JUDGMENT : By way of instant Criminal Appeal, challenge has been laid to judgment of acquittal dated 22.2.2014, passed by learned Special Judge Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Corruption Case No.3-J/2011, titled State versus Anirudh Kumar and another, whereby Court below held respondents-accused(hereinafter referred to as the accused) not guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 7 read with Section 12 and 13(1)(d)(1) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and accordingly acquitted them. 2. Precisely, the case of the prosecution as emerge from the record is that SHO/Inspector, police Station, SV & ACB Dharamshala, District Kangra H.P., presented challan for trial against the accused for their having allegedly committed offence punishable under Sections 7 & 13(2) P.C. Act, 1988 and 120-B IPC in Case FIR No. 8 of 2010, dated 24.5.2010, Police station SV & ACB Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., alleging therein that on 25.5.2011, accused Anirudh Kumar, Deputy Ranger, Jawali Block of Jawali Range and accused Megh Raj, Forest Guard, Naina Beat of Jawali Range, demanded bribe from the complainant Narender Singh. Police alleged that one Bir Singh (PW-1) was raising construction of his house and there existed a "Share-Aam-Path" (Common) near his house, which was being widened by using JCB of person namely, Narender Singh (PW-2) and while path was being widened, a tree of 'Amaltash' was uprooted by JCB. Accused came on the spot and forcibly took away the keys of JCB. Police alleged in the challan that both accused told PW-2, Narender Singh to bring Rs. 15,000/-to be paid to them as bribe in lieu of return of the keys. On 24.5.2010, complainant Narender Singh along with one Bir Singh approached the office of Vigilance Bureau and made a complaint Ex.PW2/A regarding demand of bribe made by both the accused. On the basis of compliant Ex. PW2/A, FIR (Ex PW17/A) was registered by Inspector Asha Kumari (PW-17). After registration of the FIR, case was entrusted to Inspector Bhisham Thakur for investigation, who after having associated Ravinder son of Prem Singh as shadow witness and Constable Navneet Kumar alongwith complainant Narender Kumar, made a plan to catch hold accused red handed while taking bribe. Above named Investigating Officer gave demonstration to the persons associated by him that how currency notes treated with solution of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate is to be kept by the complainant for giving it further to the accused. Above named Investigating Officer gave demonstration to the persons associated by him that how currency notes treated with solution of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate is to be kept by the complainant for giving it further to the accused. Inspector Bhisham Thakur, after having taken thirty currency notes of the denomination of 500/- each from the complainant Narender Kumar, which were treated with phenolphthalein powder, prepared memo Ex. PW2/C and asked the complainant to put the said currency notes in his pent pocket and hand over the same to the accused when they demand for it. Inspector also instructed shadow witness Ravinder Singh to give a signal when such amount is accepted by the accused. As per prosecution, members of the trap party hid themselves outside the office of Ranger and the moment shadow witness Ravinder signaled, then Inspector Bhisham Thakur i.e. Investigating Officer alongwith other members of the trap party ran to upper storey of the office of Ranger and found accused Anirudh sitting in his office Chair and co-accused Megh Raj Forest Guard sitting right in front of accused Anirudh. Inspector Bhisham Thakur after having given his introduction, caught hold accused Anirudh from his left arm wrist and HHC Jagroop caught hold of the accused Anirudh from his right arm wrist and thereafter Inspector Bhisham Thakur took out one small box from his investigation attaché, which was containing sodium carbonate, and plastic bowl, empty glass tumblers, one empty liquor quarter and cleaned them thoroughly and also washed his own hands and thereafter put sodium carbonate in the empty glass tumbler and put water in it and prepared its solution and got washed the hands of accused Anirudh in the sodium carbonate solution in the plastic bowl, whereafter the colour of solution in the bowls turned slightly pink and the hand-wash solution was taken in a glass quarter and sealed with seal impression "P". It is further alleged by the prosecution that on inquiry accused Anirudh took out thirty currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/- each from the front pocket of his shirt worn by him and the same were tallied by independent witnesses, Surinder Kumar Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Palahara and the currency notes Ex. P3 to P32 were found to be the same, which were earlier treated with phenolphthalein powder and described in the memo Ex. 500/- each from the front pocket of his shirt worn by him and the same were tallied by independent witnesses, Surinder Kumar Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Palahara and the currency notes Ex. P3 to P32 were found to be the same, which were earlier treated with phenolphthalein powder and described in the memo Ex. PW2/C. After having effected aforesaid recovery of currency notes from the accused, police after completion of all the necessary codal formalities registered FIR against the accused and presented the challan in the competent court of law. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of the material made available to it found prima-facie case against the accused and accordingly, charged them under Section 7 read with Section 12 Prevention of Corruption Act and 13(1)(d)(1) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Learned trial Court on the basis of the entire evidence led on record held accused not guilty and accordingly, acquitted them. In the aforesaid background, appellant-State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for conviction of the accused after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Court below. 5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned by learned court below while acquitting the accused of the charges framed against them, this Court finds no force in the submission of Sh. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General that court below failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a consequence of which, finding contrary to the record came on record to the detriment of the appellant-State. Rather, this Court finds from the record that prosecution miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that sum of Rs. 15,000/- allegedly recovered from the pocket of accused Anirudh was paid as a bribe by complainant Narender Kumar and as such, there appears to be no reason/justification to interfere with the findings returned by the Court below, which otherwise appear to be based upon the proper appreciation of evidence led on record by the respective parties. 6. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as seven witnesses. Accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed themselves to be innocent. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as seven witnesses. Accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed themselves to be innocent. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence. 7. PW-1, Bir Singh while stating that he is resident of village Gaili and in the year 2010 he was raising construction of his house admitted that there is "Share-Aam-Path" (Common) near to his house, which was being widened by using JCB of complainant Narender. He also deposed that while common path was being widened with the help of JCB, a tree of Amaltash" was uprooted by JCB and in the meantime, BO Anirudh and Forest Guard came there and took the keys of JCB in their possession and told Narender driver of JCB that a compensation of 15000/- shall be paid to the Forest Department. He deposed that both the accused persons asked Narender Singh to bring Rs. 15,000/-to their office at Jawali on the next day. He deposed that on 24.5.2010 Narender visited BO office at Jawali. He deposed that both the accused persons were present in the office and Narender paid Rs. 15,000/- to BO Anirudh Singh and BO Anirudh Singh counted the currency notes of Rs. 15,000/- and then put the same in his shirt pocket. He further deposed that Forest Guard, Megh Raj obtained his signature on the damage report and told him that they will fill damage report and would hand over the copy of the same to him. He deposed that accused persons did not issue receipt of Rs. 15,000/- to him. His signature were obtained by Forest Guard, Megh Raj on the reverse of blank form of damage report Ex. PWI/A at three places, which is in red circle. This witness in his cross-examination admitted that as per the rules and instructions described in Ex. DX, the Forest Department of Himachal Pradesh has fixed Rs. 15,000/- as compensation to be deposited for the purpose of compounding Forest offence, if vehicle involved is JCB. This witness further admitted that accused persons had only informed him about the compensation and did not make any demand of bribe from him. He also deposed that keys of JCB were returned by the Range Officer, Sushil Guleria. 15,000/- as compensation to be deposited for the purpose of compounding Forest offence, if vehicle involved is JCB. This witness further admitted that accused persons had only informed him about the compensation and did not make any demand of bribe from him. He also deposed that keys of JCB were returned by the Range Officer, Sushil Guleria. He also admitted that Sushil Kumar Guleria, Range Officer, was also on duty on that day. While admitting that after his having put signatures on damage report, police reached there, this witness feigned ignorance that compensation book and damage report are verified by the Range Officer. 8. PW-2, Narender Singh deposed that he is owner of JCB and about two years back, his JCB was hired by Cap. Bir Singh R/o village Kelly in order to create passage to his house. He stated that person namely; Arvind Kumar was kept as driver in the said JCB. While the road was being widened with the JCB, a Amaltash tree fell down and thereafter Forest officials reached there and demanded Rs. 15,000/- as compensation in lieu of tree which fell down. He deposed that they thought that Forest officials are demanding bribe as amount of compensation was quite high and as such, he lodged report with the vigilance police, Dharamshala. He further deposed that he as well as caption Bir Singh (PW-1) went to the Forest office at village Labh, Tehsil Jawali and he kept Rs. 15.000/ currency notes on the table of Range officer and thereafter police officials took in to possession the bribe money from the table of the Range officer. He also deposed that he put his signatures on documents as per the direction of police officials. This witness was declared hostile. In his cross-examination by public prosecutor he has maintained that he did not make statement Ex.PW2/A to the police including portion A to A, B to B, C to C, D to D and E to E. He specifically denied that BO demanded bribe of Rs. 15,000/- from him in lieu of returning keys of JCB. In his cross-examination conducted by defence counsel, this witness admitted that he came to know that as per the instructions of the Government Forest Department can charge Rs. 15,000/-as compensation for compounding of Forest offence if the vehicle involved is JCB. 15,000/- from him in lieu of returning keys of JCB. In his cross-examination conducted by defence counsel, this witness admitted that he came to know that as per the instructions of the Government Forest Department can charge Rs. 15,000/-as compensation for compounding of Forest offence if the vehicle involved is JCB. If the statements of aforesaid two material prosecution witnesses are read in conjunction juxtaposing each other, there appears to be no illegality, if any, committed by court below while returning finding that prosecution miserably failed to prove that sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid by complainant Narender Kumar to the accused as bribe. Both the witnesses, as detailed hereinabove, specifically stated that one tree of “Amaltash” fell down while road leading to the house of Capt. Bir Singh was being widened and thereafter two Forest officials reached on the spot and asked them to pay compensation. Most importantly, it has been specifically come in the statements of both the aforesaid witnesses that they on the askance of investigating officer visited the office of Forest Department, Dharamshala and gave Rs. 15,000/- currency notes to the accused, who in turn obtained signature on the damage report and told that they will fill damage report and hand over the copies of the same to complainant. If the statement of both the witnesses, are perused in its entirety, it clearly reveals that both the accused after having visited spot asked the complainant to come present in their office to pay compensation, but since complainant gathered the impression that money is being demanded as bribe, he reported the matter to vigilance, who without verifying the facts constituted the team and laid trap. 9. No doubt, statements of Bir Singh reveals that 15000/- rupees paid by PW-1 Narender Kumar was kept in pocket by accused Anirudh, but since it has been specifically come in his statement that accused after having taken money, as detailed hereinabove, made him to sign on damage report, learned trial Court rightly concluded that sum of Rs. 15,000/- was not paid as bribe, but as a compensation amount. 10. Leaving everything aside, there are major contradictions and inconsistencies with regard to handing over the money by Narender Kumar to accused after his visit to office on the instructions of Investigating Officer. PW-1, Bir Singh stated that sum of Rs. 15,000/- was not paid as bribe, but as a compensation amount. 10. Leaving everything aside, there are major contradictions and inconsistencies with regard to handing over the money by Narender Kumar to accused after his visit to office on the instructions of Investigating Officer. PW-1, Bir Singh stated that sum of Rs. 15,000/- was given to accused Anirudh, who put the same in his pocket, but complainant Narender Kumar stated that sum of Rs. 15,000/- was kept on the table and thereafter same was recovered by the police from the table. If afore version of PW-2, Narender Kumar is taken into consideration, it renders entire story of prosecution to be highly doubtful and unbelievable. Once sum of Rs. 15,000/- if paid by Narender Kumar was not touched by accused Anirudh, there was otherwise no occasion for Inspector Bhisham Thakur and other team members to make accused Anirudh to wash his hand in the water treated with solution of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. Though, major contradiction with regard to handing over of sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the accused by complainant Narender Kumar has made story of the prosecution highly doubtful, but even if it is presumed that sum of Rs. 15,000/- was received by accused Anirudh, there is no evidence that such amount was received by him as a bribe, rather as per own statement of both the material prosecution witnesses such amount was paid on account of damages qua the one tree of Amaltash, which was uprooted on account of the widening of the road. Though, complainant Narender Kumar was declared hostile but cross-examination conducted upon this witness by prosecution as well as defence counsel, nowhere suggests that prosecution was able to extract something contrary to what this witness stated in his examination-in-chief. Since, story with regard to handing over sum of Rs. 15,000/- as bribe to accused Anirudh has become highly doubtful on account of aforesaid statements made by two material prosecution witnesses PW-1, Bir Singh and PW-2 Narender Kumar, there is no occasion, if any, for this Court to refer to the statements made by other official witnesses, who were admittedly part and parcel of the team, which had laid trap to catch the accused red handed taking bribe from the complainant Narender Kumar. 11. 11. Interestingly, PW3, Ravinder Kumar shadow witness deposed that Narender Kumar (PW-2) asked him to accompany him to Dharamshala and when they reached in the office of Vigilance at Dharamshala, PW-2, Narender Kumar went inside but he remained outside. He deposed that PW-2, Narender Kumar told him that Forest officials were demanding compensation or bribe from him as a tree fell down while widening the road. He specifically stated that no proceedings took place in his presence in the Vigilance office. This witness was declared hostile at the request of Ld. P.P for State, but even cross-examination conducted upon this witness nowhere improves case of the prosecution, rather, raises doubt with regard to story of the prosecution. 12. PW4, Surinder Kumar deposed that currency notes were not seized from the accused in his presence. This witness was also declared hostile. Cross-examination conducted upon this witness also does not suggests that prosecution was able to extract something contrary to what this witness stated in his examination-in-chief. 13. PW10, Sushil Kumar deposed that in the year 2010 he was posted as Range Officer, Jawali and on 24.5.2010 police raided the office of accused Anirudh Kumar BO. He deposed that complainant party was constructing a road with JCB and one or two trees fell down about which he was verbally informed by the accused persons. He deposed that accused persons did not issue damage report qua falling of trees and breaking of soil. The road was constructed to the house of Bir Singh. The revenue department also visited the spot and gave the demarcation of the land and found that land belongs to the Forest Department. The receipt of damage book Ex.P35, receipt No.14 Ex.PW1/A is blank and having the signature only. He deposed that the damage report was issued by Range Officer, Jawali. If the version put forth by aforesaid witness is examined in the light of the statements made by PW-1 and PW-2, it clearly establishes on record that at the time handing over of Rs. 15,000/- by complainant Narender Kumar to the accused, they were duly informed that such amount is being taken as a compensation/damages that’s why they were made to sign on the blank damage report. 15,000/- by complainant Narender Kumar to the accused, they were duly informed that such amount is being taken as a compensation/damages that’s why they were made to sign on the blank damage report. Since, in the case at hand prosecution has been not able to prove demand, of bribe, if any, by accused, case registered against the accused under Section 7 read with Section 12 Prevention of Corruption Act and 13(1)(d)(1) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, otherwise is not maintainable. As per own statement of PW-3 sum of Rs. 15,000/-was demanded as a compensation/damage of the tree. He categorically deposed that since amount of compensation demanded was high, he thought that it was being demanded as a bribe. 14. By now it is well settled 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. As far as guilt under Section 13(1)(d) is concerned same cannot be held to be established in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Sunkanna versus State of Andhra Pradesh , (2016) 1 SCC 713 , wherein it has been held as under:- “The prosecution examined the other fair price shop dealers in Kurnool as PWs 3, 4 and 6 to prove that the accused was receiving monthly mamools from them. PWs 4 and 6 did not state so and they were declared hostile. PW-3 though in the examination-in-chief stated so, in the cross-examination turned round and stated that the accused never asked any monthly mamool and he did not pay Rs.50/- at any time. The prosecution has not examined any other witness present at the time when the money was demanded by the accused and also when the money was allegedly handed-over to the accused by the complainant. 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 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. 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 three-Judge Bench of this Court in B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [ (2014) 13 SCC 55 ] and P. Satyanarayna Murthy vs. The District Inspector of Police and another [( 2015 (9) SCALE 724 ]. In the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent. The judgments of the Courts below are, therefore, liable to be set aside. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed and the conviction of the appellant under Section 7 and under Section 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 bond, if any, furnished by the appellant be released”. 15. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Court below, which is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and as such, no interference is called for and accordingly, same is upheld. 16. The bail bond, if any, furnished by the appellant be released”. 15. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Court below, which is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and as such, no interference is called for and accordingly, same is upheld. 16. The present appeal fails and accordingly same is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.