JUDGMENT : 1. 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 21.01.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. No. 19(A)/2012-D whereby and where under, the learned court below has held the appellant-convict guilty for the offences punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 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 two years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each separately for the offences punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in case of failure to deposit the fine amount, the convict was further directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant was a contractor who participated in the tender for his proprietary firm M/s. Sonu Enterprises. The tender was opened. The bid of the complainant was found to be the lowest one and the same was sent by the tender committee for approval. During the process, the concerned note-sheet was sent to the Civil Department. The appellant-convict being one of the member of the Tender Committee was to put his signature on the said note-sheet approving the tender to be awarded to the complainant and on 27.08.2012, the complainant went to the appellant-convict who was posted as Assistant Manager (Finance) and requested to put his signature on the tender file but the appellant-convict demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000/-. The complainant-Sugriw Singh (P.W.3) submitted a written application to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. on 27.08.2012. The matter was verified by P.W.5- Prasannjit Mukharjee, Sub-Inspector of Police, C.B.I. On the basis of verification report, FIR of this case was registered. A trap was laid. The appellant-convict was caught red handed while accepting the bribe amount. Sanction of prosecution was obtained. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was submitted against the appellant-convict. A trap was laid. The appellant-convict was caught red handed while accepting the bribe amount. Sanction of prosecution was obtained. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was submitted against the appellant-convict. Separate charges were framed against the appellant-convict for having committed the offence on 28.08.2012 of demanding, accepting the illegal gratification of Rs.20,000/- punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined 13 witnesses besides proving the relevant documents and material exhibits while one witness was examined on behalf of the defence. 5. Out of the 13 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.3 –Sugriw Singh is the complainant himself. He has deposed that in the year 2012, a tender was floated by the Civil Department of East Jharia area of BCCL. After the tender was opened, the complainant was found the lowest bidder. The members of the Tender Committee were to sign on the file related to allocation of work. The appellant-convict was one of the member of the committee. The file went to the table of the appellant-convict. The complainant approached the appellant-convict as the file was remaining in the table of the appellant-convict. The appellant-convict demanded Rs.20,000/- as bribe to process the file of the complainant. The complainant did not want to pay the bribe. Hence, he submitted a written report to Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. on 27.08.2012. P.W.5 was sent along with the complainant to the office of the appellant-convict for verification of the complaint of the complainant but at that time, the appellant-convict was not available in his office. P.W.3 contacted the appellant-convict over phone. The appellant-convict called the P.W.3 to his office on the next day at 10:00 am. P.W.3 again stated that on the next day, the appellant-convict called him with money to his office. He went back without meeting the appellant-convict to C.B.I. office. He was called to C.B.I. office on 28.08.2012 at 08:00 am. He went to the C.B.I. office on 28.08.2012 at 08:00 am. He has stated about the members of the trap team and the pre-trap preparations in detail. At about 10:00 am, they reached the office of the appellant-convict. He went back without meeting the appellant-convict to C.B.I. office. He was called to C.B.I. office on 28.08.2012 at 08:00 am. He went to the C.B.I. office on 28.08.2012 at 08:00 am. He has stated about the members of the trap team and the pre-trap preparations in detail. At about 10:00 am, they reached the office of the appellant-convict. P.W.3 contacted the appellant-convict over mobile phone. The appellant-convict told the P.W.3 to wait in the parking area of the office. Thereafter, the P.W.3 and the shadow witness Satish Kumar (P.W.7) reached there. After sometime, the appellant-convict reached there. P.W.3 told the appellant-convict that he has brought the money which was told by the appellant-convict and gave Rs.20,000/-. The appellant-convict told it’s alright and the appellant-convict after making a noting on the file of the P.W.3, put his signature and moved the file. The appellant-convict caught the money with his right hand and put the money in his right pocket. Thereafter, the appellant-convict proceeded towards his chamber. After that the P.W.3 signaled by scratching his hair. By the time, the C.B.I. personnel moved towards the appellant-convict, the appellant-convict had entered inside his office. The C.B.I. officers upon entering the office of the appellant-convict disclosed their identity and challenged him of receiving Rs.20,000/-. The appellant-convict became worried and told that he be excused as he has committed a wrong. The C.B.I. officers thereafter intimated him of his being arrested and caught hold of both his wrists and enquired from the appellant-convict where the money is. The appellant-convict told that the money is in his pant. At this, Shankar Bhatia (P.W.6) was ordered to seize the money from the pocket of the pant of the appellant-convict. The P.W.6 recovered the said money and got the number of the said notes tallied with the number of notes recorded earlier. The money was kept in an envelope and sealed. P.W.3 has also stated about the post-trap formalities. P.W.3 further stated that the fingers of the right hand of the appellant-convict were dipped in the milky white solution and the colour of the solution turned pink. P.W.3 identified the appellant-convict who was present in court. In his cross-examination, P.W.3 has stated that he is associated with the Trade Union Janta Majdur Sangh and he is also working as a contractor in BCCL since 1995. P.W.3 identified the appellant-convict who was present in court. In his cross-examination, P.W.3 has stated that he is associated with the Trade Union Janta Majdur Sangh and he is also working as a contractor in BCCL since 1995. In paragraph no.36, he has stated that on 17.07.2012 a note-sheet was prepared. The appellant-convict singed upon the same on 31.07.2012. He cannot say how many members were there in the Tender Committee. The recommendation of the Tender Committee was dated 31.07.2012. He does not know the entire procedure. He does not know on 31.07.2012 apart from the tender file, upon which other files the appellant-convict put his signature. He did not see the tender file before making the complaint. In paragraph no.55, he has stated that the appellant-convict told him to wait and as the appellant-convict came, P.W.3 wished him, shook his hand and immediately gave money and signaled to C.B.I. He was involved in another case but he has been acquitted in that case. 6. P.W.7 –Satish Kumar was working as a Postal Assistant. He has stated about the complaint submitted by P.W.3 and the pre-trap preparations in detail. They reached the Eastern Area Jharia office at about 10:00 am. P.W.3 contacted the appellant-convict over phone. The appellant-convict told him to stay at the parking area. The appellant-convict came. The P.W.3 alighted from the vehicle and talked to the appellant-convict. P.W.3 wished the appellant-convict by saying “Pranam Sir”. The P.W.3 said “I have brought Rs.20,000/-“ at which the appellant-convict told alright, give it. Thereafter, the P.W.3 brought out the money from his pocket and gave on the right hand of the appellant-convict who kept the same in the right side pocket of his pant and told the P.W.3 to go and the appellant-convict will sign the tender file of P.W.3 and will send it. The P.W.3 gave the signal at which all persons went to the office of the appellant-convict. The C.B.I. Inspector- S.K. Jha (P.W.11) challenged the appellant-convict of taking Rs.20,000/- as bribe. The appellant-convict became nervous and told that he has committed a wrong and begged to be excused. P.W.7 has also stated about the fingers of the appellant-convict being dipped in milky white solution and the colour of the solution turned pink. He has also stated about the post-trap formalities. The appellant-convict became nervous and told that he has committed a wrong and begged to be excused. P.W.7 has also stated about the fingers of the appellant-convict being dipped in milky white solution and the colour of the solution turned pink. He has also stated about the post-trap formalities. In his cross-examination, P.W.7 has stated that he cannot say for how long the P.W.3 talked over phone. He did not know that the tender file was signed by the appellant-convict on 31.07.2012. In paragraph no.82, P.W.7 denied the suggestion that upon being caught red handed, the appellant-convict told to be excused as he has committed a wrong. 7. P.W.6 –Shankar Bhatia was another independent witness. He has stated that in the year 2012, he was working as Audit Supervisor. He has stated in detail about the complaint of the P.W.3 and the pre-trap preparations. They reached the parking area of Bhoura. After sometime, the appellant-convict came there. Upon receiving the signal, the C.B.I. personnel and the P.W.6 went to the office of the appellant-convict and challenged him of taking Rs.20,000/- as bribe. Thereafter, he was arrested. The appellant-convict became worried on being questioned by C.B.I. and told that he has committed a wrong and he be excused. Thereafter, the milky white solution was prepared and the hand of the appellant-convict was washed with the same and the colour of the solution turned pink. P.W.6 was told to bring out the bribe money from the pocket of the appellant-convict and the P.W.6 brought out Rs.20,000/- from the right side pocket of the pant of the appellant-convict. He has also stated about the post-trap preparations. In his cross-examination, P.W.6 has stated that the signal was given by P.W.7. He has deposed in about 20 cases of C.B.I. 8. P.W.5 –Prasannjeet Mukharjee is the verification officer of the case. He has stated about the complaint of P.W.3 and the endorsement upon it by Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. for verification of the complaint by P.W.5. He went to Bhoura area office of BCCL to verify the complaint of P.W.3. He found the complaint to be genuine. From the sources, P.W.5 collected the mobile number of appellant-convict and told the P.W.3 to talk to the appellant-convict over phone. He heard the demand by the appellant-convict over phone and after being satisfied about the demand he recommended for registration of the case. He found the complaint to be genuine. From the sources, P.W.5 collected the mobile number of appellant-convict and told the P.W.3 to talk to the appellant-convict over phone. He heard the demand by the appellant-convict over phone and after being satisfied about the demand he recommended for registration of the case. P.W.5 has also stated about the pre-trap preparations in detail. P.W.3 was instructed that he will give the money to the appellant-convict if the appellant-convict will demand the same otherwise not. Upon reaching the spot, P.W.11 told the P.W.3 that he will give the bribe money only if demanded by the appellant-convict otherwise not. P.W.7 was told to give the pre-fixed signal to the other team members upon the appellant-convict accepting the bribe. After sometime, the P.W.7 gave the pre-fixed signal and all the members of the team ran towards the appellant-convict. P.W.11 challenged the appellant-convict of demanding and accepting Rs.20,000/- from the P.W.3 at which the appellant-convict became pale and nervous and begged to be excused. The appellant-convict was arrested. On the instruction of P.W.11, P.W.6 recovered the bribe money from the pocket of the appellant-convict. He cannot say from which side of the pocket; the money was recovered. P.W.5 has also stated about the post-trap formalities including the fingers of the appellant-convict being dipped in the solution and also about the colour of the solution turning pink. The right pocket of the pant of the appellant-convict was also put in sodium carbonate solution and the colour of the solution turned from white to pink. In his cross-examination, P.W.5 has stated that after the price bid was opened note-sheet was prepared and the members of the Tender Committee put their respective signatures over the same. He does not know what the process is. The conversation between the appellant-convict and the P.W.3 was on speaker mode hence, P.W.5 could hear the same. In the verification, he has not mentioned that he heard the demand of the appellant-convict. 9. P.W.11 –Sanjeev Kumar Jha is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated about the complaint made by P.W.3 and the pre-trap preparations in details. They reached the EJ area Bhoura at 10:00 am. P.W.3 contacted the appellant-convict over cell phone. Thereafter, the P.Ws.3 and 7 reached the parking area. Thereafter, the appellant-convict came there. 9. P.W.11 –Sanjeev Kumar Jha is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated about the complaint made by P.W.3 and the pre-trap preparations in details. They reached the EJ area Bhoura at 10:00 am. P.W.3 contacted the appellant-convict over cell phone. Thereafter, the P.Ws.3 and 7 reached the parking area. Thereafter, the appellant-convict came there. P.W.3 wished him and told that there was conversation between the P.W.3 and the appellant-convict and he has brought that 20,000/- rupees at which the appellant-convict told that it’s alright give that. Thereafter, the P.W.3 brought out the money from his pocket and the appellant-convict received the said money on his right hand and kept on the right side pocket of his full pant and went to his office. P.W.7 heard all these things. P.W.3 signaled at which all the trap team members and the independent witnesses and the P.W.3 reached the office of the appellant-convict and disclosed their identity and challenged him of receiving the bribe money. Thereafter, the P.W.6 checked the pocket of the appellant-convict and recovered Rs.20,000/-. The numbers of the notes tallied. The sodium carbonate solution was prepared and the fingers of the right hand of the appellant-convict was washed in the same, the colour of the solution turned red and the same was kept in the bottle and sealed. He has stated about the post-trap preparations. In his cross-examination, P.W.11 has stated that he was the Trap Laying Officer (T.L.O.) of this case. He has stated that in the statement of P.W.6 recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he has stated that he reached the C.B.I. office at 13 hours but it is a clerical mistake. He recorded the statement of Padm Lochan Prasad Sinha (P.W.8) who stated that on the note-sheet dated 17.07.2012, the appellant-convict put his signature on 31.07.2012 and returned the file to A.K. Sarkar. In paragraph no.55, he has stated that P.W.5 made the verification after registration of FIR but the verification of the complaint is made before the registration of FIR. In paragraph no.63, he has stated that in the note-sheet dated 17.07.2012, Senior Manager and Finance Manager- the appellant-convict has put their respective signatures on 31.07.2012. After that the appellant-convict has left with no job for processing the file but after that he kept the file with him. 10. In paragraph no.63, he has stated that in the note-sheet dated 17.07.2012, Senior Manager and Finance Manager- the appellant-convict has put their respective signatures on 31.07.2012. After that the appellant-convict has left with no job for processing the file but after that he kept the file with him. 10. P.W.12 –Umesh Kumar is the second Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated that he received the charge of investigation of the case from the P.W.11. He recorded the statement of nine witnesses and obtained expert opinion report. No reason for transferring of investigation of the case to P.W.12 has been mentioned. The P.W.12 recorded the statement of P.W.11 wherein he has stated that on 31.07.2012, the appellant-convict had put his signature over the tender file. The note-sheet of which was prepared on 17.07.2012. In the statement of P.L.P. Sinha, it has been mentioned that on 31.07.2012 after putting the signature in the tender file, the same was returned to A.K. Sarkar. 11. P.W.1 –S. Narshingh Rao is the Chairman of Coal India Limited and he has accorded the sanction for prosecution of the appellant-convict and on being proved by him, the same was marked Ext.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that after registration of the case, the verification was made. 12. P.W.2 – Baijanto Mukhopadhyay is the Chemical Examiner who examined sodium carbonate solution with which inter alia the fingers of the appellant-convict were washed and he has stated that in the three bottles sent for chemical examination, phenolphthalein, sodium carbonate and water was found. On being proved by him, the three reports have been marked as Ext. 3, 3/1 and 3/2. 13. P.W.4- Vijay Kumar has stated that in the year 2012 he was working as Chief Manager Personal in BCCL Headquarter at Dhanbad. The appellant-convict was the Assistant Manager (Finance). He handed over the service file of the appellant-convict to the Investigating Officer. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has no personal knowledge about the service period of the appellant-convict. 14. P.W.8- Padm Lochan Prasad Sinha has stated that he was working as Senior Manager Civil, EJ area BCCL. He has proved the production cum seizure memo and the attendance register and other documents seized by C.B.I. He has stated in detail about the process for finalization of tender. 14. P.W.8- Padm Lochan Prasad Sinha has stated that he was working as Senior Manager Civil, EJ area BCCL. He has proved the production cum seizure memo and the attendance register and other documents seized by C.B.I. He has stated in detail about the process for finalization of tender. After signing the file, he gave the file to A.K. Sarkar to put up the same before the appellant-convict but from 31.07.2012 to 28.08.2012; the file did not return to him. In his cross-examination, P.W.8 has stated that he knows the P.W.3. The tender of P.W.3 was an open tender. At least three tenders are essential in such tenders but in this tender there were only two tenders. The appellant-convict and the P.W.8 signed on the note-sheet dated 17.07.2012 on 31.07.2012. The Area Civil Engineer, A.K. Sinha has died. As per the rules, the note-sheet is to be signed at one place but in this case it was signed at different places. The price bid of Sonu Enterprises was 56% above the base price. 15. P.W.9- Ajit Kumar Sarkar has stated about the file being seized from the office chamber of the appellant-convict. On 31.07.2012, six files were put up before the appellant-convict out of which three files were of Sonu Enterprises. This file was kept by the appellant-convict and after the sign of the appellant-convict the file was returned to P.W.9 on 31.07.2012. He gave the file to the appellant-convict personally as the P.W.8 gave the file after sometime. Prior to that five files went from P.W.8 to the appellant-convict. It is false to say that the appellant-convict signed on the said file on 31.07.2012. 16. P.W.10- Rabindra Murari has stated that on 2012 he was the D.G.M. of BSNL in Jharkhand Telephone Circle at Ranchi. He has proved the call details report of the mobile phone of the appellant-convict and P.W.3. On 27.08.2012 at about 15:37 the appellant-convict talked from his mobile no.9470597524 to P.W.3 in his mobile no.9430136355. On 28.08.2012 at about 09:58 am, the P.W.3 talked to the appellant-convict. In his cross-examination, he has stated that in paragraph no.11, that on 27.08.2012 no call was made from the mobile number of P.W.3 to the mobile number of the appellant-convict. 17. P.W.13- Dinesh Pandey has stated that he was working as a survey officer in 2012 in EJ Area Bhoura. In his cross-examination, he has stated that in paragraph no.11, that on 27.08.2012 no call was made from the mobile number of P.W.3 to the mobile number of the appellant-convict. 17. P.W.13- Dinesh Pandey has stated that he was working as a survey officer in 2012 in EJ Area Bhoura. He has proved the note-sheet and the materials file marked II which contains the comparative statement at page no.39. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the note-sheet was not prepared in his presence. 18. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the appellant-convict was recorded regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against the appellant-convict wherein he admitted that he was posted as Assistant Manager, (Finance) in Eastern Jharia Area, Bhoura, BCCL, Dhanbad and was also the member of the tender committee and he signed the note-sheet dated 17.07.2012 on 31.07.2012. He denied the other material questions put to him and he pleaded innocence and stated that he did not make any demand. The appellant-convict further stated that P.W.3 has falsely implicated the appellant-convict in this case and no work of him was pending with him, as the P.W.3 was a leader of the union and there was case pending against him. 19. From the side of the defence, one Birendra Kumar Singh was examined as D.W.1. In his deposition, D.W.1 has stated that on 31.07.2012 the appellant-convict signed on the three files of Sonu Enterprises in his presence and the said three files was brought by Ajit Kumar Sarkar and after signature, Ajit Kumar Sarkar took all the three files. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he went to the office of appellant-convict for getting his signature over the cheques. 20. Learned court below after taking into consideration the evidence in record came to the conclusion that the evidence in record is sufficient to establish both the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the learned court below convicted and sentenced the appellant-convict as already indicated above. 21. Mr. 21. Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the appellant-convict submits that there is absolutely no evidence in record regarding the demand of bribe by the appellant-convict and P.Ws.3 and 7 who are the two witnesses who have been examined regarding the essential ingredient of acceptance of bribe by the appellant-convict have not stated anything about demand being ever made by the appellant-convict. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict that the P.W.3 has categorically stated that he told the appellant-convict that he has brought the money which was told by the appellant-convict. It is then submitted that P.W.3 himself voluntarily told the appellant-convict that he has brought the money which was told by the appellant-convict and gave Rs.20,000/- which was received by the appellant-convict. It is further submitted by Mr. Pandey that this sequence of statement has been reiterated by the P.W.3 in paragraph no.55 of his cross-examination wherein also he has not stated about any demand made by the appellant-convict and in the absence of any evidence as to for what purpose the appellant-convict told him to bring the money, the said evidence cannot be treated as demand of bribe by the appellant-convict and at best the same may amount to acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant-convict but certainly cannot constitute ingredient of demand of bribe by the appellant-convict which is the sine qua non for bringing home the charge for the offences punishable under Section 7 as also Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict that as is evident from the record, from the deposition of P.Ws.3 and 5 that on the previous day i.e. on 27.08.2012, P.W.3 made a phone call to the appellant-convict, wherein the appellant-convict told him to come with money on 28.08.2012 is falsified from the testimony of P.W.10 who produced the Call Detail Report wherein in paragraph no.11 of his cross-examination, he has categorically stated that no phone call was made by P.W.3 to the appellant-convict on 27.08.2012.. Further drawing attention of this Court to the testimony of P.W.7 -Satish Kumar who is a witness of trap in this case, it is submitted by Mr. Further drawing attention of this Court to the testimony of P.W.7 -Satish Kumar who is a witness of trap in this case, it is submitted by Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant-convict that P.W.7 has also not uttered any word to suggest any demand of bribe made by the appellant-convict and he has also categorically stated that P.W.3 after wishing the appellant-convict told that he has brought Rs.20,000/- and then only the appellant-convict stated that alright give it. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant-convict further stated that this again can amount to demand of the bribe and as there is no evidence regarding the demand of the bribe by the appellant-convict, hence, it is submitted by Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant-convict that there is no evidence whatsoever regarding the essential ingredient of demand by the appellant-convict as though it is evident from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that P.W.3 was categorically instructed that only if the appellant-convict demands the said money, it is to be tendered otherwise not still without the appellant-convict demanding the money, the complainant (P.W.3) has voluntarily thrust upon the money to the appellant-convict as per the evidence put forth by the prosecution case in the record. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the essential ingredient of demand by the appellant-convict. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict that there is contradiction in the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the pocket in which the money was kept by the appellant-convict after taking the same. It is further submitted by Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant-convict that the evidence in record suggest that the appellant-convict has signed the concerned file of the proprietor firm –Sonu Enterprises with which the P.W.3 was associated on 31.07.2012. So there was no work of the P.W.3 with the appellant-convict on the alleged date of occurrence. Hence, it is submitted that the case of the prosecution is highly improbable. In support of his contention, Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant-convict relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma reported in (2013) 14 SCC 153 , paragraph no.11 of which reads as under:- “11. In support of his contention, Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant-convict relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma reported in (2013) 14 SCC 153 , paragraph no.11 of which reads as under:- “11. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person. (Vide Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab [ (1972) 3 SCC 652 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 696 : AIR 1973 SC 498 ] , T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. [ (2006) 1 SCC 401 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 401] , State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao [ (2011) 6 SCC 450 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1010 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 714] and Mukut Bihari v. State of Rajasthan [ (2012) 11 SCC 642 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1089 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 136] .)”(emphasis supplied) Learned counsel for the appellant-convict next relied upon the judgment of 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.7 and 9 of which reads as under:- “7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. [ (2010) 15 SCC 1 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 89] and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI [ (2009) 3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] . 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. 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.” (emphasis supplied) Learned counsel for the appellant-convict next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satvir Singh v. State of Delhi reported in (2014) 13 SCC 143 , paragraph no.34 of which reads as under:- “34. This Court, in K.S. Panduranga case [K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC 721 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 257 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 791] has held that the demand and acceptance of the amount of illegal gratification by the accused is a condition precedent to constitute an offence, the relevant paragraph in this regard from the abovesaid decision is extracted hereunder: (SCC pp. 740-41, para 39) “39. Keeping in view that the demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is a condition precedent for constituting an offence under the Act, it is to be noted that there is a statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act which can be dislodged by the accused by bringing on record some evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that money was accepted other than for the motive or the reward as stipulated under Section 7 of the Act. When some explanation is offered, the court is obliged to consider the explanation under Section 20 of the Act and the consideration of the explanation has to be on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. It is not to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. When some explanation is offered, the court is obliged to consider the explanation under Section 20 of the Act and the consideration of the explanation has to be on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. It is not to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. In the case at hand, we are disposed to think that the explanation offered by the accused does not deserve any acceptance and, accordingly, we find that the finding recorded on that score by the learned trial Judge and the stamp of approval given to the same by the High Court cannot be faulted.” Learned counsel for the appellant-convict next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in (1979) 4 SCC 725 , wherein in paragraph no. 2 it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that it is well-settled that where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses. Mr. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant-convict next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.K. Ramesh Kumar v. State reported in (2015) 15 SCC 629 , wherein it has been observed that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not and the mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take a decision one way or the other as the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration and if it is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be bad for the reason that the discretion of the authority ‘not to sanction’ was taken away and it was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the prosecution and submitted that the sanction for prosecution in this case is bad for the failure of the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellant-convict be acquitted by at least giving him the benefit of doubt. 22. Mr. B.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the C.B.I. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the though he does not have the copy of the deposition of witnesses with him but as mentioned in the impugned judgment that P.W.3 has stated that upon reaching the place of occurrence, the P.W.3 told the accused that he has brought the demanded money in response to which, the accused demanded the same from him. Similarly, learned counsel for the C.B.I. also drew the attention to the testimony of P.W.5 as mentioned in impugned judgment wherein it is attributed to the P.W.5 that he has heard the conversation between the P.W.3 and the appellant-convict on 27.08.2012 regarding the demand of bribe so the same indicates that the appellant-convict demanded the money. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. also drew the attention of this Court to the statement of P.W.7 wherein the learned trial court has mentioned in the impugned judgment and submitted that P.W.7 has stated that after the accused reached the place of occurrence, on demand, P.W.3 handed over the bribe money, hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for C.B.I. that the evidence in record is sufficient to establish both the 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. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned court below having rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant-convict, the conviction of the appellant-convict be confirmed and 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 though in the impugned judgment it is mentioned that P.W.3 has stated that upon reaching the place of occurrence, the P.W.3 told the accused that he has brought the demanded money in response to which, the accused demanded the same from him but in fact the same is an error of record as from the deposition of P.W.3, it is clear that he has neither used the words “the money demanded by the appellant-convict” nor words that “the appellant-convict has demanded the money from him” rather the evidence in record suggest that P.W.3 offered the money to the appellant-convict and the appellant-convict accepted the same. Similarly though in the impugned judgment it has been mentioned that the statement of P.W.7 stated that after the accused reached the place of occurrence, on demand, P.W.3 handed over the bribe money but again the same is an error of record as it is crystal clear from the testimony of the P.W.7 that he stated that the P.W.3 offered Rs.20,000/- and then the same was accepted by appellant-convict. Thus there is absolutely no evidence in record regarding the demand of money by the appellant-convict. Thus there is absolutely no evidence in record regarding the demand of money by the appellant-convict. Evidence in record certainly shows that there is acceptance of money and there is recovery of money demanded by the appellant-convict. The other circumstances which creates doubt about the prosecution case is that it is the case of the prosecution that after lodging of FIR, verification of the same was made and during the course of verification as stated by the P.Ws.5 and 3 that the P.W.3 made a call to the appellant-convict on 27.08.2012 and during the course of conversation, the appellant-convict demanded money from the P.W.3 and on the next day, he received the money but these testimonies of the P.Ws.5 and 3 has been falsified by the testimony of prosecution witness itself being the P.W.10 who has categorically stated in paragraph no.11 of his testimony that no call was ever made by the P.W.3 to the appellant-convict on 27.08.2012. P.W.10 is a responsible officer of BSNL posted as Deputy General Manager and there is nothing in record to disbelieve his testimony. So this also falsifies the part of testimonies of P.Ws.5 and 3 to the aforesaid extent which rules out the story of the prosecution that on the previous day of the occurrence for which the appellant-convict is facing the charge, the appellant-convict made the demand and accordingly the same was paid by the P.W.3 on the date of occurrence. Under such circumstances, in the absence of evidence in record regarding the essential ingredients of demand by the appellant-convict, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the evidence in record is insufficient to establish the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and this Court is also of the considered view that this is a fit case where the appellant-convict be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. 24. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 21.01.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. No. 19(A)/2012-D being not sustainable in law is set aside and the appellant accused- Dharma Pada Ghadai is acquitted of all the charges by giving him the benefit of doubt. 25. 24. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 21.01.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. No. 19(A)/2012-D being not sustainable in law is set aside and the appellant accused- Dharma Pada Ghadai is acquitted of all the charges by giving him the benefit of doubt. 25. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant-accused- Dharma Pada Ghadai is on bail. In view of his acquittal, the appellant-accused is discharged of the liability of his bail bond. 26. In the result, this appeal is allowed. 27. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned court below along with a copy of this judgment forthwith.