah was posted as a Postal Assistant in the main post office of Daltonganj. He has stated that at the direction of his superior officer, he went to the Circuit House, Daltonganj. He also stated in detail about the pre-trap preparations. They went to Hariharganj Paddy Purchase Centre and reached there at about 11:00 A.M. P.W.5 & P.W.6 talked to the appellant-accused which the P.W.3 could not hear but could see. P.W.5 offered the money to the appellant-accused which was received by the appellant-accused in his right hand. Thereafter the P.W.6 signaled by scratching his head. The C.B.I. Officer -R.K. Prasad came and talked to the appellant-accused. Other members of the team caught hold of the wrist of the appellant-accused. On the instruction of the C.B.I. Officers, the P.W.3 recovered the money from the right hand of the appellant-accused. The number of the notes were compared and were found to be true. He also stated about the hand of the appellant-accused being washed in white solution by which the colour of the solution turned pink. The said solution was kept in a bottle and sealed. In his cross-examination, the P.W.3 has stated that he was standing at a distance of 10 metres from the place of occurrence. 10. P.W.4 -Amitabh Kumar is the Assistant General Manager of F.C.I. He has stated that in the year 2018, he was posted as Assistant General Manager in the Regional Office of Food Corporation of India at Ranchi. He has identified the letter sent by him to the C.B.I. Officer. 10. P.W.4 -Amitabh Kumar is the Assistant General Manager of F.C.I. He has stated that in the year 2018, he was posted as Assistant General Manager in the Regional Office of Food Corporation of India at Ranchi. He has identified the letter sent by him to the C.B.I. Officer. Along with the letter, annexure of four pages were sent which relates to the copy of the computer generated Farmer Registration of the P.W.5, the copy of Aadhar Card and copy of the bank passbook of the P.W.5. Along with the same, on 07.02.2018, a message was sent for purchase of paddy through SMS. The letter with its annexure was marked Ext.4. He stated in detail about the procedure for purchase of the paddy from the farmers. The appellant-accused was posted as Depot In-charge of Paddy Centre of Hariharganj and his job was to supervise the weighment of paddy and its up-keeping etc. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the purchase and sale of the paddy was made through bank account. He does not remember, whether any complaint against the appellant-accused was received by him or not. 11. P.W.7- Sanjeet Kumar is the Scientist who has proved the chemical examination report. He has stated that upon chemical analysis of the solution sent for chemical analysis, Phenolphthalein, Sodium Carbonate and Water was detected in the contents of the exhibits. In his cross-examination, the P.W.7 has stated about the age of the contents of the bottle which were chemically examined by him. 12. P.W.8- Rajesh Kumar Prasad stated he was posted as Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Ranchi in 2018. He identified the FIR and other documents. He also stated about the complaint made by P.W.5. He then stated about the constitution of raiding team and pre trap preparations. The complainant produced eight notes of Rs.500/- denomination each. After the pre trap preparation, the raiding team went to the paddy purchase centre of Food Corporation of India, Hariharganj and reached there at 11:00 am. P.Ws.5 and 6 went to the appellant-accused. After P.W.6 gave the pre-fixed signal, the P.W.8 and other members of the trap team reached there and disclosed their identity and challenged the appellant-accused of receiving Rs.4000/- as bribe. The appellant-accused became nervous and admitted his guilt and told that he has kept the bribe amount in the fist of his right hand. After P.W.6 gave the pre-fixed signal, the P.W.8 and other members of the trap team reached there and disclosed their identity and challenged the appellant-accused of receiving Rs.4000/- as bribe. The appellant-accused became nervous and admitted his guilt and told that he has kept the bribe amount in the fist of his right hand. Thereafter, P.W.3 recovered the money from the fist of the right hand of the appellant-accused. P.W.8 also deposed in detail about the post trap procedures including washing fingers of the right hand of the appellant-accused in the sodium carbonate solution and about the colour of the solution turning pink. The appellant-accused was arrested and on his personal search Rs.30,000/- was recovered. He submitted that he did not verify the complaint of the complainant. In his cross-examination, P.W.8 stated that he did not verify whether the complainant was a farmer or a middle man. After the trap he handed over the investigation of the case to Mrs. Veronica Lakra, A.S.P. and she submitted the charge sheet. 13. P.W.9-Mrs. Veronica Lakra has stated that she took over the investigation of the case on 08.03.2018 from the P.W.8 and during course of investigation, she recorded the statement of witnesses, sent material exhibits to C.F.S.L., Kolkata for examination and obtained the sanction for prosecution. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she did not investigate regarding the particulars of the land of P.W.5. She did not investigate about the complaint and the contractor harassing the appellant-accused and also regarding the complainant working as middle man at the purchase center and that the appellant-accused submitted an application to the Officer-in-charge of Hariharganj requesting for deputation of Security Guard for proper purchase of paddy. 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 wherein the appellant-accused denied the allegation made against him of demand and acceptance and he pleaded innocence. 15. Out of the nine witnesses examined by the defence, D.W.1- Abhay Kumar Singh has stated that no money was required in Food Corporation of India Purchase Centre and the labour charge for weighing each paddy sack was Rs.9.00. 15. Out of the nine witnesses examined by the defence, D.W.1- Abhay Kumar Singh has stated that no money was required in Food Corporation of India Purchase Centre and the labour charge for weighing each paddy sack was Rs.9.00. He further stated that on the date of occurrence he went to the paddy purchase centre, P.W.5 was also there and there was rush at the paddy purchase centre where the complainant wanted to forcibly get the paddy weighed and in this respect there was scuffle between the appellant-accused and the complainant. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the date of occurrence was 07.03.2018. 16. D.W.2- Binod Kumar has stated the same facts as P.W.1 and he has also stated in his cross-examination that the occurrence is of 07.03.2018. 17. D.W.3- Rakesh Kumar stated that P.W.5 used to bring paddy every day for purchase at one name or the other and used to enter into hot exchange of words with the appellant-accused for weighing the same. D.W.3 is a labour. He has stated that as the appellant-accused used to remain busy often hence he used to tell the farmers to keep the money over the sack. On the date of occurrence, P.W.5 got 200 quintals of paddy weighed which was in 500 sacks. The Purchase Officer made the paddy kept in the godown by taking out half of the paddy from each sack and kept the same into new sacks. In this respect P.W.5 paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the Purchase Officer and this was done by the Purchase Officer after the appellant-accused left. After the work was over, Rajesh Kumar-labour was told to take that Rs.3,00,000/- and hand it over to the Purchase Officer -Raju Kumar (T.A.). The Purchase Officer took the said money. The capacity of the godown was of 2000 sacks. P.W.5 and the Labour contractor were uncle and nephew by relation and both of them were working as middle man. The payment towards the wages of weighment of 500 sacks of P.W.5 on the date of occurrence was not given to D.W.3 and other labourers and the said money was taken by C.B.I. personnel. On the date of occurrence, the appellant-accused did not received any money from P.W.5 but P.W.5 kept the money in the sack. There used to be hot exchange of words between the P.W.5 and the appellant-accused. On the date of occurrence, the appellant-accused did not received any money from P.W.5 but P.W.5 kept the money in the sack. There used to be hot exchange of words between the P.W.5 and the appellant-accused. In his cross-examination, D.W.3 has stated that the farmers make labour payment in cash. 18. D.W.4- Awdesh Paswan, D.W.5- Mukesh Paswan, D.W.6- Sarju Paswan, D.W.7- Rabindra Paswan, D.W.8- Shankar Paswan have stated the same facts as stated by D.W.3. It is pertinent to mention here that the depositions of the D.W. 3 to D.W.8 are word by word same both in their examination in chief as well as their cross-examination. It is highly unlikely that if six witnesses are examined in a trial genuinely then they will depose word by word same facts in their examination in chief and in their cross examination the same questions would be put to them by the defence in same sequence and they will reply by using the same words. 19. D.W.9- Arvind Paswan is the appellant-accused. He has stated that no employee of Food Corporation of India wanted to go to Hariharganj purchase centre as the middle men were harassing them. P.W.5 and Suday Singh who is a labour contractor are nephew and uncle by relationship. The contract work was allotted to Suday Singh. He used to be involved in malpractice. Both the P.W.5 and his uncle Suday Singh made several transaction in the name of their family members. He has proved the document in respect of the same which was marked Ext. A. Both of them used to bring the paddy of other farmers and with the connivance of the Purchase Officer without looking to the quality of paddy, the same were purchased and sold. P.W.5 was signing himself for the entire paddy brought by him of different farmers. D.W.9 further stated that he submitted an application to the Officer-in-Charge of Hariharganj for providing Security Guard but the same was not accepted. He submitted a complaint to the M.L.A. and requested for deputation of a Security Guard. The M.L.A. recommended for deputation of the Security Guard but even after that no Security Guard was provided. He has further submitted that P.W.5 at 7.00 pm came with paddy in the name of his brother. At that time, appellant-accused was closing the purchase centre and was going. The P.W.5 told the appellant-accused to keep the said paddy. The M.L.A. recommended for deputation of the Security Guard but even after that no Security Guard was provided. He has further submitted that P.W.5 at 7.00 pm came with paddy in the name of his brother. At that time, appellant-accused was closing the purchase centre and was going. The P.W.5 told the appellant-accused to keep the said paddy. In each of the sacks 40 kg of paddy was there. The appellant-accused refused the keep the paddy. Thereafter, P.W.5 abused the appellant-accused in obscene language and as the P.W.5 was forcibly trying to sell the paddy hence, this false case has been foisted. In his cross-examination, D.W.9 has stated that he did not submit any written application regarding hot exchange of words with P.W.5. He denied the suggestion that he has been implicated in a false case. 20. The learned trial court after taking into consideration the evidence in record came to the conclusion that demand, acceptance and recovery and of bribe amount from the appellant-accused were found to be true. Hence, the learned court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused as already indicated above. 21. Mr. Arwind Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in record in its proper perspective and has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant-accused never demanded or accepted any illegal gratification. It is next submitted that the learned trial court has failed to consider that P.W.6 has categorically stated that there was no illegal demand by the appellant-accused nor the same has been recovered from the appellant-accused. It is next submitted that the learned court below has failed to consider the testimony of D.Ws.1 to 9 which was to be weighed in the scale of preponderance of probabilities and did not consider the same gives a clean chit to the appellant-accused as these witnesses have deposed in detail about the motive and reasons for false implication of the appellant-accused by P.W.5. It is further submitted that in the absence of essential ingredient of demand and acceptance of bribe money the presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not attracted. It is further submitted that in the absence of essential ingredient of demand and acceptance of bribe money the presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not attracted. It is also submitted that as the prosecution has thus miserably failed to prove the essential ingredients of the demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant-accused and the defence witnesses whose testimonies has not been demolished in any manner and which establishes the motive and reason for false implication of the appellant-accused is sufficient to show that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the appellant-accused. It is then submitted that therefore the appellant-accused be acquitted by at least giving him the benefit of doubt. Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Singh that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellant-accused be acquitted of the charges for which he has been held guilty and sentenced. 22. Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel for the C.B.I. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that as the P.Ws.5 and 6 after being declared hostile on being put leading questions have stated that on the instruction of the appellant-accused they kept the money on the sack, the same amounts to demand and acceptance and though the P.W.3 has stated a different manner of handing over of the money yet from the statement of P.Ws.5 and 6 as the P.W.3 has stated that he saw the complainant giving money in the hand of the appellant-accused even though there is contradiction in the testimonies of these three witnesses but the cumulative effect of their testimonies is that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe amount from the appellant-accused and the testimonies of these three witnesses were supported by the testimonies of P.Ws.9 and 8 who have also stated about the fingers of the appellant-accused being dipped in the sodium carbonate solution and the colour of the solution turned pink and this fact is also corroborated by the testimony of P.W.7 and the report of the C.F.S.L., Kolkata. To buttress her contention regarding presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, learned counsel for the C.B.I. relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Garg v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2020 (2) SCC 88 paragraph nos.16 and 17 of which reads as under:- “16. On the said aspect, we would now refer to Section 20 of the Act which reads as under: “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) or 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. (2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 12 or under clause (b) of Section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give 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 sub-sections (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.” The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be confuted by bringing on record some evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that the money was accepted other than for the motive or the reward under Section 7 of the Act. The standard required for rebutting the presumption is tested on the anvil of preponderance of probabilities which is a threshold of a lower degree than proof beyond all reasonable doubt. 17. In the case at hand, the condition precedent to drawing such a legal presumption that the accused has demanded and was paid the bribe money has been proved and established by the incriminating material on record. Thus, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act becomes applicable for the offence committed by the appellant under Section 7 of the Act. The appellant was found in possession of the bribe money and no reasonable explanation is forthcoming that may rebut the presumption. Further, the recovery of the money from the pocket of the appellant has also been proved without doubt. We, therefore, hold that money was demanded and accepted not as a legal remuneration but as a motive or reward to provide electricity connection to Nand Lal (PW 2) for the shed.”(Emphasis Supplied) Hence, it is submitted that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish both the charges 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 and the learned court below having rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 23. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the evidence in record, it is crystal clear that P.Ws.5 and 6 are the only witnesses as per the case of the prosecution regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant-accused. 23. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the evidence in record, it is crystal clear that P.Ws.5 and 6 are the only witnesses as per the case of the prosecution regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant-accused. As already indicated above, both of them in their respective cross-examinations in categorical terms have stated that the appellant-accused neither demanded nor accepted any money and they stated that P.W.5 kept the money on the instruction of the appellant-accused upon the sack. These testimonies of the P.Ws.5 and 6 contradicts the testimonies of P.Ws. 3 and 8 who are the other two material witnesses examined by the prosecution, who have categorically stated that the money was entrusted in the right hand of the appellant-accused but neither P.W.3 nor the P.W.8 have stated anything to suggest that the appellant-accused demanded the bribe amount. If the testimonies of P.Ws.6 and 5 that P.W.5 kept the money on the sack is to be believed, it remains inexplicable as to how the finger of the right hand of the appellant-accused being dipped in sodium carbonate solution, the colour of the solution turned pink is true. It is a settled principle of law 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. 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 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 , in paragraph no.23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has 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 thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rakesh Kapoor Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2012) 13 SCC 552 also reiterated the said principle in paragraph -21 after referring to the relevant cases as under: 21.” In para 25, this Court quoted the decision rendered in C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI [ (2009) 3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] and held that: (Banarsi Dass case [ (2010) 4 SCC 450 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 864], SCC p. 457) “25. … mere recovery of money from the accused by itself is not enough in absence of substantive evidence for demand and acceptance.” In the same para (Banarsi Dass case [ (2010) 4 SCC 450 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 864] , SCC p. 457, para 25), a reference was also made to Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.) [ (1979) 4 SCC 725 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 159] (SCC p. 727, para 2) wherein this Court took the view that mere recovery of tainted money from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. This Court further held that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. After underlying the above principles, and noting that two prosecution witnesses turned hostile, while giving the benefit of doubt on technical ground to the accused, this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and acquitted the accused of both the charges i.e. under Section 161 IPC and under Section 5(2) of the 1947 Act. So far as the principle of law in the case of Vinod Kumar Garg v. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) that in the fact of that case, the complainant-P.W.2 has categorically stated that the appellant-accused demanded particular saying that “Lao Paisa Do” and the P.W.2 paid the said money but there is no such material evidence regarding the demand in this case, as in this case P.Ws.5 and 6 both have categorically stated that the appellant-accused did not demand the money. So in the absence of essential ingredient of demand of bribe, the presumption in this case under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the considered opinion of this Court cannot be drawn. Further, the defence witnesses have stated the reasons of false implication of the appellant-accused. They also gave the reasonable explanation for the recovery of the money being the labour charges payable to D.W.3 and others. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding the essential ingredient of the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the appellant-accused, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the appellant-accused be acquitted of the charges by giving him the benefit of doubt. 24. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 27.06.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in R.C. No. 05(A)/2018-R being not sustainable in law is set aside and the appellant accused- Arvind Paswan is acquitted of all the charges by giving him the benefit of doubt. 25. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant-accused- Arvind Paswan is on bail. In view of his acquittal, the appellant-accused is discharged of his liability of his bail bond. 26. In the result, this appeal is allowed. 27. Before parting it is pertinent to mention here that the most disturbing feature of this trial is the manner of examination of D.W.3 to D.W.8. At the cost of repetition it is mentioned that all of these six witnesses have stated the same facts word by word both in their examination in chief as well as in their cross-examination. This Court has a serious doubt as to whether in fact D.W.3 to D.W.8 were actually examined in court as per law as witnesses or they were made to sign their depositions prepared by taking the print outs of the deposition of D.W.3 and just changing the name, parentage and address of the witnesses; as it is highly unlikely that if six witnesses are examined in a trial genuinely then they will depose word by word the same facts in their examination in chief and in their cross examination also in the same sequence, the same questions would be put to them by the cross-examiner, in same seriatim and they will reply to the questions put to them by using the same words. If this copy paste method of recording of depositions of D.W.3 to 8 has been done by the trial court instead of they being actually examined one by one then this is a most reprehensible practice and must be stopped forthwith otherwise the criminal trials will be reduced to just an excuse for a trail leading disastrous consequences. But one thing is crystal clear that the trial court failed to follow the settled principle of law by abdicating its duty to prune the list of defence witnesses. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arivazhagan v. State, (2000) 3 SCC 328 has laid down the law in this respect by holding in paragraph -17 as under : “17. The purpose of furnishing a list of witnesses and documents to the court before the accused is called upon to enter on his defence is to afford an occasion to the court to peruse the list. On such perusal, if the court feels that examination of at least some of the persons mentioned in the list is quite unnecessary to prove the defence plea and the time which would be needed for completing the examination of such witnesses would only result in procrastination, it is the duty of the court to shortlist such witnesses. We may also add that if the court feels that the list is intended only to delay the proceedings, the court is well within its powers to disallow even the whole of it.” (Emphasis Supplied) The Registrar General of this Court is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with the copies of the deposition of the D.W.3 to 8 to the Director, Judicial Academy, Jharkhand for the purpose of impressing upon the judicial officers during their refresher courses, not to resort to such obnoxious practice during the trial and also to circulate a copy of this judgment to all the presiding officers of Special Courts constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for reference. 28. Let the Lower Court Records be sent to the learned court below along with a copy of this judgment forthwith.