JUDGMENT : 1. The present Appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C. No. 22 of 2004 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, on 07.11.2008, wherein, the Appellant who was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was convicted and sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months each under both the counts. The sentence of imprisonment imposed under both the counts were directed to run concurrently. 2. The substance of the Charges against Accused Officer is that, on 09.06.2003 at 1.40 p.m., the Accused Officer in pursuance to his earlier demand is said to have accepted Rs.1,000/-towards illegal gratification as a motive for releasing Earnest Money Deposit and Security Deposit. 3. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as under: i. PW1 who was a contractor in civil works took contract work for maintenance of buildings of BSNL, Chittoor, Kadapa and Nellore Districts, in pursuant to the tender called for by the Executive Engineer Telecom, for maintenance of buildings of BSNL. At the time of submitting tender, the Contractor has to deposit 2 ½% of the bid amount as Earnest Money Deposit and after executing some work, bills would be presented. When running bills are presented, 7 ½% will be deducted towards security deposit. ii. It is said that for the works completed during the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, PW1 made an application for return of EMD/Security Deposit. About six to seven applications were said to have been made for return of the EMD/Security deposit. Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 are the applications, which were sent to Divisional Office, BSNL at Tirupati. iii. On 05.06.2003, PW1 claims to have met the Accused Officer, by name, E.K. Annamalai, in the Divisional Office, BSNL at Tirupati, wherein, he demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/-for clearing the bills. When PW1 expressed his inability to pay the said amount, the Accused Officer demanded to pay Rs.1,000/-on or before 9th June. As PW1 was not inclined to pay the bribe amount, he telephoned to CBI, who gave him the telephone number of Superintendent of Police, CBI, who was in Chennai. When PW1 expressed his inability to pay the said amount, the Accused Officer demanded to pay Rs.1,000/-on or before 9th June. As PW1 was not inclined to pay the bribe amount, he telephoned to CBI, who gave him the telephone number of Superintendent of Police, CBI, who was in Chennai. When contacted, the Superintendent of Police informed him to contact the Inspector, who was in the Railway Retiring Room at Tirupati. Accordingly, on 09.06.2003, PW1 approached the Inspector CBI and gave a complaint in writing. Ex.P13 is the complaint. It is to be noted here that the said complaint was given at 11.30 a.m., on 09.06.2003. iv. PW15 received the complaint from PW1, contacted the CBI Officials over phone and after obtaining necessary orders, registered a case in Crime No.21-A/2003-H and proceeded further with the investigation. Having regard to the nature of allegations made, he decided to lay a trap and utilized two witnesses, who were summoned for other purposes. PW15 organized a meeting of PW3 [mediator], PW14 [another mediator] and PW1 along with other CBI Officials. The complaint was shown to PW3 and PW14, who have signed on the same as token of seeing it. The importance of sodium carbonate solution and the phenolphthalein test was explained to PW1 and the mediators. PW1 was asked to produce the bribe amount of Rs.1,000/-, which he did. The currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and then kept in the left side shirt pocket of PW1. PW3 was asked to accompany PW1 and give a signal by wiping his face with handkerchief as soon as the Accused Officer receives the bribe amount. Ex.P18 is the 1st mediators report. The evidence of PW15 discloses that proceedings under Ex.P18 begun at 12.00 noon and concluded at 1.15 p.m., on 9.06.2003. Thereafter, the trap party left to the office of the Accused Officer, which was at a walking distance from the Railway Station. They reached the office of the Accused Officer at 1.30 p.m. v. After reaching the Office of the Accused Officer, PW1 and another person [not PW3, though he was asked to accompany PW1] went into the Divisional Office at Tirupati and met the Accused Officer. When inquired about the applications i.e., Ex.P1 to Ex.P12, the Accused Officer replied that he has already enquired [‘adiginanu]. When inquired about the applications i.e., Ex.P1 to Ex.P12, the Accused Officer replied that he has already enquired [‘adiginanu]. Then PW1 removed up the currency notes from his left side shirt pocket with his right hand and gave it to the Accused Officer, who took it with his right hand and kept it in his left side shirt pocket. PW1 came out from the Chambers of the Accused Officer along with a person who accompanied him and gave a signal by waiving his hand. vi. The evidence of PW3, another mediator, is to the effect that, he along with PW1 went to BSNL Executive Engineer’s Office, situated at Tiruchunur Road, Tirupati and he was thinking as to whether he should enter the room of the Accused Officer or not, he heard conversation of persons. Immediately, thereafter, PW1 himself came out and gave a signal stating that Accused Officer accepted the bribe. PW3 relayed the prearranged signal by wiping his face with handkerchief. On receiving the signal, the trap party entered the room of the Accused Officer. It is said that, PW1 again entered into the room followed by PW3. After identifying the Accused Officer, who was closing his office room at that time, PW15 asked the Accused Officer, about the money received by him from PW1. He caught hold of both the hands of the Accused Officer and the left hand of the Accused Officer when dipped in the sodium carbonate solution did not turn pink in colour. However, when the right hand is dipped, the solution turned in pink colour. M.O.2 is the resultant solution of the right hand wash of the Accused Officer. Similarly, the left side shirt pocket was also subjected to test, which proved positive. M.O.3 is the resultant solution. The explanation offered by the Accused Officer was recorded in the 2nd mediator’s report, which is placed on record as Ex.P15. It is to be further noted here that M.O.1 is the bunch of currency notes, which are recovered from the Accused Officer and the numbers therein tallied with the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap proceedings. The Accused Officer was arrested after observing all the formalities. vii. A rough sketch of the scene was also prepared, which is marked as Ex.P19. Thereafter, the house of the Accused Officer was searched from 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m., but no incriminating material was recovered. The Accused Officer was arrested after observing all the formalities. vii. A rough sketch of the scene was also prepared, which is marked as Ex.P19. Thereafter, the house of the Accused Officer was searched from 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m., but no incriminating material was recovered. The Accused Officer was produced before the concerned court on 10.06.2003 and remanded to judicial custody. Further investigation in this case was taken up by PW17-Inspector of Police, who after examining all the witnesses and after obtaining necessary sanction from PW16 filed the charge-sheet on 30.10.2003, which was taken on file as C.C. No. 22 of 2004 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. 4. On appearance of the Accused Officer, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished and later on charges as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the Accused Officer, to which he pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW17 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P29 beside M.O.1 to M.O.3. After completing the prosecution evidence, the Accused Officer was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which he denied. The Accused Officer examined DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D10 in support of his plea. 5. Believing the evidence of prosecution witnesses and on a premise that Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 bills though with the Accused Officer were not processed, and that the Accused Officer might have demanded illegal gratification for processing and passing the bills, the Trial Court convicted the Accused Officer. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 6. Sri. O. Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant mainly submits that, there is absolutely no material on record to show that there was official favour pending with the Accused Officer and that any demand was made for doing an official favour. He pleads that, there is enough material on record to show that there was no demand on 05.06.2003 and that the money was thrusted forcibly into the pocket of the Accused Officer on 09.06.2003, which is evident from the evidence of PW3. He pleads that, there is enough material on record to show that there was no demand on 05.06.2003 and that the money was thrusted forcibly into the pocket of the Accused Officer on 09.06.2003, which is evident from the evidence of PW3. He further pleads that, there was absolutely no preliminary enquiry to find out the antecedents of the Accused Officer and also the relationship between PW1 and the Accused Officer. According to him, the trap party met in the Retiring Room of the Railway Station to trap the Executive Engineer, and PW13 and PW14 who were present there to act as mediators for laying the said trap, were used as mediators for laying the trap against the Accused Officer, by setting up PW1, who in-fact had a grievance against the Executive Engineer. He would further submit that, on 05.06.2003, the Accused Officer was not present in the Office so as to make a demand and for that reason, PW1 in his complaint never mentioned the time as to when he met the Accused Officer on that day. The learned counsel took us through the evidence of PW5 in support of the said plea. Having regard to the manner to which the signals were given after the alleged acceptance of money by the Accused Officer, and as PW3 never accompanied PW1 to witness the acceptance, which he was asked to do so, and the statement of PW1 that he was never asked about his version, after the trap by the Investigation Officer, the Counsel would contend that there is a cloud of suspicion over the events, which took place on 09.06.2003. 7. On the other hand, Sri. Chenna Kesavulu, learned Counsel representing CBI would contend that, there is enough evidence on record to show, more particularly, Ex.P29 that the Accused Officer was present in the office on 05.06.2003. He further pleads that the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that there was no favour pending with the Accused Officer as on 09.06.2003, is incorrect, for the reason that Ex.P9 to Ex.P12 were still pending with the Accused Officer. According to him, bills were pending in the Office of the Accused Officer since nine [09] months and as such, there is every justification to believe that the Accused Officer has demanded the bribe amount to process the papers. According to him, bills were pending in the Office of the Accused Officer since nine [09] months and as such, there is every justification to believe that the Accused Officer has demanded the bribe amount to process the papers. Insofar as the plea of thrusting is concerned, he would submit that, if really there was thrusting, both the hands should have turned positive, which is not so in the instant case. Apart from that, he would contend that, if really it is a case of thrusting, the conduct of the Accused Officer would have been different. Insofar as preliminary enquiry to be conducted, he would submit that, in cases of this nature, it may not be necessary and even if the same is not done, no prejudice is caused to the Accused Officer, as the material on record show that he was caught red handed after accepting the money. In view of the above, he would contend that, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 8. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of A.O. beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 9. The Accused Officer was working as Accounts Officer in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Civil Division, BSNL, Tirupati, at the time of trap. The fact that, he is a Public Servant is not in dispute. 10. The question now is, 1. Whether there was any enquiry before registration of a crime; 2. whether there was any favour pending with the Accused Officer; 3. whether there was any demand of bribe; and 4. whether any amount was accepted as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration? 11. As seen from the evidence available on record, PW1 who was doing contract work since last 15 years, obtained contract work for maintenance of the buildings in BSNL Office in Chittoor, Kadapa and Nellore Districts, pursuant to a tender process. PW1 being the lowest tenderer, entered into an agreement with the BSNL for executing the work. After executing some work, applications came to be presented seeking refund of 2½% as EMD and 7½% as security deposit. Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 are the said applications. 12. PW1 being the lowest tenderer, entered into an agreement with the BSNL for executing the work. After executing some work, applications came to be presented seeking refund of 2½% as EMD and 7½% as security deposit. Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 are the said applications. 12. It is in the evidence of PW1 that, on 05.06.2003, he met the Accused Officer, who initially demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/-for clearing the bills, which was later reduced to Rs.1,000/-and the same was accepted on 09.06.2003. The evidence also discloses that as PW1 was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he lodged a complaint [Ex.P13] on 09.06.2003. The evidence on record further shows that this report was lodged at 11.30 a.m., on 09.06.2003. 13. On receipt of the report at a Railway Retiring Room in Tirupati Railway Station, PW15-Inspector of Police organized a meeting with the mediators i.e., PW3, PW14 along with other CBI Officials, for laying a trap against the Accused Officer and accordingly, demonstrated the importance of phenolphthalein test to PW1 and others. It is to be noted here that, these proceedings started at 12.00 noon on 09.06.2003 and completed by 1.15 p.m., on the same day and thereafter, trap was laid between 1.30 and 1.40 p.m. At this stage, it is to be noted that PW1 in his evidence states that, he provided Rs.1,000/-or Rs.500/-notes under the instructions of CBI Inspector, to which some powder was applied and numbers of the currency notes were noted. It would be useful to extract the same, which is as under: “The assistant of the inspector demonstrated applying of some powder when the powder is dropped in the water, it turned into rose colour. I provided Rs.1,000/-or Rs.500/-under the instructions of CBI inspector, some powder was applied and numbers of the above currency notes are noted.” 14. Further, the mediator -PW3 in his evidence states as under: “PW1 stated that Rs.5,000/-was demanded, but he brought only one thousand (when Ex.P18 shown to the witness, he identified his signature and handwriting). The numbers of tainted notes were noted in Ex.P18 before putting the amount in the shirt pocket of PW1. I went into railway retiring room at about 12.00 noon or 12.15 p.m., and Ex.P18 proceedings were completed by 1.15 p.m.” 15. The numbers of tainted notes were noted in Ex.P18 before putting the amount in the shirt pocket of PW1. I went into railway retiring room at about 12.00 noon or 12.15 p.m., and Ex.P18 proceedings were completed by 1.15 p.m.” 15. PW15-the investigation officer in his evidence states as under: “I was camping in Tirupati on 09.06.2003; I received the complaint from PW1 who said that he had contacted the SP, CBI, Hyderabad, over phone regarding the complaint. Basing on the information given by SP, CBI that, I was camping at railway retiring room at Tirupati, PW1 came to me and lodged a complaint i.e., Ex.P13. As the complaint revealed prima facie commission of offence U/s. 7 of P.C. Act, I have contacted the CBI officer over phone and obtained necessary orders and took the FIR number as 21(A)/2003-H and proceeded further investigation. I have decided to lay a trap on the accused officer, Sri E.K. Annamalai (accused is sitting in the dock, witness identified him). I have utilized two witnesses who were summoned for other purpose, to lay a trap in this case. I have organized a meeting of Sri D.S.P. Rao (PW3), Sri Dwarakanath Reddy (PW14), Sri Seshaiah (PW1) and other CBI officials. The purpose of the meeting was explained to all regarding laying a trap on the accused. The complaint was shown to PWs. 3 and 14, who have signed same in token of having seen it. Sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein test was demonstrated. PW1 was asked to produce the bribe amount of Rs.1,000/-which he did. The notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and kept in the left side shirt pocket of PW1 by PW14. Sri D.S.P. Rao was named as accompanying witness and he was directed to give a signal by wiping his face with handkerchief as soon as the accused officer accepts the bribe amount. All the proceedings were drawn in form of first mediator’s report which is Ex.P18 which began at 12.00 hours and concluded at 13.15 hours on 09.06.2003. After that, the trap team left for office of the accused which is walk-able distance from the railway station. The team reached there by 13.30 hours. 16. All the proceedings were drawn in form of first mediator’s report which is Ex.P18 which began at 12.00 hours and concluded at 13.15 hours on 09.06.2003. After that, the trap team left for office of the accused which is walk-able distance from the railway station. The team reached there by 13.30 hours. 16. Further, PW17 - the investigation officer who filed the charge-sheet, in his evidence states as under: “The FIR in RC.20(A)/2003 was registered on 10.06.2003 and it is true that the FIR in RC.21(A)/2003 was also registered on 10.06.2003. It is true in both the above crimes the complaints were received on 09.06.2003 at 11.15 a.m. and 11.30 a.m., receptively. As per 1st mediator’s report in Crime No. 20(A)/2003 on 09.06.2003 at 11.45 hours the proceedings were drawn in room no. 6 of Railway retiring room, Tirupathi and concluded at 12.45 hours on the same day. Similarly in RC.21(A)/2003 i.e., in this case on 09.06.2003 the 1st Mediators report, Ex.P18 commenced at 12.00 hours and concluded at 13.15 hours and such proceedings were drafted at room no. 6, Railway Retiring room, Tirupathi (The witness answered above after perusing the certified copies of FIR and 1st mediators report in RC.20(A)/2003 and the proceedings in this case.” 17. From the evidence of these witnesses, it stands established beyond reasonable doubt that, a report about the demand was made on 09.06.2003 at 11.30 a.m., which led to registration of a case in Crime No. 21(A)/2003 and the mediators were secured between 12.00 noon to 1.15 p.m. by utilizing the services of two persons i.e., PW3 and PW14, who have assembled in the Railway Retiring Room for some other purpose. Neither the evidence of PW3 nor the evidence of PW15 and PW17 show that the police have made any effort to know the antecedents of the Accused Officer and also the relationship between PW1 and the Accused Officer. Such being the position, whether the Inspector CBI was justified in registering a crime and laying a trap without knowing the conduct, character and antecedents of Accused Officer and PW1. 18. In V. Gopal Reddy, Secunderabad v. State of Telangana, Crl. A. No. 900 of 2014 dated 08.04.2019 the combined High Court at Hyderabad, held as under: “13. Such being the position, whether the Inspector CBI was justified in registering a crime and laying a trap without knowing the conduct, character and antecedents of Accused Officer and PW1. 18. In V. Gopal Reddy, Secunderabad v. State of Telangana, Crl. A. No. 900 of 2014 dated 08.04.2019 the combined High Court at Hyderabad, held as under: “13. It is necessary to keep in mind the precautions to be taken from the guidelines to be followed in case of a public servant before registration of crime as per the expressions of the Apex Court. In P. Sirajuddin Etc. v. State of Madras Etc., 1971 AIR 520, the Apex Court held that before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts, of dishonesty which amount to serious misdemeanour or misconduct of the type alleged in the case and a first information is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. The lodging of such a report against a person, specially one who like the appellant occupied the top position in a department, even if baseless, would do incalculable harm not only to the officer in particular but to the department he belonged to, in general. If the, Government had set up a Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department as was done in the State of Madras and the said department was entrusted with enquiries of this kind, no exception can be taken to an enquiry by officers of this department but any such enquiry must proceed in a fair and reasonable manner. The enquiring officer must not act under any pre-conceived idea of guilt of the person whose conduct was being enquired into or pursue the enquiry in such a manner as to lead to an inference that he was bent upon securing the conviction of the said person by adopting measures which are of doubtful validity or sanction. The means adopted no less than the end to be achieved must be impeccable.” 19. In Lalitha Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. & Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 , the Apex Court categorically held that, in cases arising under the Prevention of Corruption Act, there has to be preliminary enquiry before taking any further steps. The means adopted no less than the end to be achieved must be impeccable.” 19. In Lalitha Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. & Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 , the Apex Court categorically held that, in cases arising under the Prevention of Corruption Act, there has to be preliminary enquiry before taking any further steps. The Apex Court while issuing directions held as under:- “In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: (i) x x x x x (ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. (iii) x x x x x (iv) x x x x x (v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. (vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. 20. From the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, in the judgment referred to above and having regard to the fact that there was no preliminary inquiry at all before registering the crime and laying the trap, I am of the view that the procedure adopted by the CBI Authorities in laying the trap is not in accordance with law and that they acted in due haste for reasons best known to them. 21. Coming to the issue, as to whether there was any official favour pending with the Accused Officer, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of PW2, PW4 and PW5. The evidence of these witnesses not only establishes the procedure that is followed in the Office for clearing the bills, but, also shows the status of the bills raised by PW1. The evidence of these witnesses not only establishes the procedure that is followed in the Office for clearing the bills, but, also shows the status of the bills raised by PW1. (i) PW2 who is working as Executive Engineer (Planning) in the Office of Chief Engineer (Civil) from 2002 onwards deposed about the procedure being followed for withdrawing the Earnest Money Deposit/Security Deposit. According to him, the EMD will be collected at the time of submitting tenders, as per the conditions in tender notice and shall be released after the finalization of tender and refunded to the unsuccessful tenderers. In respect of contractors, whose tenders are accepted, the Earnest Money Deposit shall be treated as part of Security Deposit. After the acceptance, the tenderer has to deposit 10% of the contract value or the amount as specified and part of EMD is treated as Security Deposit, apart from deducting balance amount of security deposit from the running bills payable to the contractor. The EMD and security amount deducted from the bills can be claimed by the contractor for refund after successful completion of the work and after the maintenance period as per the conditions of contract. (ii) His evidence also shows that the contractor after completion of the work shall claim refund in prescribed form through Assistant Engineer, in-charge of the work. The Assistant Engineer after verifying and certifying shall forward the same to the Executive Engineer’s Office, where it shall be scrutinized and verified with reference to the cash book and other deposits records by the Accounts Branch and then placed before the Executive Engineer for necessary orders. After the bill is passed, the Accounts Officer shall put up the pay order, after checking and issue cheque to the contractor, which shall be counter signed by another Officer. (iii) His evidence also shows that, insofar as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are concerned, they were submitted by the contractor to the Assistant Engineer, who forwarded them to Executive Engineer and they were recommended to Accounts Officer on 04.06.2003, and passed by Executive Engineer on 06.06.2003. The Pay Orders were prepared and issued on 09.06.2003 for the amounts mentioned therein. (iv) Insofar as Ex.P9 to Ex.P11 is concerned, it is said that, they were submitted by the contractor before Assistant Executive Engineer, who forwarded them to Executive Engineer, but, those are not further scrutinized in the Division Office. 22. The Pay Orders were prepared and issued on 09.06.2003 for the amounts mentioned therein. (iv) Insofar as Ex.P9 to Ex.P11 is concerned, it is said that, they were submitted by the contractor before Assistant Executive Engineer, who forwarded them to Executive Engineer, but, those are not further scrutinized in the Division Office. 22. From the evidence-in-chief of this witness, it is clear that, even prior to 05.06.2003 i.e., date of alleged demand, assuming that there was a demand on 05.06.2003 and even prior to the date of trap, the entire process was over and on 09.06.2003 itself, it was sent for counter signature of PW8, which I will refer a little later. 23. As stated earlier, the finding of the Trial Judge is to the effect that, the amount must have been demanded for processing Ex.P9 to Ex.P11. At this stage, it would be useful to refer to the cross-examination of PW2, who categorically admits that, “there was no endorsement on Ex.P9 to Ex.P11 to the effect that those were received in the Office of the Executive Engineer”. It would be useful to extract the same, which is as under: “There is no endorsement on Exs.P9 to P11 that those are received in the office of the executive engineer.” 24. It was further elicited in the cross-examination of PW2 that, after the bills were passed by Executive Engineer, auditors will prepare the pay order. According to him, payments under Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 to Ex.P8 were made through two cheques bearing Nos. 628837 and 628835 in favour of PW1. The relevant portion in the evidence of PW2, is as under: “In the office of the accounts officer there will be auditor, his role is scrutinize the bill with reference to the records. The auditors will write passed order after approval of the accounts officer. After the bills were passed by the EE, auditor shall write the payment order on the bills. Payments under Exs.P1 to PW3 were made by way of cheque no.628837 and Exs.P4 to P8 were made through cheque no. 628835. After payment on the bills under Exs.P1 to P8, they will be treated as vouchers for cheques issued. Ex.P16 is cheque bearing no. 628837, dated 09.06.2003 for Rs.16,892/-in favour of Sri. D. Seshaiah, Tirupati. Ex.P17 is cheque bearing no. 628835, dated 09.06.2003 for Rs.28,998/-in favour of Sri. 628835. After payment on the bills under Exs.P1 to P8, they will be treated as vouchers for cheques issued. Ex.P16 is cheque bearing no. 628837, dated 09.06.2003 for Rs.16,892/-in favour of Sri. D. Seshaiah, Tirupati. Ex.P17 is cheque bearing no. 628835, dated 09.06.2003 for Rs.28,998/-in favour of Sri. D. Seshaiah, Tirupati (when Exs.P16 and P17 shown to the witness, he admitted them).” 25. This part of the evidence of PW2, which remained unimpeached goes to show that, payments under Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were cleared and approved and cheques vide Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 were prepared on 09.06.2003 and sent for second signature much prior to the date of trap and that Ex.P9 to Ex.P11 were not received in the Office of Executive Engineer by then. 26. PW4 was working as an Auditor in BSNL at Tirupati. His duties are as under: “My duties as auditor in respect of EMD/SD are: after receiving EMD/SD refund bills, I will process and put up the file before the accounts officer. I will prepare a pass order and place before the accounts officer. I will put my initial at the place of pass order.” 27. According to him, the Accused Officer will verify the pass order with the concerned register and place it before the Executive Engineer for sanction. His evidence shows that Ex.P4 to Ex.P8 contains orders passed by him and also by the Executive Engineer and that the cheque numbers were also mentioned on the said orders. His evidence is also to the effect that, seventh bill of PW1 was never placed before the Accused Officer and it was processed by him on 04.07.2003 i.e., long after the trap. The relevant portion in his evidence is as under: “The accused officer will verify the pass order with the concerned register and place before the Executive Engineer for sanction. Exs.P4 to P8 contains pass orders passed by me (when Exs.P4 to P8 shown to the witnesses, he identified his pass orders). The above bills are passed by Executive Engineer and even cheque number also mentioned to show that cheque was issued to the contractor. Ex.P17 is the same cheque under which the amount was paid to the contractor i.e., PW1. The seventh Final bill of PW1 was passed on 31.7.2003 processed by me on 04.07.2003. It is true the seventh final bill of PW1 never placed before the accused officer. Ex.P17 is the same cheque under which the amount was paid to the contractor i.e., PW1. The seventh Final bill of PW1 was passed on 31.7.2003 processed by me on 04.07.2003. It is true the seventh final bill of PW1 never placed before the accused officer. I processed the seventh final bill of PW1 on 07.07.2003 much after placing the accused officer on suspension. The trap of the accused officer took place on 09.06.2003. Ex.P17 was prepared prior to the trap incident.” 28) In the cross-examination of PW3, it was further elicited as under: “Exs. P4B to P8B are dated 04.06.2003. The role of the accused officer ended on Ex.P4B to P8B by 04.06.2008. The cheque has to be signed by two account officers. One accounts officer i.e., the accused was in our office and another accounts officer was in GMTD, BSNL at Tirupati. The GMTD office situated at about two kilometres away from our office. Ex.P17 cheque also contains the signature of accounts officer of GMTD in addition to the signature of the accused. After accused officer signing on the cheque, it will be sent to the accounts officer, GMTD along with files, then he will verify and sign.” 29. From the evidence of PW4, it also goes to show that, he being an Auditor, processed and put up the file before the Accused Officer, who also processed it and sent the same to the Executive Engineer, who approved it by mentioning the cheque numbers [Ex.P17/Ex.P4 to Ex.P8] and that the role of the Accused Officer ended by 04.06.2003 i.e., even prior to the alleged date of demand. 30. Similarly, PW5 - Senior Section Supervisor at BSNL, Tirupati, deposed that, he processed Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 bills pertaining to PW1 and Ex.P16 is the cheque. According to him, the fifth [5th] final bill of PW1 was processed on 20.06.2003 and Executive Engineer passed the bill on 09.07.2003, much after the trap. He further says that, second [2nd ] final bill of PW1 was received by Accused Officer on 18.03.2003; there were queries from Executive Engineer, to which reply was received and placed before the Executive Engineer on 04.06.2003, which was approved by Executive Engineer on 09.07.2003 i.e., much after the trap. Therefore, insofar as second [2nd] final bill is concerned, it cannot be said that Accused Officer has any role for delaying the same. Therefore, insofar as second [2nd] final bill is concerned, it cannot be said that Accused Officer has any role for delaying the same. His evidence also shows that, Ex.P9, Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 were not received in their Office. The relevant portion in the evidence of PW5 is as under: “The fifth final bill of PW1 was processed by me on 20.06.2003. The EE passed the fifth final bill of PW1 on 09.07.2003. The second final bill of PW1 was received by the accused officer on 18.03.2003 and passed to me. I processed it. There were queries from EE and reply was received and placed before the EE on 04.06.2003. The EE passed the second final bill of PW12 on 09.07.2003. Ex.P9, Ex.P10, Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 are not received in our office.” 31. In the cross-examination of PW5, it has been elicited that, on 09.06.2003, the Accused Officer signed on Ex.P16 [cheque] prior to trap and after signing on Ex.P16, it was taken to GMTD Office, Tirupati along with the bills for obtaining counter signature of the Accounts Officer. PW7 who was working as cashier in the said Office, took these cheques at 12.30 p.m., for second signature of PW8, whose Office is at a distance of two [02] kilometre from the Office of the Accused Officer. His evidence also shows that the duty of the Accused Officer starts from the time PW5 processes and submits the bills to him. The Accused Officer after receipt of the bill shall recommend passing of the bill to the Executive Engineer, who after finalisation passes the bill. 32. At this stage, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of PW7 and PW8, which is as under: 33. PW7 is a Cashier working under the Accused Officer, who in her evidence deposed that, on 09.06.2003, the Accused Officer himself filled up cheques Ex.P16 and Ex.P17, as her hand writing was not good and thereafter, she [PW7] took them for counter signature of PW8. After getting them counter-signed, she returned back to the Office and found CBI Officials in the Chambers of the Accused Officer. Her evidence is to the effect that, at 4.30 p.m., she handed over Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 to CBI Officer. The evidence of PW8 is only to the effect that she counter-signed Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 on 09.06.2003 between 1.00p.m. and 1.15 p.m. 34. Her evidence is to the effect that, at 4.30 p.m., she handed over Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 to CBI Officer. The evidence of PW8 is only to the effect that she counter-signed Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 on 09.06.2003 between 1.00p.m. and 1.15 p.m. 34. From the evidence of these four witnesses, it is very much clear that, there was no official favour pending with the Accused Officer either on the alleged date of demand or on the date of trap. If really his intention was to withhold passing of the bills, he would not have prepared the cheques and put up the bills before the Executive Engineer or sent them for counter signature to PW8. Once they are counter signed, there is no mechanism to prevent issuance of the same. 35. On the other hand, the evidence of PW5 itself would indicate that, there was some suspicion against the Executive Engineer for not processing the papers put up by the Accused Officer, for which, a trap was arranged on that day. The persons summoned to act as mediators for laying the trap against the Executive Engineer were utilised for this case also, which is evident from the evidence of PW3, as stated earlier. 36. Further, in the cross-examination of PW5, it has been elicited that, on 05.06.2003, PW1 approached PW3 and enquired about his bill and also about Executive Engineer, as to whether he is available in the Office. If really, the delay was on the part of the Accused Officer and if he was responsible for not processing the bills, definitely, PW1 would not have enquired about the Executive Engineer, which is not the case of PW1. Further, the evidence on record, which I have referred to earlier amply establishes that on 06.06.2003 itself the Executive Engineer has processed the files mentioning the cheque numbers and later the cheques were prepared even prior to the trap on 09.06.2003 along with the counter signature of PW8. Having regard to the above, it cannot be said that, there was any favour with the Accused Officer during the relevant period of time. If really the Accused Officer has demanded the money, he would not have processed the same. Having regard to the above, it cannot be said that, there was any favour with the Accused Officer during the relevant period of time. If really the Accused Officer has demanded the money, he would not have processed the same. The finding that the Accused Officer might have demanded the money for processing Ex.P9 to Ex.P11, cannot be accepted, for the reason that they never reached the Office of the Executive Engineer, where the Accused Officer works. 37. The argument of the learned CBI Counsel that anticipating the arrival of applications, the Accused Officer might have demanded the money, cannot be countenanced. If really, the Accused Officer wanted to make money illegally, he would have delayed processing of Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 itself. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court that there was an official favour pending with the Accused Officer, in my view, is not correct. 38. Coming to the demand made by the Accused Officer on 05.06.2003, the Counsel for the CBI mainly relied upon Ex.P29 to show that the Accused Officer was present in the Office on 05.06.2003. Relying upon the signature of the Accused Officer in the attendance register, it is urged that, the Accused Officer must have been present in the Office on that day, and that a demand was made on that day for payment of the bribe amount. The same is strongly opposed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant stating that, if really there was a demand on 05.06.2003, and if really the Accused Officer was present in the Office on that day, definitely, PW1 would have mentioned the time as to when he went to the Office and when such demand was made. According to him, the evidence of PW5 disproves the same. 39. PW1 in his evidence only says that, he met the Accused Officer on 05.06.2003, wherein, he demanded Rs.5,000/-for clearing the bills and when he expressed his inability to pay the amount, the same was reduced to Rs.1,000/-to be paid on or before 09.06.2003. From the evidence of PW1, it is clear that, he did not mention the time as to when he met the Accused Officer in the Office. From the evidence of PW1, it is clear that, he did not mention the time as to when he met the Accused Officer in the Office. It may be true that Ex.P29 -Register contains the signature of the Accused Officer showing that he attended the Office on that day, but, PW5 who was working as Senior Section Supervisor, BSNL, Tirupati, in his evidence admits that, on 05.06.2003, PW1 approached him and enquired about his bills, to which he told him that he processed the bills. When, PW1 enquired about the Executive Engineer, he was informed that the Executive Engineer was not available in the Office and as he along with Accused Officer went out to attend arbitration proceedings. On further enquiry, PW5 informed him that they will not come back to Office on that day. It would be useful to extract these admission in the evidence of PW5, which are as under: “On 05.06.2003 Sri Seshaiah (PW1) approached me and enquired about his bill. I told PW1 that I processed the bills. Then he enquired me about my EE, I told him that my EE was not available in the office as he along with the accused officer went to attend the court case regarding an arbitration proceedings. He further enquired me that whether they will come back to the office, and I informed him that they will not come back to the office on that day.” 40. It is also to be noted here that against the answers elicited from PW5, there was no cross-examination by Public Prosecutor. Therefore, this evidence of PW5, who was working as Senior Section Supervisor in BSNL, Tirupati, establish beyond doubt that when PW1 visited the Office on 05.06.2003, neither the Accused Officer nor the Executive Engineer were present in the Office. Therefore, a doubt arises as to whether really the Accused Officer was present in the Office at the time when PW1 visited, and also as to whether the Accused Officer demanded bribe from PW1 on that day. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the very demand on 05.06.2003 itself is false cannot be brushed aside and the same requires acceptance. 41. Coming to the acceptance of bribe amount, PW3 and PW14 are the two mediators before whom the 1st mediator’s report [Ex.P14] was prepared in the Railway Retiring Room at Tirupati. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the very demand on 05.06.2003 itself is false cannot be brushed aside and the same requires acceptance. 41. Coming to the acceptance of bribe amount, PW3 and PW14 are the two mediators before whom the 1st mediator’s report [Ex.P14] was prepared in the Railway Retiring Room at Tirupati. PW3 was asked to accompany PW1 to the Office of the Accused Officer and thereafter, give a signal by wiping his face with a handkerchief, after the amount is accepted by Accused Officer. Pursuant thereto, PW3 along with PW1 and other members of the trap party left the Railway Retiring Room at 1.15 p.m., and proceeded to the Office of Accused Officer. But, PW1 in his evidence only speaks about himself and another person [name not mentioned] going to the Divisional Office at Tirupati and meeting the Accused Officer, who was sitting in his office. His evidence does not show that on meeting the Accused Officer, the Accused Officer enquired as to whether he brought the money as demanded by him. His evidence shows that when enquired about Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 applications, the Accused Officer replied that he already enquired [‘adaginanu’]. Thereafter, when demanded by the Accused Officer, he claims to have handed over the money to the Accused Officer, who received with his right hand and kept it in his left side shirt pocket. Later, PW1 along with another person left the Chambers of the Accused Officer, came out and gave the signal by waiving his hand. It would be useful to extract this portion of PW1, which is as under: “Then myself and another person went to Divisional Office at Tirupati and met Sri Annamalai, accounts officer who is present in the dock (accused is sitting in the dock, witness identified him). Then I enquired about my applications i.e., Exs.P1 to P12. The accused replied that he already informed (‘adiginanu’). Then I picked up the amount from my left shirt pocket with my right hand and gave it to the accused. He picked up the amount with the right hand and kept in his left shirt pocket. Then I came out from the chambers of the accused. The person who followed me also came out and gave a signal by waving his hand. Immediately the Inspector, CBI came there. He picked up the amount with the right hand and kept in his left shirt pocket. Then I came out from the chambers of the accused. The person who followed me also came out and gave a signal by waving his hand. Immediately the Inspector, CBI came there. The inspector entered into the chambers of the accused and had a conversation with him”. 42. From the evidence of this witness, firstly, it is very much clear that, the Accused Officer never demanded any bribe when PW1 met him; secondly PW1 enquired Ex.P1 to Ex.P12, though, Ex.P9 to Ex.P12 never reached the Office of Executive Engineer by then; and thirdly without any demand, he claims to have handed over the money to the Accused Officer, who received it and kept it in his shirt pocket. At this stage, it is also to be noted that, during the preparation of pre-trap proceedings, PW1 was not sure whether he gave Rs.1,000/-rupee or Rs.500/-to Investigation Officer to be paid to the Accused Officer. It is relevant to note the same, which is as under: “The assistant of the inspector demonstrated applying of some powder when the powder is dropped in the water, it turned into rose colour. I provided Rs.1,000/-or Rs.500/-under the instructions of CBI Inspector, some powder was applied and numbers of the above currency notes are noted.” 43. The evidence of PW3 is something different. According to him, himself and PW1 went to BSNL Executive Engineer’s Office, situated at Tiruchunur, Tirupati, followed by CBI Officials. The room of Accused Officer was situated in the 1st floor of the building and PW1 first went inside the room. When PW3 was thinking about to entering the room, he heard conversation of persons. PW1 himself came out by giving a signal stating that Accused Officer accepted the bribe amount. Thereafter, PW3 is said to have given a pre-arranged signal by wiping his face with handkerchief. Later, CBI Officials and others entered the room of the Accused Officer. This portion of evidence of PW3 is as under: “Myself and PW1 went to BSNL Executive Engineer’s Office, situated at Tiruchunur road at Tirupati. The CBI team followed us. The room of Sri Annamalai is situated on the 1st floor of the building and PW1 went inside the room first. Then I was thinking to enter or not, I heard conversation of persons. The CBI team followed us. The room of Sri Annamalai is situated on the 1st floor of the building and PW1 went inside the room first. Then I was thinking to enter or not, I heard conversation of persons. PW1 himself came out by giving signal himself stating Sri Annamalai accepted the bribe and PW1 came out from the door. Then, I gave the pre-arranged signal by wiping my face with kerchief. Then, the CBI Officials and others came into that room. The PW1 once again entered into the room of Sri Annamalai. I too followed him.” 44. From the evidence of this witness, it is very clear that though PW3 was asked to accompany PW1, he did not enter the Office room of Accused Officer. Before PW3 could realize as to whether he should enter the room or not, PW1 came out saying that the Accused Officer accepted the bribe amount, which led to he giving a pre-arranged signal. His evidence does not anywhere disclose the presence of another person, who accompanied PW1 into the Office. Further, his evidence is in contra-distinction to the evidence of PW1 to the effect that, PW1 gave a signal by waiving his hand, which led to CBI Officials enter the Office of Accused Officer, while, the evidence of PW3 is to the effect that, after PW1 gave signal stating that Accused Officer has accepted the bribe, he gave a signal, which was agreed upon earlier. May be the discrepancy, pointed out appear insignificant. But at this stage, one fact, which should be noted is that PW1 went into the Office and within no time, he came out saying that the Accused Officer has accepted the bribe amount. I feel it would be important to refer to the evidence of PW14 and the evidence of PW4 at the stage. 45. PW14 is one of the mediators who accompanied the trap party. According to him, the CBI instructed PW1 and PW3 to go in advance to BSNL Office and also instructed him to give a signal by wiping his face after the amount is accepted. PW1 and PW3 went to BSNL Office first and they were followed by him and others. According to him, he and another person stood outside the BSNL Office. Within five minutes, PW1 came out of the Office and gave a pre-arranged signal. PW1 and PW3 went to BSNL Office first and they were followed by him and others. According to him, he and another person stood outside the BSNL Office. Within five minutes, PW1 came out of the Office and gave a pre-arranged signal. Then, CBI Inspector rushed into the Office followed by PW14. At that time, the Accused Officer was said to be closing the Office. It would be useful to refer to the evidence-in-chief of PW14, which is as under: “The CBI inspector instructed me to follow him. The inspector instructed PWs.1 and 3 to go in advance to BSNL office and also instructed after giving the amount, for giving a signal by wiping their faces. Ex.P18 is the same report prepared at the railway retiring room which bears my signature and others (when Ex.P18 shown to the witness, he identified his signature and others). PWs. 1 and 3 went first to BSNL Office. Myself and others followed them. Myself and other stood outside the BSNL Office PW1 came out five minutes after entering into the BSNL Office and gave the pre-arranged signal. Then the CBI inspector rushed into the office of BSNL, I followed him.” 46. The evidence of this witness goes to show PW1 and PW3 went to the Office of Accused Officer much in advance, followed by PW14 and others and on a signal given by PW1, the CBI Inspector rushed into the Office of BSNL, which evidence is again in contradiction to the evidence of PW3, with regard to relaying of signal. Though, the discrepancy, which has been pointed out, appears to be insignificant or minor in nature, the same, in my view, may have some importance, having regard to evidence of PW4. 47. But referring to the evidence of PW4, it is to be noted that the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW14 would show that, though, PW3 was asked to accompany PW1, he, did not go inside the room and before he could realize as to whether he should go inside, PW1 came out and gave a signal by waiving a signal and saying that the money was accepted, which is contrary to the signal agreed upon. In-spite of the same, the CBI Officials are alleged to have entered the Office. 48. In-spite of the same, the CBI Officials are alleged to have entered the Office. 48. PW4 in his evidence admits that, he got acquaintance with PW1 since last 10 years and on 09.06.2003 he came to the Office to see him and then entered into the chambers of Accused Officer and within two minutes thereafter, PW1 came out and went away. Immediately, thereafter, the Accused Officer also came out from his Chambers by raising voice ‘where is Seshaiah’ [PW1]. Immediately, four or five persons came there, caught hold of the Accused Officer and took him to his Chambers. However, to a suggestion that the Accused Officer had money in his right hand was denied by him. It would be useful to extract the admissions elicited in the evidence of PW4, which is as under: “On 09.06.2003 PW1 came to our Office, wished me and then entered into the chambers of Accused Officer. Two minutes thereafter, PW1 came out and went away. Immediately, the Accused Officer also came out from his Chambers by raising voice ‘where is Seshaiah’. Immediately, 4 or 5 persons came there and caught hold the Accused Officer and took him to his Chambers. It is not true to suggest that, the Accused Officer had amount in his right hand when he came out from his chambers following PW1, and that I am intentionally deposing false as if I did not observe the cash in his hand.” 49. From the evidence of this witness, it is evident that after PW1 came out of the Chambers, the Accused Officer also came out raising voice as ‘where is Seshaiah’. If really the amount was accepted as bribe, there is no justification for the Accused Officer to come out raising voice against PW1. He would have simply kept the money in his pocket and closed the Office, as stated by PW3, or that he would have continued with the work, as stated by other witnesses. There was no reason for him to come out calling PW1. Having regard to the above, the plea of the Accused Officer that the money was forcibly kept in his hands by PW1 and then came out cannot be brushed aside. There was no reason for him to come out calling PW1. Having regard to the above, the plea of the Accused Officer that the money was forcibly kept in his hands by PW1 and then came out cannot be brushed aside. This plea of thrusting or forcibly keeping money assumes significant as the evidence of PW1 itself show that the Accused Officer never demanded any money when he met him on 09.06.2003 and when enquired about Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. The Accused Officer seems to have informed him that he will inquire about the same. It is very difficult to believe that, without any demand, PW1 would have parted with the money. This circumstance, in my view, show that the money was kept forcibly by PW1. 50. Further, as held by the Apex Court, mere recovery of money by itself will not lead to an inference that the money was accepted as illegal gratification, more so, in the facts of this case, where the prosecution failed to prove the demand on 05.06.2003 and also demand prior to alleged acceptance on 09.06.2003. Definitely things would have been different had any material been placed to show that this amount was paid as bribe. PW3 and PW14 do not anywhere indicate the payment of money to Accused Officer. Therefore, in my view, the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and in the absence of evidence to show that the money was paid as illegal gratification; mere recovery of money, may not be sufficient to convict the Accused Officer for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 51. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police and Anr., (2015) 10 SCC 152 the Apex Court held that, mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It has been propounded that 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 proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Dealing with the same, the Court observed as under: "The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, de hors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder." 52. The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) through His Legal Representative v. State of Punjab, (2017) 8 Supreme Court Cases 136, as under:- "23. 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 therefore, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, de hors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder." 53. In fact, in C.M. Sharma v. State of Andhra Pradesh etc., LAWS (SC) 2010 11 84 the Apex Court held as under: “In support of the submission reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra (1987) Suppl. SCC 266 and our attention has been drawn to the following paragraph of the judgment: “26. Therefore, the very foundation of the prosecution case is shaken to a great extent. SCC 266 and our attention has been drawn to the following paragraph of the judgment: “26. Therefore, the very foundation of the prosecution case is shaken to a great extent. The question as to the handing over of any bribe and recovery of the same from the accused should be considered along with other material circumstances one of which is the question whether any demand was at all made by the appellant for the bribe. When it is found that no such demand was made by the accused and the prosecution has given a false story in that regard, the court will view the allegation of payment of the bribe to and recovery of the same from the accused with suspicion.” In Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1979) 4 SCC 725 this Court took the view that mere recovery of tainted money divorced 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. The 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. Another decision on which reliance is placed is the decision of this court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Dyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, (2009) 15 SCC 200 in which it has been held as: “16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence viz. demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety.” 54. In the judgments referred to above, it has been categorically held that, in order to prove a charge under Sections 7 and 13 of 1988 Act, the prosecution has to establish by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The Apex Court held that till that is accomplished, accused should be considered to be innocent. In the judgments referred to above, it has been categorically held that, in order to prove a charge under Sections 7 and 13 of 1988 Act, the prosecution has to establish by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The Apex Court held that till that is accomplished, accused should be considered to be innocent. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of 1998 Act and in the absence thereof, unmistakably the charge, therefore, would fail. The Apex Court went on to hold that mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, de-hors proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under aforesaid two sections. 55. In State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, 2013(3) MLJ (Crl) 565, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, 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’. It is appropriate to incorporate paragraph No.7 of the said judgment, which reads thus: "7. 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. 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." 56. In view of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and having regard to the judgments referred to above, I am of the view that, there is any positive evidence to show that there was any preliminary enquiry before registering the crime; that the amount, which was recovered from the Accused Officer, was the amount paid by the PW1 as illegal gratification for doing a favour. This finding is based on the evidence referred to above, wherein, the prosecution failed to prove that there was a demand on 05.06.2003 and a favour pending with the Accused Officer either on the date of alleged demand or on the date of acceptance of money and more particularly no demand was made by the Accused Officer either earlier or on the date of trap and without any demand, it is difficult to believe that PW1 would have paid the money. Hence, it is a fit case where benefit of doubt can be extended to the Accused Officer. 57. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant - A.O., for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in C.C.No.22 of 2004 on the file of Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, by judgment dated 07.11.2008, is set aside. The appellant - A.O. is acquitted and he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant - A.O. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.