JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed assailing the judgment dated 18.11.2008 in CC.No.32 of 2003 passed by Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad, whereunder the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. 2. The charge against the appellant/accused was that the complainant, Nednuri Venkateswar Rao (P.W.1), took the vehicle Toyota Qualis bearing No.AP 10 U 8010 from his owner and proceeded to Medak with the family of his co-driver by name Sridhar Rao (P.W.2) during the night hours on 21.08.2002. On reaching Mamdapur village, the vehicle met with an accident. P.W.1 sustained simple injuries, wife of P.W.2 received fracture on her right hand and they got first aid in a private hospital at Medak. On the report given by P.W.1, on 22.08.2002, a case in Cr.No.33 of 2002 was registered by the Sub-Inspector (accused officer) and the injured were sent to the government hospital for treatment and certificate. P.W.1 was arrested and sent to judicial custody on 04.09.2002. P.W.1 met the accused officer, who demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe for doing official favour i.e. for expediting filing of charge sheet and also to facilitate in getting insurance benefits. On 07.09.2002, P.W.1 again approached the accused officer, who reiterated his earlier demand of bribe. P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay the bribe amount. The accused officer voluntarily reduced the bribe amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.3,000/-and instructed P.W.1 to pay the bribe amount on 13.09.2002 at Shankarampet Police Station or at his residence. 3. P.W.1 lodged a complaint with the DSP, Nizamabad on 12.09.2002 against the accused officer and the same was registered in Cr.No.12/ACB-NZB/2002 under Section 7 of the Act on 13.09.2002 and investigation was taken up. The DSP, ACB, secured the services of one U. Narsimhuloo, AEE, R&B, O/o. EE, R&B, Sangareddy and Sri Mohd. 3. P.W.1 lodged a complaint with the DSP, Nizamabad on 12.09.2002 against the accused officer and the same was registered in Cr.No.12/ACB-NZB/2002 under Section 7 of the Act on 13.09.2002 and investigation was taken up. The DSP, ACB, secured the services of one U. Narsimhuloo, AEE, R&B, O/o. EE, R&B, Sangareddy and Sri Mohd. Azam Ali, Senior Assistant, O/o. District Registrar, Medak at Sangareddy as mediators and laid the trap on 13.09.2002 against the accused officer. Phenolphthalein test was conducted over both the hand fingers of the accused officer, which yielded positive result. The DSP, ACB, seized the tainted amount from the possession of the accused officer, which was produced by the accused officer from his left side shirt pocket. The statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur. The accused officer was arrested and released on bail. After obtaining sanction from the competent authority, Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 22.04.2003, to prosecute the accused officer, charge sheet was filed. The accused officer was furnished with the case papers under Section 207 IPC. The accused officer pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The trial Court framed the following points for consideration: (i) Whether AO is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. (ii) Whether Sanction Order accorded to prosecute AO under Ex.P9 by the Government is valid. (iii) Whether AO demanded the PW.1 for payment of bribe amount, and in pursuance of earlier demand, whether AO demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.3,000/-on 13.9.2002 as gratification other than legal remuneration from PW-1 - Complainant Sri Nedunuri Venkteswar Rao for doing an official favour for expediting in filing the charge sheet and to facilitate the PW.1 in getting insurance benefits, by abusing his position as public servant. (iv)Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt f the AO for the offences punishable under Sections - 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the Act. 5. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 documents and M.Os.1 to 5. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused officer also filed a written statement and got examined D.Ws.1 to 4 on his behalf and marked Exs.D1 to D4. Exs.X1 and X2 were also marked. The trial Court, upon considering oral and documentary evidence, recorded the conviction as aforesaid. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused officer also filed a written statement and got examined D.Ws.1 to 4 on his behalf and marked Exs.D1 to D4. Exs.X1 and X2 were also marked. The trial Court, upon considering oral and documentary evidence, recorded the conviction as aforesaid. 6. Mr. D.V. Seetharama Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. N. Manohar, learned counsel for the appellant, made the following submissions: (a) the conviction was recorded by the trial Court on the basis of Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements and the same is not sustainable; (b) demand of bribe was not proved; (c) the evidence of the complainant-PW.1 was eschewed; P.W.2 was standing outside the police station and did not know what happened between P.W.1 and the accused officer; there was no independent witness to establish that the accused officer had demanded bribe; (d) mereacceptance of money de horse proof of demand would not be sufficient for conviction; (e) conviction is based solely on the complaint of P.W.1. i.e. Ex.P1 and the statements of the de facto complainant and P.W.2 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C; there was no substantive evidence before the trial Court for recording conviction; (f) P.W.4, who is the star witness for the prosecution and mediator to the trap proceedings, did not state anything about the demand. 7. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for ACB, submitted that as per Ex.P2(a), pre trap proceedings, and as per Ex.P8, post trap proceedings, the demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- was proved. Ex.P1 proved the demand of bribe amount. Though P.W.1’s evidence was eschewed, the proof of demand of bribe was clearly proved through P.W.2. Apparently, P.W.2 was won over by the accused officer. Having supported the case of the prosecution, in the chief examination, P.W.2 contradicted his statements in the cross-examination, which was conducted after 10 months. In any case, the demand part was proved through chief examination of P.W.2. P.W.4, mediator, who participated in the post trap proceedings, supported the case of the prosecution excepting demand. The accused officer, being a Government employee, could not have received money from any person, which is violation of his job chart. 8. In reply, Mr. D.V. Seetharama Murthy, learned senior counsel submitted that Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements cannot be relied upon and cannot be marked. 9. The following issues arise for consideration in this appeal: 1. The accused officer, being a Government employee, could not have received money from any person, which is violation of his job chart. 8. In reply, Mr. D.V. Seetharama Murthy, learned senior counsel submitted that Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements cannot be relied upon and cannot be marked. 9. The following issues arise for consideration in this appeal: 1. Whether there was demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- was proved by the prosecution. 2. Whether the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C can be relied upon as evidence. ISSUES Nos.1 to 2: 10. In the complaint under Ex.P1, P.W.1 stated that the vehicle wherein he was traveling along with the family of P.W.2 met with an accident. In that connection, he lodged a report on 22.08.2002. He was remanded to judicial custody on 04.09.2002. P.W.1 met the accused officer on 05.09.2002. The accused officer offered to help P.W.1 for getting insurance benefits and for that work, demanded Rs.5,000/-as bribe. P.W.1 met the accused officer again on 07.09.2020 and the accused officer reiterated his demand. P.W.1 expressed that he was poor and cannot pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The accused officer voluntarily reduced the bribe amount to Rs.3,000/- and asked P.W.1 to pay the amount before 13.09.2002 at Shankarampet Police Station or at his residence. P.W.1 lodged a report on 12.09.2002 with the DSP, ACB, Nizamabad and a case in Cr.No.13/ACB-NZB/2002 under Section 7 of the Act was registered on 13.09.2002. 11. In the chief examination of P.W.1, he reiterated the contents of the complaint under Ex.P1. P.W.1 lodged a report on 12.09.2002 with the DSP, ACB, Nizamabad and a case in Cr.No.13/ACB-NZB/2002 under Section 7 of the Act was registered on 13.09.2002. 11. In the chief examination of P.W.1, he reiterated the contents of the complaint under Ex.P1. He stated that on 13.09.2002 he went to the ACB office, Sangareddy, along with P.W.1; they were asked to wait outside; later introduced to two mediators and other trap members; he handed over Rs.3,000/- in the denomination of Rs.500/- notes (six in number); some white powder was applied to the currency notes; he was explained about the trap proceedings; the tainted currency notes was placed in his left side shirt pocket by a constable; P.W.2 was called inside the ACB officer and instructed to accompany him to the Shankarampet police station and observe the events between him and the accused officer; they proceeded in a Tata Sumo vehicle to the police station; himself and P.W.2 entered into the police station; they were asked to wait as the accused officer was in his quarters; the accused officer came to the police station at 9.30 A.M.; at that time three other villagers were also waiting for the accused officer; P.W.2 and himself entered into the room of the accused officer; the accused officer asked him whether he brought money or not; then he paid the tainted amount of Rs.3,000/- to the accused officer; P.W.2 relayed the prearranged signal to the DSP and the trap party led by the DSP rushed into the room of the accused officer; P.Ws.1 and 2 wee asked to wait outside until they were called; after 1 ½ hrs they were called inside and examined; his version was incorporated in the post trap proceedings; his statement was recorded by the DSP on 14.09.2002. It may be noted that evidence of P.W.1 was eschewed vide order dated 28.09.2002 passed by the trial Court on the ground that in spite of several adjournments, prosecution failed to serve summons to P.W.1 and a report was filed that his whereabouts are not known. 12. It may be noted that evidence of P.W.1 was eschewed vide order dated 28.09.2002 passed by the trial Court on the ground that in spite of several adjournments, prosecution failed to serve summons to P.W.1 and a report was filed that his whereabouts are not known. 12. P.W.2 stated that he is a private driver; he worked under P. Venkat Reddy (P.W.3), who owned Toyota Qualis, during the year 2002; P.W.1 was also working under P.W.3 as driver of the same vehicle; P.W.3 directed P.W.1 to drop him and his family at his in-laws house at Medak and thereafter, to take a customer in the said vehicle to Vijayawada; they all boarded the vehicle driven by P.W.1 and left Hyderabad at 11 PM and when they reached Mamadapur village, at a turning, the vehicle met with an accident and dashed to a tree; P.W.1 and his wife received simple injuries and the vehicle was considerably damaged; on 22.08.2002, P.W.1 and himself went to Shankarampet Police Station and met the accused officer, who was the then SI and narrated the incident; the accused officer called the wife of P.W.2 to the police station and referred her and P.W.1 to Government Hospital, Medak for treatment; on the request of P.W.1, he accompanied him to Sangareddy on 12.09.2002; they went to ACB Office, Sangareddy on 13.09.2002 at about 5.30 AM; P.W.1 entered into the office and later, he was called into the office; the DSP instructed him to accompany P.W.1 to the Shankarampet Police Station and watch the events between P.W.1 and the accused officer and relay a signal to the trap party by wiping his face with handkerchief in case the accused officer demands and accepts bribe from P.W.1. 13. 13. P.W.2 further stated that P.W.1, trap party and himself went to the Shankarampet Police Station at about 8.30 AM; P.W.1 and himself entered into the police station but the accused officer was not available in the police station; the constable informed them to wait till the arrival of the accused officer; the accused officer came to the police station around 9 or 9.30 AM; some other villagers were also waiting in the police station; the accused officer called them into the room and on seeing P.W.1, the accused officer asked whether he brought the money for which P.W.1 gave affirmative answer and tendered a wad of currency notes to the accused officer and the accused officer received the amount and kept the same in his left side shirt pocket; P.W.1 and himself came out and relayed the pre-arranged signal to the trap party; then the trap party led by the DSP rushed into the room of the accused officer and they were asked to wait outside; after one and half hours he was called inside the room of the accused officer and his statement was recorded by DSP. In the cross-examination of P.W.2, it is stated that he does not know what happened between P.W.1 and the accused officer on 13.09.2002; since P.W.1 gave signal to him, in turn, he gave signal to the trap party; his statement was not recorded by the DSP in the post trap proceedings; he gave statement stated before the Magistrate on 22.08.20002 that as per written statement given by ACB; he admitted that P.W.1 was sent to judicial custody in Cr.No.33 of 2002; he was declared by the Special Public Prosecutor. In the cross-examination by the Special Public Prosecutor P.W.2 denied the suggestion that he gave the statement to DSP, ACB as in Ex.P2 stating that the accused officer was not available in the police station; they sat outside the police station; there were three other villagers at that time; the accused officer came from his quarter; P.W.1 met the accused officer and on the asking of the accused officer, P.W.1 paid the bribe amount of Rs.3,000/-; he admitted that he stated before the Magistrate on 21.09.2200 that the accused officer was not available in the police station; constable asked them to wait; they waited up to 9.30 AM; the accused office came to the police station and P.W.1 handed over Rs.3,000/- to him; however, he retracted from the statement and volunteered to state that the constable gave him written statement and accordingly, he deposed the same before the Magistrate. He stated that he did not mention about the written statement before the Magistrate, as the Magistrate did not ask him. 14. P.W.3 is the owner of the Toyota Qualis, which was driven by P.Ws.1 and 2. He stated that in the night of 21.08.2002, the vehicle was engaged to go to Vijayawada; he was informed by P.W.1 that he would drop P.W.2 and his family at his in-laws place in Medak and come back to Hyderabad; but he did not pick up the passengers to proceed to Vijayawada; he was informed by P.Ws.1 and 2 that the car met with an accident in Shankarampet Police Station limits, as the vehicle dashed against a tree; P.Ws.1 and 2 and wife of P.W.2 were injured in the said accident and the car was heavily damaged. In the cross-examination, P.W.3 stated that there was misunderstanding and galata between him and P.W.1 on the issue that without his permission, P.W.1 has taken away the vehicle to drop P.W.2 and his family and met with an accident; he asked P.W.1 for the damage occurred in the accident; P.W.1 assured to pay some damages through the police station as there was some galata between him and P.W.1; Ex.D3 is the FIR in Cr.No.302 of 2002 of Malkajgiri police station lodged by P.W.1 against P.W.3 (marked subject to objection); the said case was closed as false. 15. 15. P.W.4, who was working as Assistant Executive Engineer, R & B, Sangareddy, stated that he went to the police station at about 8.05 AM on 13.09.2002 along with P.Ws.1 and 2 and trap party members; after the accused officer received the tainted currency notes, they all rushed into the police station; the DSP asked the accused officer to rinse his right hand fingers in sodium carbonate solution in one glass and left hand fingers in another glass; the solution in which right hand fingers were rinsed turned into light pink colour; the solution in which left hand fingers were rinsed remained without change of colour; the DSP questioned the accused officer whether he received any amount; then the accused officer produced a wad of currency notes from his left side shirt pocket; they verified the serial numbers of the currency notes and found them to be tallying; M.O.2 is the right hand wash of the accused officer, M.O.3 is the left hand wash; M.O.4 is the resultant solution of inner lining of left side shirt pocket; M.O.5 is the shirt; Ex.P3 is the docket sheet along with FIR and Part I and Part II investigation report investigation report in Cr.No.33 of 2002; Ex.P4 is the General Diary of the police station from 08.06.2002 to 09.09.2002; Ex.P5 is the Sentry Relief Book of the police station; Ex.P6 is the note book maintained by the accused officer, all of them were seized by the DSP. 16. P.W.5, who is the Assistant Section Officer, Home Department, Secretariat, deposed about the sanction order under Ex.P9 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.109 Home (SC-A) Department dated 22.04.2003 to prosecute the accused officer. 17. P.W.6 is the DSP, who received Ex.P1 complaint. He stated that he obtained permission from the Head Office and registered the complaint; he informed P.Ws.1 and 2 about the pre trap proceedings and he led the trap party to the Shankarampet Police Station; he examined the accused officer in connection with recovery of Rs.3,000/-, which was paid by P.W.1 as bribe amount. 18. P.W.7 is the Investigation Officer, who recorded the statements of L.Ws.6 to 9; on 14.09.2002, he filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangareddy, to appoint one Magistrate to record the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 and their statements were recorded on 21.09.2002. 19. 18. P.W.7 is the Investigation Officer, who recorded the statements of L.Ws.6 to 9; on 14.09.2002, he filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangareddy, to appoint one Magistrate to record the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 and their statements were recorded on 21.09.2002. 19. D.W.1 was the Circle Inspector of Police during the relevant period; he stated that as per the GD entry dated 04.09.2002, the accused officer left Shankarampet to Ramayanpet Circle Inspector Office at about 7.45 AM, as per his instructions to review under investigation and pending trial cases; the accused officer returned to Shankarampet Police Station at about 19.00 Hrs on the same day as per GD entry; as per the GD entry dated 05.09.2002 at about 9 AM, the accused officer along with ASI and a police constable, left Shankarampet Police Station to Ramayanpet Circle Inspector Officer and GD charge was handed over to H.C.57 on the same day about 17.15 Hrs; the accused officer returned to Shankarampet police station and took up the GD from H.C.57; on 05.09.2002, he called the accused officer to discuss extremist problems. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion of the Special Public Prosecutor that there was no meeting conducted on 05.09.2002 with the accused officer and he was deposing false. 20. D.W.2, who was the then ASI, stated that as per GD on 04.09.2002, he took up the GD charge from the accused officer at about 7.45 AM; P.W.1, who was accused in Cr.No.33 of 2002, surrendered before him; P.W.1 was arrested; he had sent P.W.1 to JFCM, Medak District after preparing the remand CD; as per the GD entry at about 7 PM, the accused officer returned to the Shankarampet police station. 21. D.W.3 is an Advocate practicing in the City Civil Courts, Hyderabad; he stated that on 13.09.2002, at about 8.30 AM, he went to Shankarampet police station with his relatives to enquire about the medical reports, as his brother-in-law expired and at that time, the accused officer was not present in the police station; they waited for half an hour; P.W.1 asked the accused officer regarding the accident case and requested the accused officer to hand over Rs.3,000/- towards vehicle damages and hand over the same to the owner of the vehicle. In the cross-examination, D.W.3 stated that during the year 2002 he was about 28 years and he was pursuing his law course. In the cross-examination, D.W.3 stated that during the year 2002 he was about 28 years and he was pursuing his law course. He denied the suggestion of the Special Public Prosecutor that the incident as stated by him was not correct and deposing false. 22. D.W.4, who was the Branch Manager of the United India Insurance Company Limited, stated that insurance claim was made by P.W.3 for damageof the vehicle. In the cross-examination, he stated that the claim was settled on 17.04.2003 for an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- and paid to P.W.2 towards damages. 23. Learned senior counsel for the appellant relied on the following decisions: N. VIJAY KUMAR v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, CDJ 2021 SC 069 = (2021) 3 SCC 687 ; DASARATH SINGH CHAUHAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 2019 (17) SCC 509 ; P. SATYANARYANA MURTHY v. THE DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 2015 (10) SCC 152 ; N. SUNKANNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 2016 (1) SCC 703; B. JAYARAJ v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 2014 (13) SCC 55 . In N. VIJAY KUMAR’s case (1 supra), it was held as under: “26. It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI [C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] and in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] In the aforesaid judgments of this Court while considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court. 27. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court. 27. The relevant paras 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment in B. Jayaraj [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] read as under: (SCC pp. 58-59) “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. [C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P., (2010) 15 SCC 1 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 89] and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI [C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] . 8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext. P-11) before LW 9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW 1 and the contents of Ext. P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. 9. Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.” In DASARATH SINGH CHAUHAN’s case (2 supra), it was held as under: “32. Since in order to attract the rigors of Section 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act, the prosecution was under a legal obligation to prove the twin requirements of “demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused”, the proving of one alone but not the other was not sufficient. The appellant is, therefore, entitled for acquittal from the charges framed against him under the PC Act too. The appellant is, therefore, entitled for acquittal from the charges framed against him under the PC Act too. (See para 8 of M.K. Harshan v. State of Kerala [ (1996) 11 SCC 720 ].” In P. SATYANARYANA MURTHY’s case (3 supra), it was held 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 therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors 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 Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. … 26. In reiteration of the golden principle which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases, this Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam [ (2013) 12 SCC 406 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 677] had held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of “may be” true but has to upgrade it in the domain of “must be” true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It was held, that the court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. In N. SUNKANNA’s case (4 supra), the Supreme Court held as under: “5. … The complainant himself had disowned his complaint and has turned hostile and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand. In short there is no proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. The possession is also admitted by the accused. In short there is no proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. The possession is also admitted by the accused. It is settled law that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7, since demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Section 13(1)(d) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. 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. Unless there is proof of demand of illegal gratification proof of acceptance will not follow. Reference may be made to the two decisions of the three-Judge Bench of this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. [ (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] and P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. [ (2015) 10 SCC 152 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 11 : (2015) 9 Scale 724 ]. In B. JAYARAJ’s case (5 supra), the Supreme Court held 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] . 24. 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] . 24. Insofar as demand of bribe amount by the accused officer is concerned, the crucial witnesses of the prosecution are P.Ws.1 and 2. The evidence was P.W.1 was eschewed. Thus, for proving the demand, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.2. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.2, it can be seen that he has not spoken anything about the demand made by the accused officer to P.W.1 to pay the bribe amount of Rs.3,000/-. In fact, P.W.2 stated that he went to the Shankarampet police station on 22.08.2002 along with P.W.1. However, P.W.2 stated that on 13.09.2002, he accompanied P.W.1 to ACB Office, Sangareddy and he was given instructions regarding pre-trap proceedings. Though P.W.2 stated that the accused officer asked P.W.1 whether he brought the money and the accused officer received the tainted amount from P.W.1, he did not state about the demand of bribe amount by the accused officer from P.W.1 prior to 13.09.2002. 25. The trial Court noted that P.W.2 was cross-examined after ten months. However, P.W.2, having supported the case of the prosecution in the chief examination, turned to the defence side and he was declared hostile. The trial Court relied upon Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2, recorded by the Magistrate on 21.09.2002 and had drawn a conclusion that the chief examination of P.W.2 as well as his original version under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is almost one and the same. The trial Court also recorded that the statement of P.W.2 in the cross-examination that whatever he stated before the Magistrate during the post trap proceedings was correct. That part of the cross-examination was taken note by the trial Court. Further, the trial Court also recorded that P.W.2 stated P.W.1 handed over Rs.3,000/- to the accused officer. The trial Court also recorded that the statement of P.W.2 in the cross-examination that whatever he stated before the Magistrate during the post trap proceedings was correct. That part of the cross-examination was taken note by the trial Court. Further, the trial Court also recorded that P.W.2 stated P.W.1 handed over Rs.3,000/- to the accused officer. The trial Court had drawn a conclusion about the initial demand made by the accused officer on 07.09.2002, as per Ex.P1 complaint and held that the demand made by the accused officer to P.W.1 is supported by P.W.2 and the contents of Ex.P1 and statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C and the evidence of P.W.4, independent mediator. It would be relevant to extract the findings of the trial Court as under: “ii) Apart from it, his Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Magistrate, wherein he has totally supported the case of the prosecution, and the chief-examination of PW.2 as well as his version recorded in Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement is almost one and the same. In such a case, PW.2 supported the AO during cross-examination only after 10 months. 12. With regard to demand aspect, though PW.1’s evidence is eschewed on account of his non-production before this Court for facing the cross-examination by the defence, in spite of best efforts put by it, in the Statement of PW.1 recorded under Section-164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate, he (P.W.1) supported the case of prosecution. Apart from it, PW.2 also deposed in his statement recorded under Section-164 CR.P.C. by the Magistrate about the demand made by AO on 7.9.2002 (but it typed as 9.9.2002 in it, it might be typographical error). Even PW.1 mentioned in the complaint Ex.P1 about the initial demand made by AO on 7.9.2002, and the said Ex.P1 is the initial record and the same is clarified by the mediator (PW.4). PW-4-the independent mediator also clarified that DSP gave the copy of FIR to him and another mediator, and that they verified the contents of Ex.P1 with PW.1, who stated that the contents thereof are true and correct. This aspect is support the version of prosecution that the contents of FIR are true s stated by PW.1 to the mediators during pre-trap proceedings. This aspect is support the version of prosecution that the contents of FIR are true s stated by PW.1 to the mediators during pre-trap proceedings. In such a case, the demand made by AO to PW.1 is supported by the evidence of PW.2 and the contents of Ex.P1-complaint and the statements of PWs.1 and 2 under Section-164 Cr.P.C, and the evidence of PW-4 the independent mediator, against whom no motives can be attributed, and also by the evidence of PW.6-the Trap Laying Officer. i) Another thing is that, the report given by PW.1, whose evidence was eschewed, was in the own hand-writing of complainant only. In the said circumstances, for the demand aspect, there is evidence of PW.2 coupled with the evidence of PWs.4 and 6, apart from contents of complaint (Ex.P1) and Section-164 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs.1 and 2 disclosed that there is demand made by AO to PW.1 since PW.1 was unwilling to pay the bribe amount, he lodged Ex.P1-written complaint in his own hand writing. Therefore, the contention of the AO that there is no demand by him to PW.1 is negated.” (emphasis supplied) 26. It has been held in catena of decisions that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as substantive piece of evidence. It is only meant to corroborate or contrdict the statements of the witnesses. The Supreme Court in BAIJ NATH SAH v. STATE OF BIHAR, (2010) 6 SCC 736 held as under: “6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. We see from the judgments of the courts below that the only material that has been used against the appellant is the statement under Section 164 CrPC. This Court in Ram Kishan Singh v. Harmit Kaur [ (1972) 3 SCC 280 ] has held that a statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and can be utilised only to corroborate or contradict the witness vis-à-vis statement made in court. In other words, it can be utilised only as a previous statement and nothing more.” 27. Apart from statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the trial Court also gave much weightage to the FIR under Ex.P1, which is also not a substantive piece of evidence. In other words, it can be utilised only as a previous statement and nothing more.” 27. Apart from statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the trial Court also gave much weightage to the FIR under Ex.P1, which is also not a substantive piece of evidence. The Supreme Court in DHARMA RAMA BHAGARE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, (1973) 1 SCC 537 held as under: “… The first information report, it may be pointed out, is never treated as a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used for corroborating or contradicting its maker when he appears in court as a witness. Its value must always depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case …” 28. As held in B. JAYARAJ’s case (5 supra), the prosecution under Section 20 of the Act attracts only when demand and acceptance of bribe amount are proved. Though acceptance of Rs.3,000/- was proved through the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4, this Court holds that demand of the bribe amount was not proved. The trial Court was not convinced with the evidence of P.W.3, who stated that P.W.1 agreed to pay Rs.3,000/- as damage to the vehicle through the accused officer. The trial Court held that it is illogical that P.W.1 would pay Rs.3,000/-when insurance claim for damage of the vehicle was settled at Rs.1,15,000/- by the insurance company as spoken by D.W.4. It cannot be said with certainty that the accused officer was not present at the police station on 05.09.2002 and 07.09.2002 when the alleged bribe amount was demanded from P.W.1. But in view of the fact that the evidence of P.W.1 was eschewed, there was no other evidence with the prosecution regarding demand excepting for Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 and ExP1 complaint, which as noted above are not admissible in evidence. The issues are accordingly answered. 29. The contentions of the learned Standing Counsel for ACB that P.W.2 was gained over by the defence side and he was cross-examined after 10 months and the evidence of P.W.2 in chief examination is very clear and the same is supported by P.W.4 are without merit. P.Ws.2 and 4 spoke about the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings but nothing is spoken by them regarding alleged demand made to P.W.1 by the accused officer on 05.09.2002 and 07.09.2002. P.Ws.2 and 4 spoke about the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings but nothing is spoken by them regarding alleged demand made to P.W.1 by the accused officer on 05.09.2002 and 07.09.2002. This Court finds that there are lacunae in the case of the prosecution so far as demand of bribe amount is concerned. The prosecution has failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification and thus, the conviction of the appellant vide judgment of the trial Court, on the basis of the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and Ex.P1 complaint, is unsustainable. For the aforesaid reasons, the criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and the sentences imposed are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the appellant, be released.