JUDGMENT : Appellant-State represented by Lokayukta Police, Belgaum is before this Court assailing the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 01.07.2011 passed in Special Case No.48 of 2009 on the file of IV Additional District and Special Judge, Belgaum (for short ‘the Trial Court’), acquitting the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’ for the sake of brevity). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the informant Sri.Nurullakhan Meerakhan Pathan lodged the first information with Lokayukta Police, Belgaum against the accused stating that his wife lodged the complaint against him and his family members with Malmaruthi Police Station. After registering the complaint, the accused who was working as Assistant Sub Inspector IN the said police station, summoned the informant to the police station. Accordingly, the informant along with his friend Sadaruddin Mohamadgouse Majagavi visited Malmaruthi Police Station on 03.12.2007 and met the accused. The accused enquired about the facts of the case with the wife of the informant and her family members. But however, retained the informant in the police station, under the guise of settling the dispute between the two. He demanded Rs.30,000/-as illegal gratification. When the informant refused to pay the amount, the accused demanded to pay atleast Rs.10,000/-and threatened the informant that he will be put in the lockup. The informant paid Rs.1,000/ and informed that he will arrange for Rs.10,000/-within 10 days. Thereafter, the accused sent the informant to his house. on three or four times, the accused had called the informant insisting to pay Rs.10,000/-. He was also threatening the informant that he will be dragged to police station, if he fails to make payment. Therefore, he requested the Lokayukta police to register the case and to initiate legal action. 3. On the basis of this first information, Lokayukta police, Belgaum, registered Crime No.9 of 2008 against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. It is stated that pre-trap procedures were conducted and pre-trap mahazar was drawn. It is stated that Rs.10,000/-was entrusted to the informant after smearing it with phenolphthalein powder, with a direction to the informant to approach the accused and if he demands the amount, to pay the entrusted amount as illegal gratification. It is stated that pre-trap procedures were conducted and pre-trap mahazar was drawn. It is stated that Rs.10,000/-was entrusted to the informant after smearing it with phenolphthalein powder, with a direction to the informant to approach the accused and if he demands the amount, to pay the entrusted amount as illegal gratification. The shadow witness was directed to accompany the informant and to observe the developments while meeting the accused. It is stated that the informant met the accused along with the entrusted amount and the accused demanded and accepted the said amount as illegal gratification. The hand wash of the accused was done. The tainted money was recovered from the possession of the accused. The trap panchanama was drawn in the presence of panchas. 4. The Investigating Officer after investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences. The Special Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused to appear before the Court. The accused appeared before the Trial Court in Special Case (Lokayukta) No.48 of 2009 and pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled against him. 5. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to 29 and identified Mos1 to 9 in support of its contention. The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the offences stated above and therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of acquittal came to the passed. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and acquittal passed by the Trial Court, the State represented by Lokayukta Police, Belgaum has preferred this appeal. 6. Heard Sri.Anil Kale, learned counsel for the appellant-State and Sri.Abhishek Patil, learned counsel for the respondent-accused. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the impugned judgment of acquittal submitted that, even though the complainant resiled from the first information, he is treated hostile and cross examined by the learned Special Prosecutor. PW2 being the shadow witness partly supported the case of the prosecution. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the impugned judgment of acquittal submitted that, even though the complainant resiled from the first information, he is treated hostile and cross examined by the learned Special Prosecutor. PW2 being the shadow witness partly supported the case of the prosecution. However, there is a clear admission regarding demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification. PW4 is the second pancha who had accompanied the Investigating Officer. He fully supported the case of the prosecution. It is not in dispute that the tainted money was recovered from the accused while drawing trap panchanama. The accused has categorically admitted recovery of this amount from his custody by giving his explanation at the earliest point of time. All these facts and circumstances prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has not come up with any explanation. Under such circumstances, the accused should have been convicted for the above said offences. Learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused extending the benefit of doubt. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal in the interest of justice and to convict the accused for the above said offences. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-accused supporting the impugned judgment of acquittal, submitted that PW1 is the informant, PW2 is the shadow witness, PW3 is the friend of the informant who had accompanied him. All these three material witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution with regard to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. Under such circumstances, mere recovery of tainted money from the possession of accused cannot be relied upon to convict the accused. The Trial Court rightly considered the material on record and extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. No illegality or perversity is found in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court. Therefore, the same do not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of appeal in the interest of justice. 9. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arises for my consideration is: “Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal calls for interference by this Court?” My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following: REASONS 10. 9. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arises for my consideration is: “Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal calls for interference by this Court?” My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following: REASONS 10. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused who was working as Assistant Sub Inspector in Malmaruthi Police Station, Belgaum, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/-from the informant who was the accused in Crime No.223 of 2007 of Malmaruthi Police Station. After registration of the case, when the complainant approached the accused, he again demanded Rs.10,000/-and the same was tendered by the complainant and the accused accepted the same in the presence of PW2 -shadow witness. Subsequently, the tainted money accepted by the accused was recovered from him in the presence of panchas. The accused being the public servant committed misconduct by demanding and accepting the illegal gratification to show the official favour, in favour of the complainant. 11. To prove this contention, the prosecution examined the informant as PW1 before the Trial Court. Even though, this witness deposed regarding the dispute between himself and his wife and she lodging the complaint against him, has not supported the case of the prosecution regarding accused demanding illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/-and accepting the same as contended by the prosecution. This witness was treated hostile and the learned Special Prosecutor cross examined him at length. But nothing has been elicited from him to contend that deliberately he is deposing falsely. Witness admitted the photos Exs.8, 10 and 11. However, he denied the suggestion that those photos were taken while the trap panchanama was being drawn in Malmaruthi Police Station. Witness stated that a sum of Rs.10,000/-which he had given to his friend Sadaruddin Mohamadgouse Majagavi is returned by Lokayukta Police through Demand Draft and he signed in the book of Lokayukta office, where he had received the Demand Draft. 12. PW2 is the shadow witness. Witness spoke about the first information lodged by the informant, entrustment of Rs.10,000/-to him under the pre-trap panchanama. Witness stated that the informant contacted the accused and the accused arrived near a petty shop. He asked money from the informant and the informant paid Rs.10,000/-. However, the witness sated that the accused asked the informant as to why so much money is being paid. Witness stated that the informant contacted the accused and the accused arrived near a petty shop. He asked money from the informant and the informant paid Rs.10,000/-. However, the witness sated that the accused asked the informant as to why so much money is being paid. Witness stated that he came to know that as there was dispute between informant and his wife, the informant had paid the amount. Witness also stated that the accused received the amount with his right hand and kept it in his pant pocket. His hands were washed in a solution after arrival of Investigating Officer and the amount that was received was also recovered. He identified the said amount as MO-1. Since the witness did not fully support the case of prosecution, he was partially treated hostile and he was subjected for cross examination by the learned Special Prosecutor. 13. During cross examination, witness admitted that the accused has demanded Rs.10,000/-and had threatened the informant to put him behind bars, if he fails to pay the amount. Witness admitted that the informant paid the entrusted amount of Rs.10,000/-and the accused received the same. Witness also admitted the procedure adopted by the Investigating Officer during trap. 14. Learned counsel for the accused cross examined this witness. During cross examination, the witness stated that he along with second pancha were standing outside the police station and the accused was taken to Lokayukta Police Station. His signatures were taken on some documents. He pleaded his ignorance regarding the contents of the documents which he signed. Witness stated that all the documents were prepared in Lokayukta Police Station. Witness denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. 15. PW3 is the friend of the informant who said to have accompanied the informant PW1. As per the case made out by the prosecution, the first information Ex.P1 was written by this witness. Witness admitted that Ex.P1 was written by him, but pleaded his ignorance regarding its contents. The witness has not supported the case of prosecution regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. He is treated hostile. Learned Special Prosecutor cross examined him at length. But nothing has been elicited from him in support of the case of prosecution with regard to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. 16. The witness has not supported the case of prosecution regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. He is treated hostile. Learned Special Prosecutor cross examined him at length. But nothing has been elicited from him in support of the case of prosecution with regard to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. 16. PW4 is the second pancha who supported the case of prosecution. However, he pleaded his ignorance regarding the procedure adopted by Lokayukta police during trap panchanama. PWs.5 and 6 are the formal witnesses. PW7 is the Investigating Officer in the criminal case that was registered against the informant in Malmaruthi Police Station. PW8 is the Women Head Constable who assisted PW7. PW9 is the Assistant Executive Engineer who drew spot sketch as per Ex.P18. PW10 is the sanctioning authority who accorded sanction to prosecute the accused by issuing order as per Ex.P7. PWs.11 and 12 are the Investigating Officers. 17. Ex.P1 is the first information, Ex.P3 is the entrustment panchanama, Ex.P13 is the trap panchanama, Ex.P20 is the statement of the accused. 18. It is the settled position of law that in order to prove the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is to be proved by the prosecution. If the demand by the accused to show the official favour is not proved in accordance with law, mere recovery of tainted money from the accused is not sufficient to convict him for the above said offences. It is also settled position of law that in the absence of proof of demand, mere acceptance of the amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification, is not sufficient and it will not ipso facto prove the guilt of the accused with this proposition of law, let me consider the case of the prosecution. 19. In the present case, even though the prosecution contented that the accused who was working as Assistant Sub Inspector in Malmaruthi Police Station, Belgaum demanded illegal gratification from the informant who was the accused in the case registered against him, fails to elicit it from the mouth of informant PW1. This witness categorically denied that the accused had ever demanded illegal gratification to discharge his official duty or to show official favour. This witness categorically denied that the accused had ever demanded illegal gratification to discharge his official duty or to show official favour. PW3 is the friend of PW1 who is said to have accompanied the informant and cited as eye witness for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. But he has also not supported the case of prosecution with regard to these two important aspects of demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification. Even though, PW4 the second pancha supported the case of prosecution, admittedly, he is not an eye witness either for demand or for acceptance of the gratification from the accused. Therefore, the only witness relied on by the prosecution is PW.2 who is the shadow witness. Even though, this witness initially supported the case of prosecution, subsequently he has turned hostile and also pleaded his ignorance regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. However, during cross examination by the learned Special Prosecutor, witness admitted that the accused has demanded Rs.10,000/-and received the same. 20. If the evidence of PW2 is taken into consideration, he is not firm in giving the evidence regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification from the accused. Even though, during cross examination by the learned Special Prosecutor, it is elicited that there was such demand and acceptance, it is not sufficient in itself to seek conviction of the accused for the above said offences. Moreover, during cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused, the witness categorically stated that he was standing outside the police station and pleaded his ignorance about the contents of the mahazar. 21. The prosecution examined PWs.1 and 3 to prove its contention, but they have not chosen to support the case of prosecution, for the reasons best known to them. Even though these witnesses were cross examined at length by the prosecution, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve their evidence or to contend that deliberately they are deposing falsely. Therefore, the only evidence that is available on record to support of the case of prosecution to prove the guilt of accused is that of PW2. As stated above, even PW2 is not firm in his evidence with regard to the demand and acceptance of the gratification by the accused. It is not sufficient to inspire confidence of the Court regarding the guilt of accused. 22. As stated above, even PW2 is not firm in his evidence with regard to the demand and acceptance of the gratification by the accused. It is not sufficient to inspire confidence of the Court regarding the guilt of accused. 22. The material placed before the Court prima facie discloses that a criminal case was registered against PW1 in Malmaruthi Police Station, Belgaum and the accused was working in the said Police Station as Assistant Sub Inspector demanded and accepted the illegal gratification which was subsequently recovered from him. But the golden rule of Criminal Justice system is that, the prosecution is required to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is presumed to be innocent till prove the guilt. Mere probablising the commission of offence is not sufficient to convict the accused. Even though Section 20 of the Act raises presumption, that acceptance of gratification is as motive or reward under Section 7 for performing the public duty, unless the contrary is proved by the accused, the initial burden to prove acceptance of such gratification is on the prosecution. Therefore, the presumption cannot be invoked, unless there are materials to prove two basic ingredients of the offence, i.e., demand and acceptance. Mere recovery of the tainted money is not sufficient to constitute the offence unless the materials further prove that there was demand and acceptance of such money. Thus, the evidence placed before the Court is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 23. In this regard, I place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V.Sejappa Vs State by Police Inspector Lokayukta, Chitradurga [ (2016) 12 SCC 150 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 held as under: “19. After referring to Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Administration), in C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, it was held as under:- '18. In Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.), 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. In Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.), 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.' 20. In State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao, it was held that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused and there has to be corroboration of the testimony of the complainant regarding the demand of bribe. 21. While dealing with the contention that it is not enough that some currency notes were handed over to the public servant to make it illegal gratification and that the prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid was an illegal gratification, reference can be made to following observation in Mukut Bihari and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, wherein it was held as under:- '11. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused, when the 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 bribe. Mere receipt of amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten the guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification, but 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 as to 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 and in a proper case the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person.” Thus the position of law on the subject is well settled. 24. The Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of acquittal on the materials that are referred to above. Being the appellate Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record, if two views are possibly taken from such materials, the view that is favourable to the accused is to be chosen is the settled position of law. It is not for this Court to interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court simply because other view is possible on the same set of facts and circumstances. The basic presumption of innocence that is available to the accused in any criminal trial will be strengthened by the finding of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and the same cannot be disturbed mechanically by relying on the other view, which could be drawn against the accused. If on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, a finding could be recorded that the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court is either perverse or baseless or apparently against the settled proposition of law, then only such findings could be interfered with and not otherwise. In this regard, I place reliance once again on the decision in V.Sejappa (supra) in para 22, which reads as under: “22. If the evaluation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the Trial Court do not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the grounds on which the Trial Court has based its conclusion are reasonable and plausible, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal if another view is possible. If the evaluation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the Trial Court do not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the grounds on which the Trial Court has based its conclusion are reasonable and plausible, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal if another view is possible. Merely because the appellate Court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view. In State V K.Narasimhachary, this Court reiterated the well-settled principle that if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the acquittal by the lower Court and that only where the material on record leads to an inescapable conclusion of guilt of the accused, the judgment of acquittal will call for interference by the appellate Court. The same view was reiterated in T/Subramanian v. State of T.N. 23. In Muralidhar v. State of Karnataka, this Court noted the principles which are required to be followed by the appellate court in case of appeal against order of acquittal and in para 12 held as under: “12. The approach of the appellate court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu, Madan Mohan Singh, Atley, Aher Raja Khima, Balbir Singh, M.G. Agarwal, Noor Khan, Khedu Mohton, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade, Lekha Yadav, Khem Karan, Bishan Singh, Umedbhai Jadavbhai, K. Gopal Reddy, Tota Singh, Ram Kumar, Madan Lal, Sambasivan, Bhagwan Singh, Harijana Thirupala, C. Antony, K. Gopalakrishna, Sanjay Thakran and Chandrappa. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following: (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court; (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal; (iii) Though, the powers of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified; and (iv) Merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court”' 25. Therefore, the position of law regarding interference by the appellate Courts are very well settled and the summarized as above. In this appeal the prosecution is assailing the Judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Under such circumstances, the Appellate Court will be slow in interfering with the finding of the Trial Court. The reason is obvious as the Trial Court will have the benefit of recording the evidence of witnesses and also observing their demeanor. In this appeal the prosecution is assailing the Judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Under such circumstances, the Appellate Court will be slow in interfering with the finding of the Trial Court. The reason is obvious as the Trial Court will have the benefit of recording the evidence of witnesses and also observing their demeanor. When the Trial Court takes a reasonable view based on the facts of the case, it is not just and proper to interfere with the same mechanically, unless it is found that the Trial Court has apparently went wrong or assigned reasons erroneously. Unless strong grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal, there cannot be interference casually on the ground that the other view is also possible based on the materials that are available. 26. I have gone through the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. It has considered the evidence of the materials witnesses, i.e., PWs.1 to 4 and came to the conclusion that the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The discussions held above do not constitute strong reasons to interfere with the said finding of the Trial Court. Hence, I answer the above point in ‘Negative’. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merits.