JUDGMENT : This is a classic appeal by challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in Spl.C.No.72/2006 dated 20.12.2011 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-and rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-with default clause for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. 2. Whereas learned counsel for the appellant seeking to consider the grounds as urged in this appeal and consequently, to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court relating to the aforesaid offences amongst the grounds urged therein. 3. Heard, learned counsel Sri H.C.Shivaramu for the appellant and learned Spl.PP Sri Venkatesh S.Arbatti for respondent – Lokayukta. Perused the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in Spl.C.No.72/2006 dated 20.12.2011. 4. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under: It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that the accused being the public servant whereby serving as Taluk Social Welfare Officer in Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District and alleging that he demanded a bribe of Rs.4,000/-from C.W.1 namely Kumar. Based upon his complaint criminal law was set into motion by recording the FIR as per Ex.P6. Subsequent to that the investigating officer conducted pre-trap mahazar as per Ex.P3 and trap mahazar at Ex.P4. But these mahazars have been conducted by the investigating officer in the presence of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 and also it bears the signature of PW.2 in both these mahazars. Ex.P3, the pre-trap mahazar has been conducted by the investigating officer in the presence of panch witnesses. The demonstration mahazar by the investigating officer was conducted in the presence of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4. The currency notes i.e., 40 notes of Rs.100/-denomination have been produced by PW.2 – Kumar who is a complainant as per Ex.P2 and based upon the production of currency notes, one of the team members applied phenolphthalein powder on both the side of currency notes and also held demonstration in the presence of panch witness as PWs.3 and 4. The currency notes i.e., 40 notes of Rs.100/-denomination have been produced by PW.2 – Kumar who is a complainant as per Ex.P2 and based upon the production of currency notes, one of the team members applied phenolphthalein powder on both the side of currency notes and also held demonstration in the presence of panch witness as PWs.3 and 4. Subsequent to conducting demonstration mahazar as per Ex.P3, the investigating officer has lead the team to the office of the accused and after successful raid he drew the trap mahazar as Ex.P4 and laid the charge sheet against the accused before the Court having jurisdiction. Subsequent to laying of the charge sheet, the charges were framed against the accused for the aforesaid offences and the accused has declined the charges of the offences. Accordingly, plea of the accused has been recorded. Subsequent to framing of charge, the prosecution has let in evidence by subjecting to examination PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 inclusive of M.O.1 to 10. Subsequent to closure of evidence the accused was subjected to examination as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for incriminating evidence appearing against him and whereby the accused denied the truth of evidence of prosecution and the same has been recorded. Subsequently, the accused was called upon to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. Subsequent to closure of evidence, heard the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence counsel and being convinced by the evidence of prosecution convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is this judgment of conviction which has been challenged under this appeal by urging various grounds. 5. Whereas learned counsel for the appellant contends that PW.1 – G.K.Gurani who is the sanctioning authority and he accorded sanction as per Ex.P1 and this sanction has been made to prosecute the case against the accused even having gone through the materials which are facilitated by the investigating agency for securing the accorded sanction to prosecute the case. But PW.1 who is the sanctioning authority states that he has not seen the alleged incident, how it took place and how it was narrated even in the pre-trap mahazar or even the trap mahazar as conducted by the investigating officer during the course of investigation. But PW.1 who is the sanctioning authority states that he has not seen the alleged incident, how it took place and how it was narrated even in the pre-trap mahazar or even the trap mahazar as conducted by the investigating officer during the course of investigation. Even the mahazar has been drawn by the investigating agency in the presence of PWs. 3 and 4 and also got the signature of PW.2 – Kumar who is the gravamen of the incident narrated in the complaint at Ex.P2. But PW.2 Kumar who was subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution, but no document has been produced by him in support of the allegations made in the complaint as per Ex.P2 relating to indicating that certain amount has been sanctioned to him under the Special Unit Scheme by the Government of Karnataka introduced under the policy matters, has not been marked in the evidence during the course of his evidence on the part of the prosecution. Even for releasing of the amount and also made an allegation that the accused had demanded bribe for Rs.4,000/-. But this allegation made by PW.2 who is the complainant and even filed a complaint as per Ex.P2 it is unbelievable and it is only to create the theory in terms of the allegations made against the accused. But in fact, it is a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution and the trial Court has arrived at a conclusion erroneously that the accused has committed the alleged offence and more so, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, in this appeal it requires for re-appreciation of the evidence as where the trial Court was misdirected the evidence of PW.1 and also equally misdirected the evidence of PW.2 – Kumar who is the gravamen of the incident narrated in the complaint at Ex.P2, if not the accused would be the sufferer, who is a gravamen of accusation. 6. The second limb of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant by relying on the evidence of PW.3 – K.Narasimhamurthy who is by avocation as Attender. But he has not stated that he had worked from 2000 to 2006 as Second Division Assistant in the office of Excise Superintendent in Tumkur. 6. The second limb of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant by relying on the evidence of PW.3 – K.Narasimhamurthy who is by avocation as Attender. But he has not stated that he had worked from 2000 to 2006 as Second Division Assistant in the office of Excise Superintendent in Tumkur. Whereas even at a cursory glance of his evidence that appellant had been paid money i.e., the bait money by PW.2 – Kumar and accused alleged to have been received bribe amount and maintained in his pocket. But there shall be some contrary to the evidence of PW.2 – Kumar but filed complaint as per Ex.P2 and also he has subscribed his signature at Ex.P3 – pre-trap mahazar and also trap mahazar at Ex.P4 in the presence of PWs.3 and 4. But PW.2 has stated in his evidence on the part of the prosecution that the accused is an offender and he was maintaining the amount even in the drawer of his table and further the person who has received the money and kept in his pocket would not thereafter keep it in the table drawer, if really he has secured it as bribe amount as he would be cautious in taking care of the same. But in the instant case, the allegation made against the accused is that he demanded the bribe amount and received the bribe amount of M.O.6 – 40 notes of Rs.100/-denomination each. But the theory set up by the prosecution even for subjected to examination PW.2-Kumar who is the gravamen of the incident and he has filed the complaint as per Ex.P2 and even he has subscribed his signature to Exs.P3 and P4. Even the mahazar has been drawn by the investigating officer in the presence of PWs.3 and 4 but the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses runs contrary to each other and the same has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court but erroneously came to the conclusion even by exaggeration of amount relating to receipt of bribe to do the official favour. But this theory of the prosecution is not fortified by placing consistent and so also corroborative evidence. But this theory of the prosecution is not fortified by placing consistent and so also corroborative evidence. Therefore, under this appeal, it requires re-appreciation of the evidence, if not, there shall be a miscarriage of justice to the accused who is the gravamen of the accusation made in Ex.P2 – complaint and also narrated in Ex.P3 – pre-trap mahazar and Ex.P4 – trap mahazar said to have been conducted by the investigating officer during the course of investigation in the presence of PWs.3 and 4. 7. Lastly, it is contended by the counsel for the appellant that PW.4 – Rajendra Kumar who was also examined as panch witness but he has not witnessed the alleged incident and only says that the hands of the accused had been washed with sodium carbonate solution and the same turned into pink color and the accused had produced the amount from the drawer in his office and moreover, the amount i.e., M.O.6 is not stated to have been kept in the table drawer of the appellant. Therefore, the evidence of PW.4 – Rajendra Kumar is not supported with the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 on the part of the prosecution. 8. It is further contended that PW.5 – Nagaraju has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has turned around and therefore, his evidence is not holding any assistance to the case of the prosecution. But the evidence of PW.6 – Komala who was subjected to examine on the part of the prosecution but there is nothing in her evidence as against the appellant/ accused. PW.8 Hemalatha has stated in her evidence that the amount was found in the table draw of FDA by name Rangaswamy but nothing worthwhile has been brought in order to support the evidence of PW.2 who is the complainant and he has filed Ex.P2 and PWs.3 and 4 are the panch witnesses to Ex.P3 – pre-trap mahazar and Ex.P4 – trap mahazar has been conducted by PW.9. She has specifically stated that she does not know who has kept the money in the drawer table. 9. She has specifically stated that she does not know who has kept the money in the drawer table. 9. It is further contended that PW.9 – J.B.Rangaswamy is an investigating officer who lead the team but his evidence on the part of the prosecution has stood seriously challenged and it requires for appreciation under this appeal, if not, the accused who is the gravamen of accusation would be the sufferer and also there shall be miscarriage of justice. 10. PW.10 – Gurusiddappa is also one of the witness who was secured by the investigating agency to Ex.P11 – Sketch. But even taking into consideration the totality of evidence, it would not demonstrate completely on the part of the prosecution relating to guilt of accused. But without appreciating the evidence in a proper perspective manner, the trial Court erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused. Therefore, under this appeal it requires for consideration of the grounds as urged by challenging the conviction judgment rendered by the trial Court relating to an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On all these premises, counsel for the appellant seeking for intervention as where it requires for re-appreciation of the evidence and the trial Court has misdirected the evidence and also misinterpreted the evidence in toto. In support of his contention, the counsel for the appellant has placed the following reliance: (i) 2007 (8) SCC 309 – Ganapathi Sanya Naik Vs. State of Karnataka. In support of his contention, the counsel for the appellant has placed the following reliance: (i) 2007 (8) SCC 309 – Ganapathi Sanya Naik Vs. State of Karnataka. “Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – S.13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) – Acceptance of bribe by public servant – Proof – Trap – According to prosecution appellant Village Accountant demanded bribe money for effecting mutation entries in revenue records – Trap laid – Currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder were put on office table of appellant as asked by him and appellant then placed some files on the currency notes – Police Officer waiting outside then rushed in and recovered the notes from the table – Trial Court held that evidence of pancha witness and complainant with regard to recovery of cash was not believable and that defence version that money had been put under the files on the table surreptitiously without knowledge of appellant appeared more plausible and worthy of acceptance and accordingly, it acquitted the appellant – But High Court in State’s appeal against acquittal convicted the appellant on the finding that complainant’s evidence was corroborated by the pancha, an independent witness and that prosecution case could not be doubted merely because the currency notes had not been touched by appellant – High court also refused to accept the defence plea that there was no occasion for demand of money as necessary documents had already been prepared, on the ground that possibility of documents having been prepared in anticipation of receipt of money could not be ruled out – Held, finding of fact arrived at by trial court on appreciation of evidence was a possible view and therefore, High Court in appeal against acquittal was not justified in interfering therewith on ground that a different view was possible.” (ii) 2006 (3) KCCR 1445 – State of Karnataka vs. K.T.Hanumanthaiah “Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) – There should be independent corroboration for proving the case of demand and acceptance of bribe for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (iii) 2006 (3) KCCR 1422 – Manjunath Basappa Basavamurthy vs. State of Karnataka “PW.5 an independent witness has not played his role as instructed and in the manner as required in law. The evidence of PW.7 remains uncorroborated. Hence, without corroboration, it is not safe to base conviction. (iii) 2006 (3) KCCR 1422 – Manjunath Basappa Basavamurthy vs. State of Karnataka “PW.5 an independent witness has not played his role as instructed and in the manner as required in law. The evidence of PW.7 remains uncorroborated. Hence, without corroboration, it is not safe to base conviction. Accordingly, the order of conviction set aside. the appeal is allowed, the bail bond stands cancelled.” (iv) 2004 (2) KCCR 1233 – D.Rajendran Vs. State by Police Inspector, BOI “Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) – Evidentiary Jurisprudence – Corroboration of evidence of complainant by shadow witness is a must. Unless the evidence of the complainant and the shadow witness corroborate with each other it is not safe to convict the accused persons under the Prevention of Corruption Act for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) P.C.Act, 1988.” (v) 2010 (3) KCCR 1851 – State of Karnataka vs. M.Gopalakrishnaian and others “Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 20 – Even to draw a presumption under Section 20 of the Act the prosecution is required to prove that there was demand and acceptance – If the Demand and acceptance for the purpose of official favour is proved by the prosecution beyond the reasonable doubt the burden may shift on the accused the same – However when the initial burden of proving the demand and acceptance is not proved the presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not arise.” (vi) Crl.A.No.1087/2011 – Shivalinga Murthy vs. State of Karnataka. “In the light of the above contentions and on a careful perusal of the record it cannot be said that the prosecution had established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. As in the opinion of this court the several contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant would have to be accepted as regards the infirmities that have not been explained and which the trial court has clearly overlooked.” These are all the authorities which have been facilitated by the counsel for the appellant submitting that the observation made in these authorities be considered. Accordingly, it requires for intervention relating to the conviction judgment rendered by the trial Court and consequently, seeking for acquittal of the accused. 11. Accordingly, it requires for intervention relating to the conviction judgment rendered by the trial Court and consequently, seeking for acquittal of the accused. 11. Contrary to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Spl.P.P – Sri.Venkatesh S Arbatti for Lokayukta has taken me through the evidence of PW-2 / Kumar who is a gravamen of the incident as narrated in his complaint at Exhibit P2 and similarly, PW-1 / G.K. Gurani, competent authority who accorded sanction order at Exhibit P1 to prosecute the case against the accused. PW-2 Kumar has stated in his evidence that he went to the Lokayuktha office a week prior to initiation of the criminal case against the accused by filing a complaint at Exhibit P2. But PW-9 who is the Investigating Officer was approached by the complainant and he had briefed the substance narrated in his complaint at Exhibit P2 that two to three days prior to 18.05.2005, PW-2 had gone to the office of the Lokayuktha and taking note of the things narrated by him, but it is probabilise that PW-9 who is the I.O. has prepared the sodium carbonate solution in his office in the presence of PW3 and PW4 and MO-8 / shirt of the accused and another document MO-9 have been seized and these are all the materials which have been secured by the I.O. who is examined as PW-9. But criminal law was set into motion by recording an FIR as per Exhibit P6. It is based upon the complaint at Exhibit P2 and subsequently the I.O. has drawn the pre-trap mahazar as per Exhibit P3 in the presence of PW3 and PW4 and so also obtained the signature of PW-2 / complainant and subsequently raid was taken by him and he drew the Trap mahazar as per Exhibit P4 in the presence of PW3 and PW4. In the said mahazar also he had obtained the signature of PW-2 / complainant who initiated criminal prosecution by filing a complaint as per Exhibit P2. But the evidence of PW-1 who is the competent authority who accorded sanction as per Exhibit P1 to prosecute the case against the accused, his evidence finds corroborated with the evidence of PW-2 insofar as the allegation made in his complaint at Exhibit P2. He has been subjected to examination also on the part of the prosecution. But the evidence of PW-1 who is the competent authority who accorded sanction as per Exhibit P1 to prosecute the case against the accused, his evidence finds corroborated with the evidence of PW-2 insofar as the allegation made in his complaint at Exhibit P2. He has been subjected to examination also on the part of the prosecution. He has stated in his evidence that the accused demanded and accepted bribe marked as MO-6 / 40 currency notes of Rs.100/-denomination each. PW-3 and PW-4 being panch witnesses were secured and in their presence, Exhibit P3 pre-trap mahazar was conducted. After successful completion of raid, he drew the trap mahazar as per Exhibit P4 in the presence of panch witnesses PW3 and PW4 who have supported the case of the prosecution, which is further corroborated with the evidence of PW-9 who is the I.O. who drew the mahazar and also laid the charge-sheet against the accused. 12. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of PW-2 to PW-4 and PW-9 and they have spoken in their evidence relating to the allegation made in the complaint at Exhibit P2 and the prosecution has facilitated worthwhile evidence relating to consistency of evidence of PW-1 relating to sanction order at Exhibit P1 and fulcrum of pre-trap mahazar at Exhibit P3 and Exhibit P4 / trap mahazar conducted by PW-9 in the presence of panch witnesses. During the trap mahazar at Exhibit P4, the I.O. who is examined as PW-9 had made demonstration by hand wash of the accused with Sodium Carbonate solution, which turned into pink colour and in his presence, seized MO-6 / 40 currency notes of Rs.100/-denomination each, which is sufficient evidence on the part of the prosecution relating to demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. Even at a cursory glance of the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 inclusive of the evidence of PW-4, it cannot dismantle the evidence of the prosecution as regards recovery of the bait amount of Rs.4,000/-and to reconcile with the same. Therefore, the defence raised on the part of the accused cannot come in the way to disbelieve the theory of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. On the face of the prosecution and the evidence on record that each beneficiary had to contribute a sum of Rs.5,000/-, even that defence raised on the part of the accused cannot arise for consideration. On the face of the prosecution and the evidence on record that each beneficiary had to contribute a sum of Rs.5,000/-, even that defence raised on the part of the accused cannot arise for consideration. On the other hand, it is the prosecution which has to discount it as far from the truth and farfetched one from the theory set up by the defence. 13. PW-3 namely K. Narasimhamurthy is a shadow witness secured by PW-9 / I.O. and in his presence and also in the presence of PW4, pre-trap mahazar at Exhibit P3 was drawn. Even during that mahazar, demonstration had been taken by the I.O. by preparing sodium carbonate solution and hand wash of the accused if that accused had come into contact with the bribe amount and washing of their hands with sodium carbonate solution would turn pink in colour. This demonstration had been taken place in the office of PW-9 / I.O. in the presence of PW-2 / complainant and PW-3 and PW-4 panch witnesses who were secured. PW-3 is the shadow witness and also in the presence of PW-4, PW-2 had tendered the currency notes of MO-6 in the office of PW-9 during the pre-trap mahazar and that MO-6 had been secured. Even the same has been taken out from the drawer of the table of the accused and the same has been counted and also seized under the mahazar at Exhibit P4. That is, trap mahazar has been conducted by PW-9 in the presence of PW-3 / shadow witness and also PW-4 / panch witness who have subscribed their signatures including signature of PW-2 / gravamen of the incident. PW-4 has given similar set of evidence even in conformity with the evidence of PW-3 who is a shadow witness and mahazar has been conducted by PW-9 who is the I.O. These are all the evidence which has been appreciated by the Trial Court. Therefore, under this appeal, it cannot arise for intervention in terms of re-appreciation of the evidence as there was a misdirection and misinterpretation by the Trial Court. But the accused being a Government servant, there is no dispute that he was serving as Taluk Social Welfare Officer in Kunigal Taluk. Therefore, under this appeal, it cannot arise for intervention in terms of re-appreciation of the evidence as there was a misdirection and misinterpretation by the Trial Court. But the accused being a Government servant, there is no dispute that he was serving as Taluk Social Welfare Officer in Kunigal Taluk. These are the observations made by the Trial Court by appreciating the evidence of PW-2 / complainant as per his complaint at Exhibit P2 and fulcrum of pre-trap mahazar at Exhibit P3 and similar fulcrum of Trap Mahazar at Ex.P4 conducted by the I.O. / PW-9 during the course of investigation. From all these evidence, it is made clear that on 29.04.2005 itself, the accused who is a gravamen of the accusation had issued cheques to PW-5 and PW-9 who is an I.O. has admitted in his evidence. Therefore, the ignorance feigned by PW-2 / complainant cannot be of any consequence to turn around the theory on the part of the prosecution which finds place in Exhibit P2. The version of PW-5 in relation to it cannot be of any consequence. But, the say of PW-9 that accused had instructed to PW-5 not to deliver goods, supports the contents of Exhibit P2 of the complaint and the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence and even to say having regard to the issuance of cheque, the fact that the accused had instructed PW5 not to deliver the goods with a view to extract money by way of bribe is proved. 14. These are all the evidence appreciated by the Trial Court and rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, it cannot arise for intervention of the impugned judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court and the appeal be dismissed being devoid of merits. 15. It is in this context of the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the appellant by referring to the evidence of PW-2 who is the complainant at Exhibit P2 and so also the fulcrum of Exhibit P3 / Pre-trap mahazar and Trap Mahazar at Exhibit P4. PW-2 / Kumar had been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution. PW-2 / Kumar had been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution. By the special component scheme introduced by the Government and sanctioned relating to running a petty shop by his wife Komala and his aunt namely Smt. Gangamma, W/o Chikkaiah in respect of which the accused having demanded an amount of Rs.2,500/-for each shop though stated in his evidence, but that PW-2 / Kumar alleged that he had given an advance of Rs.1,500/-and told that he would pay another Rs.4,000/-to accused later. But on 18.05.2005, PW-2 / Kumar had approached the Lokayuktha P.S. and gone into the office and given a complaint as per Exhibit P2 and based upon his complaint, criminal law was set into motion by recording an FIR. Also, he had subscribed his signature at Exhibit P2 and he went into the office of the Lokayuktha and produced 40 currency notes of Rs.100/-denomination each and the said amount was counted by PW-3 and applied the phenolphthalein powder and thereafter hand wash of PW-3 with sodium carbonate solution turned into pink colour and the same was seized in a container and sealed, which is marked as MO-1 and MO-2. Exhibit P3 is the pre-trap mahazar which has been conducted by PW-9 / I.O. in his office in the presence of PW-3 / Shadow witness and also co-panch witness namely PW-4 Rajendra Kumar. However, PW-9 / I.O. drew the trap mahazar as per Exhibit P4 in the presence of PW-3 and PW-4 and also hand wash of the accused with carbonate solution which turned into pink colour and that solution was seized in a container. So also, MO-6 / 40 currency notes were seized of Rs.100/-denomination each. But in the cross-examination, he has specifically stated that the I.O. has conducted the mahazar at around 11.45 hours and also the currency notes were noted in the paper and the complaint and the mahazar in the office of PW-9 / I.O. at Exhibit P3 of all process relating to the mahazar has been conducted by him and he has tendered the currency notes at MO-6 to the accused and the same was kept in his pocket. Thus, PW-2 has specifically stated in his cross-examination that separately he had maintained certain amount in his personal purse also, but he didn’t know the contents made in the mahazar. Thus, PW-2 has specifically stated in his cross-examination that separately he had maintained certain amount in his personal purse also, but he didn’t know the contents made in the mahazar. But he has denied the suggestion made relating to counting of currency notes and also his hand wash with sodium carbonate solution. PW-2 / Kumar had made him to sit outside the office in between 2.15 to 4.00 p.m., on 18.05.2005. Subsequent to arrival of accused to his chamber, then only he had gone to his office along with PW-4 and in the chamber of the accused there were two tables and the amount was kept in the drawer of his table, as according to the instructions given by the Police Inspector of Lokayuktha, the accused had taken out the amount from the drawer at around 6.00 p.m. But this suggestion made by the defence counsel has been denied. 16. PW-3 / K. Narasimha Murthy who has been secured to act as panch witness and in his presence in the office of PW-9 / I.O. had drawn a pre-trap mahazar at Exhibit P3 and also taken into consideration that the process had taken place in the presence of PW-3 and PW-4 relating to preparation of the sodium carbonate solution and also if the accused being a Government servant would come into contact with the currency notes which were applied with phenolphthalein powder and then his hands washed with the solution, would turn into pink colour. Subsequent to drawing a mahazar at Exhibit P3, that PW-9 / I.O. led the team to the office of the accused. This PW-3 who accompanied PW-2 who is a complainant to the office of the accused and PW-2 had tendered the currency notes / MO-6 and that amount was received and also kept in a pocket and thereafter the complainant had come out from the office and extended signal according to the instructions given by the Police Inspector to him. Thereafter, PW-2, PW-3 and the team members had entered into the office of the accused and also had introduced themselves but the amount was not found in the pocket of the accused but according to the information, it was found in the drawer of the table. But hand wash of the accused was made and the same turned into pink colour and the coloured solution was seized in a bottle marked as MO-3 and MO-4. But hand wash of the accused was made and the same turned into pink colour and the coloured solution was seized in a bottle marked as MO-3 and MO-4. Accordingly, PW-9 / Police Inspector who drew the mahazar at Exhibit P4 in the presence of PW-3 and PW-4 panch witnesses and also being Government servants had been secured by PW-9 to act as panch witnesses and also drew the mahazar itself at Exhibit P3 / pre-trap mahazar and Exhibit P4 / Trap mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses but it requires for appreciation relating to fulcrum of mahazar. 17. PW-9 / J.B. Rangaswamy who is an I.O. has been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution wherein he on receipt of a complaint at Exhibit P2 and based upon the complaint made by PW-2, criminal law was set into motion. Subsequent to securing PW-3 to PW-4 and also briefing those panch witnesses in the presence of PW-2 / Kumar to prove the allegations made in the complaint at Exhibit P2, that PW-2 / Kumar had produced the currency notes of Rs.4,000/-denomination of Rs.100/-each and PW-4 had counted the currency notes and also noted the number of currency notes and thereafter applied phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes and thereafter prepared sodium carbonate solution and made a demonstration in the presence of PW3 and PW4. That demonstration was held in the presence of the said panch witnesses saying that if the accused Government servant comes into contact with the currency notes applied with phenolphthalein powder and then hand washed with sodium carbonate solution, the same would turn into pink in colour. Accordingly, pre-trap mahazar at Exhibit P3 was drawn and after successful raid, Exhibit P4 of the trap mahazar was drawn by PW9/ I.O. However, there are variations and contradictions arising in their evidence in respect of fulcrum of mahazar. 18. The prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW-2 / Kumar who had filed a complaint at Exhibit P1 and PW-3 and PW-4 panch witnesses were secured. PW-3 / shadow witness had accompanied PW-2 to the office of the accused and MO-6 currency notes had been tendered by the complainant to the accused and that currency notes were seized in the presence of PW3 and PW4 and even they have subscribed their signatures and even obtained the signature of PW-2. PW-3 / shadow witness had accompanied PW-2 to the office of the accused and MO-6 currency notes had been tendered by the complainant to the accused and that currency notes were seized in the presence of PW3 and PW4 and even they have subscribed their signatures and even obtained the signature of PW-2. But PWs 2, 3 and 4 they are the main witnesses on the part of the prosecution apart from PW-9 being an I.O. PW-1 who is a Sanctioning Authority, had accorded sanction as per Exhibit P1 to prosecute the case against the accused who being a Government servant. PW-1 who accorded sanction to prosecute the case, but it is only an administrative correspondence to accord sanction to prosecute the case against the Government servant as under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988. His evidence even though on the part of the prosecution has to be considered, it should be in conformity with the evidence of PW-3 / shadow witness, PW-4 / co-panch witness who have been secured by the I.O. / PW-9. It is specifically contended by the counsel for the appellant that as on 18.05.2005, the complaint has been filed by the complainant. PW-2 was subjected to examination and has given a complaint as per Exhibit P2. But no work has been pending before the accused Government servant and there was no demand made as according to his complaint at Exhibit P2 and even PW-3 and PW-4 had been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution to prove the fulcrum of Exhibit P3 / pre-trap mahazar Exhibit P4 / Trap mahazar. But the complaint was even reduced into writing and based upon the complaint at Exhibit P2, criminal law was set into motion and thereafter, the I.O / PW-9 on completion of the investigation in entirety, laid the charge-sheet against the accused. However, it is relevant to consider the ingredients of Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, keeping in view their evidence to arrive at a proper conclusion. 19. In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. DIG and another (2015) 10 SCC 152 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held at the footnote and as well as at paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 of the said judgment, thus: “Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Ss. 19. In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. DIG and another (2015) 10 SCC 152 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held at the footnote and as well as at paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 of the said judgment, thus: “Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) r/w S.13(2) – Illegal gratification – Trap case – Proof of demand – Necessity of, for conviction – Demand not proved as complainant had died before the trial – Evidence of other witnesses not sufficient to prove demand, though recovery proved –Benefit of doubt extended to appellant. -Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, reiterated, would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Ss.7 and 13 of 1988 Act – Conviction reversed.” As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. In the case of State of Punjab vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma (2013) 14 SCC 153 , the Supreme Court has held at the footnote and as well as at paragraph 11 of the said judgment, thus: “A. Public Accountability, Vigilance and Prevention of Corruption – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Ss.20 and 7 – Necessity of showing demand for illegal gratification – Mere recovery of tainted money not enough – Burden on accused to displace the statutory presumption – Evidence of complainant how to be scrutinized. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act 1988. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act 1988, 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 Act 1988. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person. (Vide: Ram Prakash Arora v. The State of Punjab AIR 1973 SC 498 ; T. Subramanian v. The State of T.N., AIR 2006 SC 836 ; State of Kerala & Anr. v. C.P. Rao, (2011) 6 SCC 450 ; and Mukut Bihari & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 11 SCC 642 ).” 20. It is also relevant to refer to the judgment in the case of Dashrath Singh Chauhan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2019) 17 SCC 509 , wherein the Supreme Court has held at the footnote as well as paragraphs 30 to 32 of the said judgment, thus: “Public Accountability, Vigilance and Prevention of Corruption – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Ss. 7, 13(2) r/w S. 13(1)(d) and S.120-B IPC – Neither charge of conspiracy to demand and accept bribe money proved against appellant, nor acceptance of bribe money on his part proved – Hence, held, he entitled to acquittal. (30) In such circumstances, there is no evidence to prove that the appellant directly accepted the money from the Complainant. 7, 13(2) r/w S. 13(1)(d) and S.120-B IPC – Neither charge of conspiracy to demand and accept bribe money proved against appellant, nor acceptance of bribe money on his part proved – Hence, held, he entitled to acquittal. (30) In such circumstances, there is no evidence to prove that the appellant directly accepted the money from the Complainant. Since the plea of conspiracy against the appellant and Rajinder Kumar failed, it cannot be held that money (Rs.4000/-) recovered from the possession of Rajinder Kumar was as a fact the bribe money meant for the appellant for holding him guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It is more so when the benefit of such acquittal from the charge of conspiracy was given to Rajinder Kumar but was not given to the appellant. 21. In the instant case, MO-6 / bribe of Rs.4,000/-consisting of 40 notes of Rs.100/-denomination was seized from the possession of the accused and even it is narrated at Exhibit P4 of the trap mahazar conducted by PW-9 who laid the charge-sheet against the accused. Even obtained the signature of PW-2 Kumar and also the signatures of PW3 and PW4. PW3 / shadow witness and PW-4 / co-panch witness in their presence, MO-3 / Pre-trap mahazar was drawn in the office of the I.O. / PW-9. But the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of acceptance of bribe money of Rs.4,000/-marked as MO-6 by the accused from the complainant / PW-1 on 18.05.2005. In the case of Selvaraj vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 10 SCC 230 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held at the footnote as well as paragraph 17 of the said judgment, thus: “A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – S.5(1)(d) – Bribery – Trap case – Complainant not available for cross-examination – Demand not proved – the allegation of bribe taking should be considered along with other material circumstances – Demand has to be proved by adducing clinching evidence – Recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused – There has to be corroboration of testimony of complainant regarding demand of bribe and when the complainant is not available for examination during trial, court has to be cautious while sifting the evidence of other witnesses – Acceptance of bribe has not been established by adducing cogent evidence either – Acquittal restored. 22. However, in the instant case, Exhibit P3 / pre-trap mahazar and Exhibit P4 / Trap mahazar were drawn by PW-9 / I.O. in the presence of PWs 3 and 4, by making a demonstration and even produced MO-6 currency notes, that is bribe amount produced by PW-2 who has filed the complaint at Exhibit P2. But at a cursory glance of the evidence of those witnesses on the part of the prosecution, it is found to be camouflage and also clouds of doubt. However, having gone through the authorities facilitated by the counsel for the appellant, it is found that the reliances are squarely applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the case on hand relating to the accused as regards the theory set up for demand and acceptance of the bait amount of Rs.4,000/-which is marked as MO-6. 23. PW-9 is the I.O. who laid the charge-sheet against the accused. But criminal law was set into motion on receipt of a complaint at Exhibit P2 and subsequent to registration of the crime by recording an FIR at Exhibit P6, PW-9 secured the panch witnesses PW-3 and PW-4 and in their presence, he drew the pre-trap mahazar as per Exhibit P3 and thereafter, he drew the trap mahazar as per Exhibit P4 in the presence of PW-3 and PW-4. The evidence of PW-3 who is the shadow witness requires to be appreciated in a proper perspective. But on a close scrutiny of the evidence, it appears that there is some clouds of doubt. Therefore, in this appeal, it requires for re-appreciation of the evidence. If not, certainly there shall be a miscarriage of justice and accused being the gravamen of the accusation would be the sufferer. The tainted currency notes of MO-6 even though number has been noted in Exhibit P3 of the pre-trap mahazar and also in the trap mahazar at Exhibit P4, and even having seized MO-6 currency notes under Exhibit P4 of the trap mahazar, it is an important aspect. But fulcrum of the mahazar requires to be established by the prosecution without giving any clouds of doubt. Whereas, Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, relating to trap cases in terms of illegal gratification, the ingredients of the aforesaid offences have to be established by the prosecution in relation to the demand and acceptance. But fulcrum of the mahazar requires to be established by the prosecution without giving any clouds of doubt. Whereas, Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, relating to trap cases in terms of illegal gratification, the ingredients of the aforesaid offences have to be established by the prosecution in relation to the demand and acceptance. Despite of recovery of tainted currency notes, merely because MO6 currency notes have been seized by PW-9 in the presence of PW3 and PW4 by drew a trap mahazar at Exhibit P4, but the prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile evidence relating to recovery of tainted MO-6 currency notes. The same has been noticed in the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 coupled with the evidence of PW-9 / I.O. who laid the charge-sheet against the accused. So far as the proof of demand, it is an important ingredient of Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988. The demand must be proved by the prosecution, but in the instant case, PW-2 who is a complainant has been subjected to examination in respect of Ex-P2. However, merely because of recovery of tainted currency notes MO-6 in the presence of PW-3 and PW-4, it cannot be held as sufficient evidence to prove the demand made by the accused and also acceptance of the bait amount MO-6. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, reiterated, would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Ss.7 and 13 of 1988 Act. This issue has been extensively addressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. DIG and another (2015) 10 SCC 152 (supra). 24. It is well-settled law that demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constituting offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act, 1988. The very recovery of tainted currency notes is not sufficient to convict the accused without specific evidence that he had in fact received bribe from the complainant. Whereas in the instant case, criminal law was set into motion on receipt of a complaint at Exhibit P2 made by PW-2 / Kumar. The very recovery of tainted currency notes is not sufficient to convict the accused without specific evidence that he had in fact received bribe from the complainant. Whereas in the instant case, criminal law was set into motion on receipt of a complaint at Exhibit P2 made by PW-2 / Kumar. PW-3 is the shadow witness who accompanied the complainant, but the burden rests on the prosecution to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the PC Act, 1988 by bringing worthwhile evidence to establish with reasonable probability that money other than illegal remuneration was accepted by the accused / Government servant as a motive or reward to forebear to do any official act under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988. 25. But at a cursory glance of the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 and on a close scrutiny of their evidence, on the standard of proof relating to the currency notes of corroboration by recovery of tainted notes divorced from the circumstances under which the same was recovered, is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion when there is no specific corroboration of the testimony of the complainant regarding bribe. Therefore, the evidence cannot be relied upon, but looking into the evidence of those witnesses, on a close scrutiny relating to pre-trap mahazar, at Exhibit P3 and trap mahazar at Exhibit P4, it is found that there is clouds of doubt. When clouds of doubt arises on the part of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt is always accrued on the part of the accused alone, which is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery system. However, the domain is vested with the prosecution to facilitate worthwhile evidence in order to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. But when once doubt has arisen in the mind of the court, benefit of doubt is always accrued on the part of the prosecution alone. But in the instant case, the touchstone of preponderance of probability is an onerous responsibility on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. But under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the domain is always vested with the Trial Court to appreciate the evidence relating to Entrust mahazar, Trap mahazar which were conducted by the I.O. during the course of investigation. But under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the domain is always vested with the Trial Court to appreciate the evidence relating to Entrust mahazar, Trap mahazar which were conducted by the I.O. during the course of investigation. In the instant case, even though prosecution has subjected to examination several witnesses, but relied upon evidence of PW-2 / complainant, PWs 3 and 4 Panch witnesses have been secured and in their presence, pre-trap mahazar has been drawn by PW-9 and trap mahazar has been drawn as at Exhibit P4. But the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence even on the touchstone of preponderance of probability to arrive at a conclusion that the accused had demanded bribe MO-6. In terms of the aforesaid reasons and findings, as opined that the accused deserves to be acquitted, accordingly interfered. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal preferred by the appellant / accused under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court in Spl.C.No.72/2006 dated 20.12.2011 is hereby set aside. Consequence upon setting aside the conviction judgment, the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. If the accused had executed any bail bond, the same shall stand cancelled.