JUDGMENT : G. RADHA RANI, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant-accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.12.2006 passed in C.C. No. 10 of 2002 by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to pay fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the charge under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to pay fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment are directed to run concurrently. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died and his wife was brought on record as his legal representative to continue the appeal. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant-Accused Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.O.’) while working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Julapally Police Station, Karimnagar District demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 2,500/- from the complainant on 16.09.2000 at about 6.00 P.M. as reward for doing official favour in not harassing him, his brother, mother and sister in connection with a case registered in Julapally Police Station, which was the subject matter in Crime No. 55 of 2000 of the said Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 452, 323 and 506 read with 34 IPC and for releasing his brother T. Rajaiah, who was detained in Julapally Police Station from the morning of 15.09.2000. The complainant T. Komaraiah was a native of Telukunta Village, Julapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District and he was an agriculturist. The complainant T. Komaraiah was a native of Telukunta Village, Julapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District and he was an agriculturist. One Smt. V. Komaramma of the same Village lodged a report on 18.08.2000 in Julapally Police Station against Komaraiah and three others alleging she was assaulted and as such, a case was registered in Crime No. 55 of 2000 under Sections 452, 323 and 506 read with 34 IPC by the A.O. On 19.08.2000, the A.O. summoned said T. Komariah to the police station and demanded Rs. 5,000/- as bribe by threatening him that he would send all his family members to jail if he did not pay the amount. Since then A.O. insisted for payment of the bribe amount. On 15.09.2000 at about 8.00 AM, the brother of the complainant by name T. Rajaiah was taken to the Julapally police station, on which Komaraiah along with his village elder by name Gaddam Shankaraiah went to the police station and requested the A.O. to release his brother Rajaiah but, the A.O. did not agree and insisted for the amount which he demanded earlier. When the complainant expressed his inability to pay such huge amount, the A.O. reduced it to Rs. 2,500/- and insisted to pay money on 16.09.2000. The complainant, who was not willing to pay any bribe amount, lodged a complaint to the DSP, ACB, Karimnagar Range on 15.09.2000 at 1.00 P.M. and the DSP registered a case in Crime No. 5/ACB-KNR/2000 under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 on 16.09.2000 at 9.30 A.M. During the course of investigation, the DSP secured the services of the complainant Komaraiah as a decoy, Gaddam Shankaraiah as accompanying witness, D.M. Koteswara Rao and S. Shankaraiah as mediators and laid trap against the A.O. The A.O. was caught red handed on 16.09.2000 at about 6.00 P.M. at Julapally police station. The phenolphthalein test conducted on the right hand fingers of the A.O. gave positive result, the tainted amount was recovered from the possession of the A.O. who produced the same from the pocket of his wearing shirt. The A.O. was arrested and released on bail. The relevant documents were seized and witnesses were examined during the course of investigation. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar on 03.11.2000. The A.O. was arrested and released on bail. The relevant documents were seized and witnesses were examined during the course of investigation. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar on 03.11.2000. After obtaining sanction from the Principal Secretary to Government, Home (SC-A) Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, charge-sheet was filed against the A.O. under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act. 3. The following charges were framed against the appellant-accused officer: 1. That, you being a public servant employed as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Julapally Police Station, Karimnagar District, as per your earlier demand on 15.09.2000 at about 6 P.M. at your Julapally police Station, you have demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 2500/- from one T. Komaraiah, Telukunta Village, Julapally Mandal, Karimnagar District as a motive or reward for doing official favour ie, in not harassing him, his brother, mother and sister in connection with a case registered against them in Julapalli P.S. which is a subject matter in Cr. No. 55 of 2000 U/s. 452, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and also for releasing his brother, thereby you have committed offence punishable U/s. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within my cognizance. 2. That, you being a public servant as mentioned in charge No. 1 on 15.09.2000 by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing your position as public servant obtained for yourself a pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs. 2500/- from one T. Komaraiah, Telukunta village, Julapally Mandal, Karimangar District as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for doing official favour ie, in not harassing him, his brother, mother and sister in connection with a case registered against them in Julapalli P.S. which is a subject matter in Cr. No. 55 of 2000 U/s. 452, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and also for releasing his brother, thereby you have committed offence U/s. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1955 punishable U/s. 13(2) of the said Act and within my cognizance. 4. The charges were read over and explained to the A.O. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P19 besides MOs.1 to 8. On behalf of the A.O. DWs. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.D1 to D8 were marked. 4. The charges were read over and explained to the A.O. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P19 besides MOs.1 to 8. On behalf of the A.O. DWs. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.D1 to D8 were marked. Ex.C1 was marked in ‘C’ series. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court found the A.O. guilty of the charges and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant – Accused Officer contended that PWs. 1, 3, 5 and 6 did not support the prosecution case and were treated as hostile by the prosecution. The learned Judge failed to see that PW-2 was a stock witness to ACB and he acted as a mediator in four other cases. PWs. 1 and 5 were accused in Crime No. 55 of 2000 and were absconding from 18.08.2000 till their arrest and the question of demand of money was false. The evidence of PWs. 1 to 4, DWs. 1 and 2 would show that PW-1 obtained a loan of Rs. 2,500/- from the A.O. and PW-4 sent his enquiry report to his superiors in Crime No. 55 of 2000 in which he noted that PW-1 obtained a loan of Rs. 2,500/- from the A.O. on 14.08.2000 as he got acquaintance with the A.O. in Crime No. 3 of 2000 registered under Section 353 IPC against PW-3 who was none other than the brother of PW-1. As per G.D. entry dated 15.09.2000 at 6.00 A.M. PW-3 constable was sent to Sultanpur village by the A.O. and they returned by 9.30 AM. The evidence of PW-6 would indicate the intimacy between the two families. Exs.D5 to D8 would indicate that A.O. was out of headquarters on 15.09.2000 from 9.30 A.M. to 3.00 P.M. The trial Court failed to see that the ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13 (d) of the PC Act were not made out though legal or reliable evidence and prayed to acquit the accused. 7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for ACB supported the judgment of the trial Court. 7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for ACB supported the judgment of the trial Court. He contended that the loan theory taken by the A.O. was not proved as the complainant would not have repaid the loan by taking the trap laying officer along with him. The currency notes numbers were mentioned in the pre-trap proceedings and the same were only recovered from the A.O. Phenolphthalein test proved positive. The complainant would not have repaid the tainted currency for repayment of loan amount. The A.O. in his spontaneous explanation in the post-trap proceedings denied acceptance of amount, but subsequently stated that on 14.09.2000 PW-1 borrowed Rs. 2,000/- from him and when it came to the stage of evidence A.O. changed his version and contended that PW-1 borrowed Rs. 2,500/- from him on 14.08.2000 and at the hour of trap PW-1 came to the police station and returned the said amount to him stating that it was towards repayment of the loan amount. There were inconsistencies in the contention of the defence from one stage to the other regarding the date as to when PW-1 borrowed the loan from A.O. and as to how much amount borrowed. The evidence of PW-3 would disclose that the brother of the complainant Rajaiah was called to the police station and the evidence of PW-2 would disclose that the Rajaiah was found in the police station at the time of trap. The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and prayed to confirm the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 8. Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution proved its case against the appellant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act beyond reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct and sustainable? 9. Now it is considered expedient to extract the provisions of Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 under which the appellant was charged: “Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 7. 9. Now it is considered expedient to extract the provisions of Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 under which the appellant was charged: “Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act: Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanations: (a) “Expecting to be a public servant.” If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section. (b) “Gratification.” The word “gratification” is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money. (c) “Legal remuneration.” The words “legal remuneration” are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organisation, which he serves, to accept. (d) “A motive or reward for doing.” A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression. (d) “A motive or reward for doing.” A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression. (e) Where a public servant induces a person erroneously to believe that his influence with the Government has obtained a title for that person and thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any other gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant has committed an offence under this section. Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant: (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct: (a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7. (b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned. (c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do. (d) if he: (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. (e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Explanation - For the purposes of this section “known sources of income” means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Subash Parbat Sonvane vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 5 SCC 86 held that words ‘accepts’ and ‘obtains’ had been especially used by the Legislature in Section 7 and 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Act but in Section 13(1)(d) there is withdrawal of the word ‘acceptance’ and put importance on the word ‘obtains’ and cited its prior decision in Rama Krishna and Another vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1956 SC 476 wherein it is observed that “we have primarily to look at the language employed and give effect to it. The word ‘obtains’ on which much stress was laid did not eliminate the idea of acceptance of what is given or offered to be given, though it would connote also an element of effort on the part of the receiver. One may accept money that is offered, or solicit payment of a bribe, or extort the bribe by threat or coercion; in each case, he obtains a pecuniary advantage, by abusing his position as a public servant. It is enough, if by abusing his position as a public servant, a man obtains for himself any pecuniary advantage, entirely irrespective of motive or reward for showing favour or disfavour. It is enough, if by abusing his position as a public servant, a man obtains for himself any pecuniary advantage, entirely irrespective of motive or reward for showing favour or disfavour. The demand or request is indispensible as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M.W. Mohiuddin vs. State of Maharastra, 1995 (3) SCC 567 and C.K. Damodaran Nair vs. Union of India, 1987 (9) SCC 477. The law has now been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that to convict the accused it is necessary to have adequate proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servants under Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2015) 10 SCC 152 held as under: “The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.” In the light of these principles, the evidence of the witnesses needs to be considered. 11. PW-1 is the complainant. He is supposed to speak about the demand made by the A.O on 19.08.2000 and on 14.09.2000, about the complaint given by him on 15.09.2000 and about his participation in the trap on 16.09.2000 and about recording his 164 Cr.P.C. statement on 20.10.2000, but he did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that: There were differences and inimical terms between his family and the family of Komaramma, who lodged the complaint against him and his brother Rajaiah on 18.08.2000 at P.S. Julapally. The A.O. who was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector, called him to the Police Station on 19.08.2000 with regard to the complaint given by Komaramma. The A.O. who was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector, called him to the Police Station on 19.08.2000 with regard to the complaint given by Komaramma. He informed the A.O. that he did not commit any offence and requested him to help him. On 14.08.2000, the A.O. lent a sum of Rs. 2,500/- to him to deposit as security for the purpose of panchayat in the matter of Komaramma. He borrowed the said amount from the A.O. and kept the same as security before the elder, namely Gaddam Shankaraiah (LW-2) Thereafter, the A.O. booked a case against him and his younger brother on 18.08.2000 alleging that he and his younger brother bet Komaramma. Subsequently, Shankaraiah (LW-2) taken him to the ACB officials with the said amount of Rs. 2,500/-. Shankaraiah (LW-2) talked to DSP-ACB, Karimnagar and then, he was called by the DSP and the latter informed him to come on the next day. He was declared as hostile by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and he denied the suggestions given by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that his statement was recorded as per Exs.P2 to P7, the portions of his 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by the Inspector, ACB. 12. The person who was shown as accompanying PW-1 at the time of the trap, cited as LW-2 by name Gaddam Shankaraiah was reported to have expired, as such, Prosecution could not examine him. 13. The younger brother of PW-1 by name Sri T.Rajaiah, who was allegedly detained in the Police Station and for whose release the A.O. was alleged to have demanded the amount was examined as PW-5 and he had also not supported the prosecution case. He stated that there were disputes between his family and Komaramma and she filed a criminal case against him and his family members in Julapally Police Station. He and his brother went to the Police Station on 14.09.2000 and in the said criminal case they were sent to the concerned court and from there to the Jail and subsequently they were released on bail. He was also declared as hostile as he had not supported the prosecution case and not stated about his illegal detention in the Police Station. 14. The elder sister of PWs. 1 and 5 by name Smt. T. Lakshmi was examined as PW-6. She stated that PWs. 1 and 5 were her brothers. There were disputes between Komramma and PWs. He was also declared as hostile as he had not supported the prosecution case and not stated about his illegal detention in the Police Station. 14. The elder sister of PWs. 1 and 5 by name Smt. T. Lakshmi was examined as PW-6. She stated that PWs. 1 and 5 were her brothers. There were disputes between Komramma and PWs. 1 and 2. She did not know whether they were called to the Police Station or not. She was also treated as hostile by the prosecution. 15. Thus, the Prosecution failed to prove that PW-5 was taken into custody by the A.O. and he demanded bribe from PW-1 for the release of PW-5. 16. The mediator for pre trap proceedings and post trap proceedings was examined as PW-2. He was a Gazetted Officer working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in the Office of Assistant Director Regional Animal Husbandry Training Centre, Karimanagar, He stated about his participation in pre trap proceedings, post trap proceedings, laying a trap against the A.O. conducting of chemical tests on both the hand fingers of A.O. and on the inner flap of wearing shirt of A.O. which yielded positive result and recovery of tainted amount of Rs. 2,500/- from A.O. at his instance. He also stated about the seizure of documents, collection of resultant solutions and about his reducing all the post trap events into writing in Ex.P.15 at Julapally Police Station. 17. PW-3 is the constable by name P. Venkata Ramana Reddy, who stated about bringing Rajaiah (PW-5) to the Police Station from Telukuntla village and producing him before the A.O. on 15.09.2000. His evidence is contradictory to the evidence of PW-4, S.I. of Police of Julapally Police Station, who stated that PWs. 1 and 5 were absconding from 18.08.2000 onwards and he had not found PW-5 in the Police Station on his return from casual leave on 16.09.2000 and the name of PW-5 was not mentioned in any of the records in Exs.P.10 to P.13 to show that he was arrested in Crime No. 55 of 2000. 18. PW-4, on the other hand, stated that he sent PW-3 and another PC.667 to Sultapur on I.D. duty on 15.09.2000 at 6.00 AM. 18. PW-4, on the other hand, stated that he sent PW-3 and another PC.667 to Sultapur on I.D. duty on 15.09.2000 at 6.00 AM. and the said two constables reported back to the Police Station on that day at 9.30 AM., which is contrary to the evidence of PW-3 that they went to Telukunta village on 15.09.2000 as per the instructions of the A.O. As per the G.D. entry on 15.09.2000 marked under Ex.P.10 also PW-3 was sent to Sultanpur village at 6.00 AM. and returned by 9.30 AM. Thus, the evidence of PW-3 is contrary to the evidence of PW-4 and to the record entry in the G.D. marked under Ex.P.10. 19. PW-4 was examined to speak about registering the Crime No. 55 of 2000 by the A.O. against PW-1 and his family members on the complaint of Smt. K. Komaramma while he was on leave and about the maintenance of Ex.P.10, G.D., at Police Station. 20. PW-7 is the Assistant Section Officer in Home (SCA Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad) and she deposed about the sanction given by the Principal Secretary, Home Department to prosecute the A.O. for the offences alleged under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 21. PW-8 is the DSP, ACB, who laid the trap against the A.O. and PW-9 is the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and APTS, Hyderabad, who filed charge-sheet in the case. These witnesses stated about the investigation conducted by them and laying of charge-sheet. 22. The trial court as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the ACB relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M. Narsing Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2001) 1 SCC 691 , Hazarilal vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1980) 2 SCC 390 , Raghubir Singh vs. State of Haryana, (1974) 4 SCC 560 , Madhukar Bhaskar Rao Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 571 on the aspect that once the payment or acceptance of gratification was proved, the presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act that the said gratification was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Hence, it is also considered necessary to extract Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act: “20. Hence, it is also considered necessary to extract Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act: “20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration: (1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.” 23. As seen from Section 20 of the Act, the presumption is extended only for the offences under Sections 7 and 11 and Section 13(1)(a) and (b) but not for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 24. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in N. Sunkanna vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2016) 1 SCC 713 wherein it was held that “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.” 25. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in N. Vijay Kumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2021 SC 766 wherein it was held as under: “12. It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in the case of C.M. Girish Babu vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, (2009) 3 SCC 779 and B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55 . Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in the case of C.M. Girish Babu vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, (2009) 3 SCC 779 and B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55 . In the aforesaid judgments of this Court while considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved.” 26. The Hon’ble Apex Court in B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55 in a similar case where the complainant turned hostile and where there was no other witness present at the moment of transaction between them so the contents of the complaint cannot be relied upon, it was held that the demand for illegal gratification was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused accepted the money voluntarily; knowing it to be bribe. So there was no proof of demand for illegal gratification, the abuse of position as a public servant for obtaining any valuable thing or gaining any pecuniary advantage or use of corrupt or illegal means cannot be held to be proved. The offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) cannot be established. Thus, the offence under Section 7 is concerned it has now been a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is a must needed condition to constitute the offence under the Act and further, mere possession and recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused without proof of demand are not adequate to constitute the commission of offence and also for the conviction there under. 27. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, (2009) 15 SCC 200 laid that demand is a sine qua non for the establishment of an offence under the provisions of the Act. 27. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, (2009) 15 SCC 200 laid that demand is a sine qua non for the establishment of an offence under the provisions of the Act. The court must take into account all the facts and circumstances which are placed on record in its entirety to reach out the conclusion, whether all the ingredients of an offence has been satisfied or not i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification. The standard of burden of proof of both the accused and prosecution differs. The prosecution must establish the foundational facts before the accused is called for explaining the circumstances as to how the amount was found in his possession. If any explanation is offered by the accused then the court is required to take into consideration the explanation, while Section 20 of the Act is invoked, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability but not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. 28. In the present case also, the A.O. took the defence that PW-1 obtained loan from him and PW-1 gave that amount to him in discharge of the said loan and got examined DWs. 1 to 4 in support of his defence. DW-1 was the village elder who stated that PW-1 deposited Rs. 2,500/- in the panchayat between him and Smt. Komramma on 14.08.2000. DW-2 stated that PW-1 borrowed amount from the A.O. in front of him at the Medical Shop on 14.08.2000 at 11.30 A.M. and executed a pro note. 29. DW-3 was a Head Constable of Julapally Police Station, who stated that A.O. was not present in the Police Station on 19.08.2000 from 8.30 AM. to 2.30 P.M. His evidence was to show that the A.O. was not present in the Police Station at the time of the first demand on 19.08.2000 as alleged by the Prosecution. 30. DW-4 was examined to speak about the G.D. entries dated 19.08.2000 and 16.09.2000 pertaining to Crime No. 55 of 2000 and about the duty pass port Ex.D.4 dated 15.09.2000 issued in favour of the PW-3 and PC 667 of Police Station Julapally. 31. 30. DW-4 was examined to speak about the G.D. entries dated 19.08.2000 and 16.09.2000 pertaining to Crime No. 55 of 2000 and about the duty pass port Ex.D.4 dated 15.09.2000 issued in favour of the PW-3 and PC 667 of Police Station Julapally. 31. The trial Court had not believed the loan theory taken by the A.O. Even if the same was not believed as the Prosecution must establish the foundational facts of demand and acceptance before calling for the explanation of the accused as to how the amount was found in his possession and as it failed to establish the fact of demand itself due to complainant turning hostile and could not examine the accompanying witness due to his death and not able to prove its case, the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i) of the Act is considered as not proper and hence liable to be set aside. 32. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence against the A.O. for the offences under Section 7 and 13 (1)(d)(i) of the Act punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act.