JUDGMENT : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. 1. This appeal is under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The learned Special Judge, (Under Prevention of Corruption Act) Pune, at Pune by judgment and order dated 30th August, 2004 convicted the appellant for committing the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’ for short) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 4,000/- each. 3. Prosecution case and evidence: In January, 2000, Shankar Narayan Kadam, (Complainant), sought registration of his proposed Shivshankar Co-operative Milk Society (Proposed). Mr. Jabale, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, was empowered to grant registration and required permissions. At the relevant time, the Complainant was a Secretary of another co-operative milk society, then was operating in the same village, where registration of proposed society was sought. Proceedings before Mr. Jabale, Assistant Registrar, shows complainant was heard by him and concluded the hearing on 28th September, 2000. Roznama of the proceedings before the Assistant Registrar, (Ex.45) shows, on 28th February, 2001, Mr. Jabale had granted permission to proposed Shivshankar Co-operative Milk Society to collect milk from its members and open bank account. I have perused the said permission-cum-order dated 28th February, 2001. It shows, several documents were submitted by the complainant to the Assistant Registrar for grant of registration. Thus, to be stated that after 28th September, 2000, no further documents were required to be submitted by the complainant in relation to his proposal. 4. It may be stated that the appellant, a public servant was attached to the office of the Assistant Registrar. Upon perusing the relevant registration record, I could not find any submissions were ever made by the appellant-accused in the proceedings relating to registration of co-operative milk society. Rather, what appears from the evidence is that, appellant was not required to do or discharge any of his duties in respect of proceedings fled by the complainant seeking registration of his society. At-least other evidence does not suggest that. 5. Be that as it may, the evidence of the complainant shows, he was aware and knew that the Assistant Registrar had granted permission to his society on 28th February, 2001. These facts are not in dispute. 6. At-least other evidence does not suggest that. 5. Be that as it may, the evidence of the complainant shows, he was aware and knew that the Assistant Registrar had granted permission to his society on 28th February, 2001. These facts are not in dispute. 6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed facts, I have perused the evidence of the complainant and complaint at Exhibit 10/2. What appears from his complaint is that, on 28th February, 2001, he had been to the Office of the Assistant Registrar and met the accused, who at the relevant time was attached to the Registrar’s office. Complainant would say that when he enquired with him about the ‘permission’ for collecting the milk and for opening bank account, he was told by the accused unless he forwards note-sheet to the Assistant Registrar, permission would not be granted but he would submit note-sheets after Rs. 5,000/- were paid to him. Complainant in precise words, in his complaint stated that “HINDI” Disagreeing with the complainant, next day complainant reported this fact to the office of the Anti-Corruption. His complaint was reduced into writing on 1st March, 2001 (Exhibit 10/2). In pursuance to the complaint, pre-trap panchanama was drawn on 1st March, 2001. Two panch witnesses verified the complaint and pre-trap panchanam. Mr. Nasir Shaikh, (PW-2), Witness accompanied the complainant to the office of the accused. He would depose that in his presence, accused demanded Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant, as was decided and agreed a day before and accordingly, accused accepted Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant. No sooner than raiding party arrived and after taking personal search, governments currency note of Rs. 1,000/- was recovered from the person of the accused. Tainted notes had traces of Anthracine powder. 7. What is unfolded in the evidence is that complainant knew very well that the Assistant Registrar by his order dated 28th February, 2001 had permitted the proposed society, to collect the milk and open bank account. Proceedings before the Assistant Registrar do not suggest that the accused was required to make any submissions or submit note-sheet while for granting the permission to the proposed society of the complainant. Therefore, it is to be held, accused had no role or was required to discharge any official duty in relation to the proposal submitted by the complainant’s proposed society to the Assistant Registrar. 8. Therefore, it is to be held, accused had no role or was required to discharge any official duty in relation to the proposal submitted by the complainant’s proposed society to the Assistant Registrar. 8. In view of the facts emerging from the evidence, question is whether alleged demand of Rs. 5,000/-/ and Rs. 1,000/- by the accused from the complainant on 28th February/1st March, 2001 and its acceptance was gratification other than legal remuneration, as motive for doing or forbearing to do any official act (emphasis supplied). My answer is in negative. Reasons are; Firstly, On 28th February, 2001 Mr. Jabale, Assistant Registrar, had granted permission as sought by the proposed society; secondly, complainant knew, accused had no authority to process his proposal; thirdly, on the given date, Mr. Jabale was present in the office and the complainant would have collected permission from Mr. Jabale; fourthly, he knew Mr. Jabale was only authority to issue permission. It may be stated that prosecution has not examined Mr. Jabale. In the given set of facts and circumstances, complainant knew that the appellant was not supposed to, or required to forward/submit note-sheet either on 28th February, 2001 or 1st March, 2001. As such, question is why the complainant had alleged that accused demanded Rs. 5,000/- from him for forwarding note-sheets to the Assistant Registrar. In the case of Shamsul Huq vs. King Emperor, giver of a bribe and the bribe was supposed to have been offered to a sergeant after the case against the person had already been dismissed. It was held that the accused had not committed any offence, but the reasoning upon which this conclusion was reached was as follows: “Now, on the 21st June it was not within the power of the Sergeant to show any favour to the petitioner, who had already been discharged by the Magistrate and no money could have been paid to him as a motive or reward for doing anything for the petitioner.” Ratio of the case, therefore, appears to be that assuming even that money was paid in-as-much as officer was aware that the case against him had been dismissed even if money had been offered, it could not have been offered as motive or reward for doing anything for the petitioner. In my view, ratio in the aforesaid judgment applies to the facts of the case at hand. 9. In my view, ratio in the aforesaid judgment applies to the facts of the case at hand. 9. Be that as it may, the essential ingredients of Section 7 of the PC Act are that person accepting gratification should be a public servant and to accept gratification for himself or another and gratification should be as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act in exercise of the official duties. 10. Therefore, it is to be stated that provisions of Section 7 of the PC Act would get attracted where public servant obtains or agrees to accept from any person any gratification other than legal remuneration as reward for doing or forbearing to it any official act. Therefore, at the first place, prosecution ought to have established that the amount allegedly demanded by the accused was for doing or in discharge of his official duty in connection with the proposal/permission sought by the complainant on behalf of his proposed cooperative milk society. Evidence shows, the complainant had been to the office of the Sub-Registrar on 28th February, 2001, he met Assistant Registrar, who then told him that the permission was already granted. Under these circumstances, it is to be stated that neither on 28th February nor on 1st March, 2001, appellant-accused was required to do anything more in relation to permission sought by the complainant on behalf of proposed milk co-operative society. 11. It is settled law that acceptance of money is not sufficient for convicting the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. There must be evidence on record that accused obtained any amount by corrupt or illegal means other than remuneration for doing or forbearing to do any official act. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, relied upon Section 20 of the PC Act to contend that once prosecution has proved that the public servant has accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain any undue advantage from any person, it must be presumed, unless the contrary is proved that he accepted or obtained that undue advantage as motive or reward under Section 7 of the PC Act for performing a public duty. The evidence on record has not established that tainted money Rs. 1,000/- recovered from the person of the accused was accepted by him as reward (other than remuneration) for discharging the official duty. The evidence on record has not established that tainted money Rs. 1,000/- recovered from the person of the accused was accepted by him as reward (other than remuneration) for discharging the official duty. At the cost of the repetition, it may be stated that date on which accused allegedly demanded the money, i.e. 28th February and 1st March, 2001, appellant was not required to do any act or perform any such act concerning or in relation to the permission sought by the complainant on behalf of the proposed co-operative milk society. In other words, the prosecution has not laid and establish the foundation on facts before taking recourse to permission under Section 20 of the PC Act. 13. In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, (2009) 15 SCC 200 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 16 as under: “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. For the said purpose, indisputably, the presumptive evidence, as is laid down in Section 20 of the Act, must also be taken into consideration but then in respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-a-vis the standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ. Before, however, 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. Even 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 one the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt.” 14. In consideration of the facts aforesaid and for the reasons stated hereinabove, appeal is allowed. 15. Resultantly, order of conviction and sentence dated 30th August, 2004 passed by the Special Judge (Under Prevention of Corruption Act) Pune, at Pune in Special Case No. 37 of 2001 is quashed and set aside. Bail bonds, stand cancelled. 16. In consideration of the facts aforesaid and for the reasons stated hereinabove, appeal is allowed. 15. Resultantly, order of conviction and sentence dated 30th August, 2004 passed by the Special Judge (Under Prevention of Corruption Act) Pune, at Pune in Special Case No. 37 of 2001 is quashed and set aside. Bail bonds, stand cancelled. 16. Appeal is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.