JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-convicts being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated th September, 2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi in Special Case No.7 of 1991 whereby and where under, the learned court below has held the appellant-convicts guilty for having committed the offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years each. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the PW1 was the contractor in P.H.D. department, Chakradharpur and the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai, who was a police officer, demanded bribe from the complainant. The complainant-PW1 paid Rs. 10,000/- as bribe to the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai but again the said the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai demanded Rs. 5,000/-more from the complainant. The complainant was not willing to pay further bribe and he gave written information to the Additional I.G., Vigilance. The matter was verified by PW7-Bhagwan Singh, the Inspector of Police. The co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai demanded Rs. 5,000/-in presence of PW7 on 19.02.1991. The FIR was registered. A trap was laid on 26.02.1991. The complainant met the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai, while he was coming out from the police station. The co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai took the complainant to a hut and took tea and enquired from complainant there, as to whether he has brought the money. The complaint took out money from his pocket but the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai asked the complainant to give the money to appellant-convict no. 1 who at that time was sitting in his shop. Thereafter, the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai and PW1 went to the shop of appellant-convict no. 1 and on the direction of the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai, the PW1 gave Rs. 5,000/-to the appellant-convict no. 1. Thereafter, the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai, appellant-convict no.1 and PW1 came to a hotel and took tea there. The appellant-convict no. 1 went back to his shop. The PW1 waited in the hotel for some time. The co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai left for the market. 5,000/-to the appellant-convict no. 1. Thereafter, the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai, appellant-convict no.1 and PW1 came to a hotel and took tea there. The appellant-convict no. 1 went back to his shop. The PW1 waited in the hotel for some time. The co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai left for the market. The complainant informed the PW7 about the acceptance of money by the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai and also informed that the money has been given to the appellant-convict no. 1. The appellant-convict no. 1 took the currency notes from PW1 and when he felt that there was some chemical in the currency notes, he handed the notes to the appellant-convict no. 2, who is the son of the appellant-convict no. 1. The appellant-convict no. 2 washed the notes with petrol. On information, the members of the trap team went and found the GC notes in the rack of Ishwar Bhai Patel and the money smeared with phenopthelene of Rs. 5,000/-was recovered from there. 4. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against the appellant-convicts as well as the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai and separate charge for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against the appellants-convicts while the charge for the offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai. 5. The appellants-convicts as well as the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai, pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Hence they were put to trial. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined fourteen witnesses. But the defence did not choose to examine any witness. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.1-Sudhir Kumar Nand who is the complainant himself, has deposed about the complaint submitted by him and the verification made by PW7 along with the him on 19.02.1991 of the said complaint, in which the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai demanded the bribe of Rs. 5,000/-. He has further stated about the pre-trap preparations in detail. He then stated that on 26.02.1991 at 6.30 AM, along with the members of the trap team he reached Chakradharpur. The co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai came from the police station. 5,000/-. He has further stated about the pre-trap preparations in detail. He then stated that on 26.02.1991 at 6.30 AM, along with the members of the trap team he reached Chakradharpur. The co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai came from the police station. Both the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai and PW1 took tea. The co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai enquired as to whether the PW 1 has brought the money. The PW1 nodded his head in affirmative and brought out the money, kept in his pocket but the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai told the PW1 to keep the money with him. The co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai went with PW1 to the shop of the appellant-convict no. 1 by walking and told the PW1 to hand over the money to the appellant-convict no. 1. The PW1 handed over money to the appellant-convict no. 1. From there, the PW1, the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai and the appellant-convict no. 1 together came to the tea stall to take tea and after taking tea, the appellant-convict no. 1 returned to his shop. The co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai made PW1 to sit in the hotel for some time. Thereafter, PW1 went and met the PW7 and informed him about handing over the bribe. In his cross-examination, PW1 has stated that the members of the trap team were sitting at a distance of 100 metre away from the place where he met the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai. He knew the appellant-convict no. 1 from before. The appellant-convict is his relative as the appellant-convict no. 1 has married in the same family in which PW 1 has married. 7. PW2-Mrinal Narayan Singh, PW3-Bhola Sharma and PW4-Sanjay Kumar Sharma were tendered for cross examination only. They did not depose anything to support the case of prosecution. 8. PW5-Shashank Shekhar Sarangi was a teacher of high school. He is a seizure witness of the money being seized from the tenanted premise of Ishar Bhai Patel. He was declared hostile and even though, the prosecution put leading question to him, still he did not support the case of prosecution. 9. PW6-Braj Nandan Prasad Singh (Vikat) was the Superintendent of the Police in the Cabinet Vigilance Department. He has stated about the complaint and the pre-trap preparations in detail. He was declared hostile and even though, the prosecution put leading question to him, still he did not support the case of prosecution. 9. PW6-Braj Nandan Prasad Singh (Vikat) was the Superintendent of the Police in the Cabinet Vigilance Department. He has stated about the complaint and the pre-trap preparations in detail. He has stated that on 26.02.1991, they reached Chakradharpur at about 8.00 AM. He stayed at the Circle Office and instructed the trap team and others to proceed ahead. At about 1.00 PM, he was informed that the accused has taken the bribe but thereafter the accused went to Chaibasa in motorcycle. He and others came to hut type hotel situated near the bus stand. PW1 informed him that the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai took him to the medicine shop of the appellant-convict no. 1 and told the PW1 to hand over the money and further told that he will collect money after returning from Chaibasa. PW 6 went to the medicine shop of the appellant-convict no. 1. The appellant-convict no. 1 confessed before him that on being told by the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai-the police inspector, he received Rs. 5,000/-from PW1. The appellant-convict no. 1 further told him that the co-convict, J. K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai told him to collect money after returning from Chaibasa. He kept money in the pocket of his kurta. On being enquired about the notes, the appellant-convict no. 1 told him that after the persons left, there was some suspicion in his mind that some chemical has been applied to the notes, hence, he got all notes washed with petrol and told the appellant-convict no. 2 who is his son, to get the said notes dried in the house of Patel, situated nearby. PW6 taking the appellant-convicts along with him went to the house of Ishwar Bhai Patel and collected the said notes. Fingers of the hands of the appellant-convicts were washed with sodium carbonate solution. The colour of the solution turned pink and the pocket of the kurta of the appellant convict no. 1 was also washed with solution and the same also turned pink. Then they went to the house of the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai. Fingers of the hands of the appellant-convicts were washed with sodium carbonate solution. The colour of the solution turned pink and the pocket of the kurta of the appellant convict no. 1 was also washed with solution and the same also turned pink. Then they went to the house of the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai. In his cross-examination, a note has been appended by the presiding officer who recorded his deposition to the effect that the PW6 was cross examined in part in 1996, hence he does not remember all the facts. 10. PW7-Bhagwan Singh is the verifying officer of the case as well as the member of the trap team. He has stated about the verification of the complaint done by him on 19.02.1991 but there is no reference of either appellants in the said verification done on 19.02.1991 and no role has been attributed to them on 19.02.1991. He further stated that on 26.02.1991, they arrived at Charkardharpur at 8.00 AM. He also stated that he saw that PW1 with the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai went inside the medicine shop of the appellant-convict no. 1 and after sometime, all the three came out and went to the hut type hotel and there they took tea and then went to betel shop and took betel. Thereafter, the appellant-convict no. 1 went to his medicine shop and at about 11.30 AM, co-convict, the J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai and PW1 came out from the hotel and the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai went towards the market. They went to the house of the appellant-convict no. 1 and demanded money. He further stated that the money was recovered from the house of the Ishwar Bhai Patel. In his cross-examination, PW7 has stated that he has not seen the bribe money being paid to the appellant–convict no.1 and he has heard it from PW1. 11. PW8-Blasiyush Toppo is a formal witness and he has not stated anything relevant. 12. PW9 – Ramesh Chandra Singh was a Government officer posted in Chakradharpur on 26.02.1991. He is a seizure witness. He has verified the number of notes recovered from the house of the Ishwar Bhai Patel and the number of notes tallied with the number of notes mentioned in the G.C. notes memorandum. 13. PW10-Md. 12. PW9 – Ramesh Chandra Singh was a Government officer posted in Chakradharpur on 26.02.1991. He is a seizure witness. He has verified the number of notes recovered from the house of the Ishwar Bhai Patel and the number of notes tallied with the number of notes mentioned in the G.C. notes memorandum. 13. PW10-Md. Sarwan has proved the sanction order of prosecution in respect of the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai. He was an advocates’ clerk. 14. PW11-Prameshwar Ravidas was member of the trap team. He has stated about the pre trap preparations. He has stated that the PW7 and PW1 went to hand over the bribe and after getting information that the bribe amount has been paid, the bribe money was recovered from the house of the Ishwar Bhai Patel. 15. PW 12-Gopal Jee Jha is the Scientific Assistant and he has proved the FSL report regarding the Sodium carbonate solution sent for chemical examination. 16. PW 13-Sachida Nand Singh, has stated that he was posted in the office of SDO in the year 1991. He was part of the trap team. He has stated about the pre trap preparations. At about 9.00 AM, they were near a tea stall at Chakradharpur. PW 1 called the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai and took him towards the market. The co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai told the PW1 to give the money to the appellant-convict no. 1. PW1 handed over the money to the appellant-convict no. 1 and thereafter the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai went away. The trap team went to the house of the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai but nothing was seized from him. The co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai came with the trap team to the appellant-convict no. 1. The bribe amount was recovered from the house of the appellant-convict no. 1 which was dried after being washed with petrol. The same was produced by the appellant-convict no. 2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was not with the trap team at the time of the trap. 17. PW14-Seth Hembrom was also the member of the trap team and he is also the I.O. of the case. He has also stated about the pre trap preparations. He has stated that at about 6.45 AM, on 26.02.1991, they reached near the Block office of Chakradharpur. 17. PW14-Seth Hembrom was also the member of the trap team and he is also the I.O. of the case. He has also stated about the pre trap preparations. He has stated that at about 6.45 AM, on 26.02.1991, they reached near the Block office of Chakradharpur. After 2½-3 hours, the PW1 came out from a house and came near the trap team and told about handing over the bribe money. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not prepare any sketch map of the place of occurrence. 18. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the appellant-convicts under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against them and the appellant-convicts denied the material questions put to them. 19. Learned trial court after taking into consideration the evidence in the record inter alia held that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the charge for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the appellant-convicts as the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the ingredients of the said offence that they have abetted the acceptance of bribe by the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai and convicted and sentenced the appellant-convicts as already indicated above. 20. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the appellant-convicts submits that trial court has failed to take into consideration the material contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and failed to notice that the same does not establish that the appellant-convicts had any knowledge about the demand of bribe by the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai from the complainant and in the absence of the same, keeping in view of the admitted fact that the PW1 was the relative of the appellant-convicts and was having prior acquaintance with him; merely because he has received some money from an acquaintance in his medicine shop, it can not be said that he had knowledge that the said money was ever demanded by the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai as a bribe and in the absence of any evidence in this respect, the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish the charge under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against either of the appellant-convicts. It is further submitted that there is inordinate delay in trap team reaching the place of occurrence, though even as per the case of the prosecution by 11.30 AM, all the alleged giving and taking of bribe was over but as stated by PW6 that only at 1.00 PM, the PW 6 was informed that the accused had taken the bribe money; which was never recovered from either of the appellant-convicts rather the same was recovered from one person namely Ishwar Bhai Patel, creates a doubt over the case of prosecution. It is next submitted that admittedly, the tainted money was not recovered from the appellant– convicts rather the same was recovered from the house of one Ishwar Bhai Patel, who has not been made an accused nor examined as a prosecution witness. It is then submitted that the PW1, who is the only eye witness to the occurrence has not stated anything to suggest that the appellant-convicts had any knowledge about said money being demanded by the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai as bribe and the only basis for implicating the appellant-convicts is confessional statements allegedly made before some of the members of the trap team by the appellant-convict No.1 but even these portion of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses were a departure from the original prosecution case; where there is no such allegation of any confession being made by the appellant-convict no.1, that too after a considerable hours of delay, hence such on untrustworthy testimony of the police officers; by itself is insufficient to establish the charge for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 21. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla and Ors., reported in AIR 1998 SC 1406 , submits that this is a case, where there is absolutely no evidence regarding the first two ingredients of the section 107 of the IPC and appellant-convicts have been roped in for having intentionally aided the act or illegal omission by committing the offence. It is next submitted by Mr. It is next submitted by Mr. Das that as per the Explanation 2 of Section 107 of the IPC, which reads as under : “Explanation2 – Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” the prosecution ought to have established, by the cogent evidence that the appellant-convicts intentionally aided the act of taking bribe by the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai but having failed to produce any evidence regarding the said essential ingredients, this is a fit case where the appellant-convicts be acquitted by at least giving them the benefit of doubt. It he is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-convicts that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence being not sustainable in law, the same be set aside. 22. Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, learned Addl. PP on the other hand defends the impugned judgment and submits that the evidence in the record which has come through PW 1-who is the complainant himself, as well as the other witnesses examined by prosecution is sufficient to establish that the appellant have abetted the acceptance of bribe by the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai-who was undisputedly a public servant, from the complainant and as the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish all the ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hence, it is submitted that learned court below having rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant-convicts, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 23. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that mere recovery of bribe by itself cannot prove the charge for the offences punishable under section 7 or 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused in absence of any evidence to prove the demand of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted money, knowing it to be bribe as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the case Rakesh Kapoor Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2012) 13 SCC 552. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2012) 13 SCC 552. To the same effect is the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Satyanarayan Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 wherein in paragraph -23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) and (ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in absence thereof, the charge thereof would fail. Paragraphs 26 and 27 of P. Satyanarayan Murthy Vs. District Inspector (supra) reads as under: 26. In reiteration of the golden principle which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases, this Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam had held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of “may be” true but has to upgrade it in the domain of “must be” true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It was held, that the court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. 27. The materials on record when judged on the touchstone of the legal principles adumbrated hereinabove, leave no manner of doubt that the prosecution, in the instant case, has failed to prove unequivocally, the demand of illegal gratification and, thus, we are constrained to hold that it would be wholly unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act as well. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is hereby set aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond stands discharged. Original record be sent back immediately. (Emphasis supplied) 24. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla and Ors. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond stands discharged. Original record be sent back immediately. (Emphasis supplied) 24. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla and Ors. (supra) that since 'abetment' has not been defined under the P.C. Act,1988 hence the exhaustible definition in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code can be used as the guiding principle to arrive at a conclusion whether the prosecution has established abetment in order to bring home the charge for the offence punishable under section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As per Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, a person abets the doing of a thing when he does any of the acts mentioned in the following three clauses; (i) instigates any person to do that thing; or (ii) engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (iii) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that things. 25. The law is well settled that doing something for the offender is not abetment. Doing something with knowledge so as to facilitate the offender to commit the crime or otherwise would constitute abetment, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of M.P. v. Mukesh & Ors. (2006) 13 SCC 197 paragraph 18 of which reads as under: “18. A person, it is trite, abets by aiding, when by any act done either prior to, or at the time of, the commission of an act, he intends to facilitate and does in fact facilitate, the commission thereof would attract the third clause of Section 107 of the Penal Code. Doing something for the offender is not abetment. Doing something with knowledge so as to facilitate him to commit the crime or otherwise would constitute abetment.” 26. Doing something for the offender is not abetment. Doing something with knowledge so as to facilitate him to commit the crime or otherwise would constitute abetment.” 26. It is needless to mention that intention to aid the commission of the crime, is the gist of the offence of abetment by aid as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Trilok Chand Jain v. State of Delhi AIR 1977 SC 666 paragraph 13 of which reads as under: “13. Nor can the appellant be held guilty of abetting the alleged attempt made by Gupta to obtain the illegal gratification. Intention to aid the commission of the crime, is the gist of the offence of abetment by aid. Such intention, on the part of the appellant was lacking in this case. Xxxxxxxxxxxx” 27. It is again a settled principle of law that the criminal intent behind the commission of the act which is alleged to have occasioned the crime will have to be established before the liability of the person charged with the commission of crime can be adjudged, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rajat Prasad v. CBI, (2014) 6 SCC 495 , in this respect observed as under: “19. Xxxxxxxxxxx At the same time the criminal intent behind the commission of the act which is alleged to have occasioned the crime will have to be established before the liability of the person charged with the commission of crime can be adjudged. The doctrine of mens rea, though a salient feature of the Indian criminal justice system, finds expression in different statutory provisions requiring proof of either intention or knowledge on the part of the accused. Such proof is to be gathered from the surrounding facts established by the evidence and materials before the court and not by a process of probe of the mental state of the accused which the law does not contemplate. The offence of abetment defined by Section 107 IPC or the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A IPC would, thus, require criminal intent on the part of the offender like any other offence. Both the offences would require existence of a culpable mental state which is a matter of proof from the surrounding facts established by the materials on record. Both the offences would require existence of a culpable mental state which is a matter of proof from the surrounding facts established by the materials on record. Therefore, whether the commission of an offence under Section 12 of the PC Act read with Section 120-B IPC had been occasioned by the acts attributed to the appellant-accused or not, ideally, is a matter that can be determined only after the evidence in the case is recorded. (Emphasis supplied) 28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of A. P reported in AIR 2010 SC 327 in this respect observed as under in paragraph-20 as under: “20. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained xxxxxxx” (Emphasis supplied) 29. In the case of Shri Ram v. State of U.P., (1975) 3 SCC 495 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that in order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have “intentionally” aided the commission of the crime and mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107, paragraph 6 of which reads as under: “6. The question which then arises for consideration, a question to which the Sessions Court and the High Court have not paid enough attention, is whether the only inference which arises from the fact that Violet gave the particular shout is that by so doing, she intended to facilitate the murder of Kunwar Singh, Section 107 of the Penal Code which defines abetment provides to the extent material that a person abets the doing of a thing who “Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing”. Explanation 2 to the section says that “whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act”. Thus, in order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have “intentionally” aided the commission of the crime. Thus, in order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have “intentionally” aided the commission of the crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107. A person may, for example, invite another casually or for a friendly purpose and that may facilitate the murder of the invitee. But unless the invitation was extended with intent to facilitate the commission of the murder, the person inviting cannot be said to have abetted the murder. It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime. Intentional aiding and therefore active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment under the third para of Section 107.” 30. In the case of Trilok Chand Jain v. State of Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC 761 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the facts of that case, which is similar to the facts of this case, to the extent that as is fact in this case; the money was handed over to the appellant-convict of that case, only for transmission to the co-accused public servant, in pursuance of the latter’s instructions given to the complainant earlier in the morning and it was not the case of the complainant that the appellant had ever demanded any bribe from the complainant, or that the appellant was present on any occasion on which the co-accused public servant had demanded the bribe nor has it been shown by the prosecution that the appellant was in any way officially concerned with the work in respect of which bribe was demanded by the co- accused; acquitted the appellant-convict by observing thus in paragraph 12 to 14 and 16 which reads as under: “12. Let us now consider the facts of the present case in the light of the principles enunciated above. The testimony of its star witness, S.K. Jain (PW 1) is that it was Inspector Gupta who had demanded that money as a motive or reward for expediting the installation of the power connection and that the money was handed over to the appellant only for transmission to Gupta in pursuance of the latter’s instructions given to the complainant earlier in the morning. It is not the case of the complainant that the appellant had ever demanded any bribe from the complainant, or that the appellant was present on any occasion on which Gupta had demanded the bribe. Nor has it been shown by the prosecution that the appellant was in any way officially concerned with the installation of the poles or the giving of the electric connection. At the material time according to the appellant he was working as a mere labourer or mazdoor in the first floor of the DESU office at Shahdara. This fact is not controverted by the prosecution. Of course, it is in evidence that on coming to the factory of the complainant at about 2 p.m. the appellant first went to see the labour working at the installation site and then went to the complainant to receive the money saying that he had been sent by Gupta to fetch it. 13. Mr Gobind Das, the learned counsel for the State contends that this conduct of the appellant in checking the labour, showed that he was not an innocent carrier of the money for Gupta but knew that it was being obtained as a bribe in connection with the installation of the power connection. In any case, maintains the counsel, the appellant was guilty of abetment of offences under Section 161 of the Penal Code and Section 5 of the Act. 14. We are unable to accede to this contention. In our opinion, this act of the appellant was a neutral circumstance. It was not indicative of a guilty mind. The appellant explained that he had checked the labour working at site because he had been asked to do so by Inspector Gupta. This conduct of the appellant, therefore, was no ground to hold that he had received the G.C. note of Rs 100 with the requisite mens rea. Evidently in collecting this currency note from the complainant he was acting only as an innocent tool of Gupta. He was a mere labourer. Even in that humble position, he was not a member of the gang working at the installation site in the factory of the complainant. He was not concerned in his official capacity with the installation work or the giving of power connection. He was a mere labourer. Even in that humble position, he was not a member of the gang working at the installation site in the factory of the complainant. He was not concerned in his official capacity with the installation work or the giving of power connection. Being an unconcerned menial, he was incapable of showing any favour or rendering any service to the complainant in connection with his official duties. One of the essential ingredients of the offence with which the appellant stands charged is that the gratification must have been received by the accused as “a motive or reward” for committing an act or omission in connection with his official functions. It must be shown that there was an understanding that the bribe was given in consideration of some official act or conduct. It is true that in law the incapacity of the government servant to show any favour or render any service in connection with his official duties does not necessarily take the case out of the mischief of these penal provisions. Nevertheless, it is an important factor bearing on the question as to whether the accused had received the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing any favour or disfavour in the exercise of his official functions. This question as to whether the government servant receiving the money had the requisite incriminative motive is one of fact. Could it be reasonably said in the circumstances of the instant case that the money was handed over to the appellant or received by him as a motive or reward such as mentioned in Section 161 of the Penal Code? It is nobody’s case that while collecting the sum of Rs 100, the appellant made any representation, claim or promise whatever that he would either himself or through Gupta get an official act done for the complainant. Indeed, a prudent businessman like Jain would never pay such a substantial amount as a bribe to a mere Class IV servant in consideration of any promise of favour or service held out by the latter. Such a tall claim or promise to do favour or service by a menial would be manifestly Quixotic. It would not pass muster. Indeed, a prudent businessman like Jain would never pay such a substantial amount as a bribe to a mere Class IV servant in consideration of any promise of favour or service held out by the latter. Such a tall claim or promise to do favour or service by a menial would be manifestly Quixotic. It would not pass muster. Indeed, the complainant did not hand over the money till he after repeated enquiry, was convinced that the appellant was asking for money not for himself but for Gupta and had been sent by the latter to collect and fetch it from the complainant. The conduct attributed by PW 1 to the appellant was not incompatible with the role of an innocent carrier. Thus, paradoxical as it may seem, the very story propounded by the complainant (PW 1) negates the presumption, nipping it — as it were — in the bud. 16. Nor can the appellant be held guilty of abetting the alleged attempt made by Gupta to obtain the illegal gratfication. Intention to aid the commission of the crime, is the gist of the offence of abetment by aid. Such intention, on the part of the appellant was lacking in this case. xxxxxxxx (emphasis supplied) 31. Now coming to the facts of the case, this is a case, where there is absolutely no evidence regarding the first two ingredients of the section 107 of the IPC, which reads as under: (i) instigates any person to do that thing; or (ii) engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or and appellant-convicts have been roped in for having intentionally aided the act or illegal omission by committing the offence, which is the 3rd ingredients of the section 107 of the IPC, which reads as under: (iii) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that things. After carefully going through the evidence in the record this court finds that there is absolutely, no evidence in the record, to suggest that the appellant-convicts had any knowledge about the demand of bribe by the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai. After carefully going through the evidence in the record this court finds that there is absolutely, no evidence in the record, to suggest that the appellant-convicts had any knowledge about the demand of bribe by the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai. The PW 1 who is the only eye witness to the occurrence of handing over of the money by him to the appellant-convict no. 1 has not stated anything to suggest that the appellant-convict no. 1 had even any inkling that PW 1 is paying money to the appellant-convict no. 1 as bribe to be given to the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai. So far as the role of the appellant-convicts are concerned, the case of the prosecution is that the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai and PW1 went to the shop of appellant-convict no. 1 and on the direction of the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai, the PW1 gave Rs. 5,000/-to the appellant-convict no. 1. The testimony of PW1 so far as implicating the appellant-convict in this case is that the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai went with PW1 to the shop of the appellant-convict no. 1 by walking and told the PW1 to hand over the money to the appellant-convict no. 1. The PW1 handed over money to the appellant-convict no. 1. From there, the PW1, the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai and the appellant-convict no. 1 together came to the tea stall to take tea and after taking tea, the appellant-convict no. 1 returned to his shop. It is needless to mention that none of the other prosecution witness had any occasion to see or hear for themselves about the conversation between the PW1, the co-convict public servant and the appellant-convict No.1. Keeping in view the principle of law as discussed above in this judgment, this court is of the considered view that the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish any criminal intent on the part of the appellant-convicts behind the commission of the act demand and acceptance of bribe by the co-convict public servant, which is alleged to have occasioned the crime. 32. 32. Further it is pertinent to mention here that it remains inexplicable as to why the trap team could not even recover the money from the appellant-convict no.1 immediately and allowed him sufficient time to wash the tainted General Currency notes with petrol and to keep the same that in the house of a 3rd person who has neither been arrayed as an accused nor examined as a witness in the case. Moreover there is discrepancy in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as though, as already indicated above, PW13 who is the independent witness of the trap team stated that the trap team first went to the house of the co-convict public servant, upon his return from Chaibasa and as nothing was recovered from his possession, taking him along they came to the shop of the appellant-convict no.1 and no prayer has been made by the prosecution to declare the PW 13 hostile whereas the others prosecution witnesses have stated that the raiding team straightway went to the shop of the appellant-convict no.1. The PW 14 –who was the Investigating Officer of the case as well as the member of a trap team, even went to the extent of deposing that just after coming out from the house; the PW1 informed the trap team about the bribe having been paid, which is also a normal conduct of the complainant in any case of trap, thereby falsifying the portion of the prosecution case that from the medicine shop of the appellant-convict No.1, the appellant-convict No.1, the PW1 and the co-convict public servant came to a betel shop and after taking a betel the appellant-convict No.1 went to his medicine shop and thereafter the PW1 and the co-convict public servant again took tea in a hotel. No prayer has been made by the prosecution to declare the PW 14 as a hostile witness either. Though the PW 7 has stated that he saw the co-convict public servant and the PW1 went to the shop of the appellant-convict No.1 and come out from there, it remains inexplicable that unlike in a case of trap, why the PW1 did not give any signal to PW7 to indicate that the bribe money has been paid. Though the PW 7 has stated that he saw the co-convict public servant and the PW1 went to the shop of the appellant-convict No.1 and come out from there, it remains inexplicable that unlike in a case of trap, why the PW1 did not give any signal to PW7 to indicate that the bribe money has been paid. The prosecution has failed to explain that though as per the PW7 he was informed by the PW1 at 11.30 AM that he has paid the bribe money, how PW6 who also went with the trap team to Chakradharpur was informed only at 1.00 PM, that is after about an hour and half, about the bribe money being paid. Such evidence of the prosecution creates doubt about the veracity of the case of the prosecution. It is also pertinent to mention here that as categorically stated by the PW 7, there was no reference to either of the appellant-convicts on the date of verification of the petitioner's complaint, when the co-convict public servant demanded bribe from the complainant, in presence of the PW 7. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any knowledge of the appellant-convict no. 1 that the money was given to him as part of a crime or acceptance of the bribe by the co-convict, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish that the appellant-convict no. 1 had aided the commission of any crime more so because it has come during the evidence of PW 1 that he was the relative of the appellant-convict no. 1 and was having prior acquaintance with him and in this backdrop, if the PW 1 paid some money to the appellant-convict no. 1 had aided the commission of any crime more so because it has come during the evidence of PW 1 that he was the relative of the appellant-convict no. 1 and was having prior acquaintance with him and in this backdrop, if the PW 1 paid some money to the appellant-convict no. 1, which was supposed to be collected by the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai later on, as he was going to Chaibasa as stated by the PW 6 and the co-convict public servant told the appellant-convict No. 1 to keep the money and hand over to him on his return from Chaibasa, no ill motive can be attributed to the appellant convict no.1; as it has also come through the evidence put forth by the prosecution that the appellant-convict no.1 was having his medicine shop near the police station, where the co-convict public servant police officer was posted, the evidence in the record in the considered opinion of this Court falls short of holding that the appellant-convict no. 1 has aided the commission of bribe. So far as the appellant-convict no. 2 is concerned, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that he was even present at the time when the money was handed over to the appellant-convict no. 1 by the PW1. The only evidence against him is that on being instructed by his father-the appellant-convict no. 1, he washed the currency notes with petrol and kept the same in the house of one Ishwar Bhai Patel to be dried and to be collected later. This Court in the light of the principles of law discussed above; is of the considered view that the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish any of the ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the appellant-convict no. 2 either. 33. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish the charge for the offences punishable under section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against either of the appellant-convicts and this is a fit case where both the appellant convict be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. 33. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish the charge for the offences punishable under section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against either of the appellant-convicts and this is a fit case where both the appellant convict be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20th September, 2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi in Special Case No.7 of 1991 being not sustainable in law is set aside and the appellant-convicts-Shambhu Nath Pati “Kaviraj” and Tarendra Sekhar Pati are acquitted of the charge. 34. The appellant-convicts-Shambhu Nath Pati “Kaviraj” and Tarendra Sekhar Pati are on bail and in view their acquittal, they are discharged of their liabilities of their bail bonds. 35. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith. Since out of the selfsame impugned judgment, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1421 of 2003 is pending in this court, the Lower Court Records of this case be tagged with the Case Record of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1421 of 2003. 36. In the result, this appeal is allowed.