JUDGMENT ON BOARD : 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.04.2016 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 06/2013 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short, “the Act, 1988”) whereby the learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant in the following manner with a direction to run all sentences concurrently: Conviction Sentence U/S 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 RI for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional RI for three months. U/S 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 RI for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo additional RI for 3 months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as the Forest Guard in the office of Sub Divisional Officer, forest division, Rajnandgaon. The complainant Raju Prasad Uike PW-1 who was engaged in making Bamboo articles had applied for a bamboo card for the purpose of obtaining bamboo from the Forest Department in subsidized charges. The complainant had moved an application for bamboo card on 29.07.2009 and when even after a long lapse of time he could not receive the bamboo card, he went to the office of the Sub Divisional Officer, forest to inquire about the bamboo card where he came to know that his bamboo card has already been prepared and lying with the present appellant. When he asked from the present appellant about his bamboo card, she demanded Rs. 3,000/- as bribe. On 07.06.2010 when he asked from the appellant through his mobile phone then he settled to give Rs. 1,000/- to the appellant against the said bamboo card. He has got prepared the CD of the conversation recorded in his mobile phone and since he does not want to give any bribe to the appellant, the complainant moved his complaint along with the said CD prepared from his mobile phone to the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur. On his application a trap party was constituted. The panch witnesses were convinced and directed them to appear at 07:00 am on 08.06.2010 at Anti Corruption Bureau Office. On his application a trap party was constituted. The panch witnesses were convinced and directed them to appear at 07:00 am on 08.06.2010 at Anti Corruption Bureau Office. On 07.06.2010, the members of trap party were again convinced and then they proceeded towards the office of the Sub Divisional Officer, forest Rajnandgaon where the appellant was working. Unnumbered Dehati Nalsi was registered with the Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur. When the trap party reached to the office of the appellant, the complainant has given tainted currency note of Rs. 1,000/- which he was carrying with him given by the Anti Corruption Department. The appellant has taken the tainted currency note in her hand and kept in the handkerchief. Thereafter, the trap party caught hold her, washed her hand which turned into pink colour. The recovery Panchnama and other panchnamas were prepared. The pink coloured solution was seized by the Anti Corruption Department and it was sent to FSL, Raipur for its chemical examination and after completion of the usual investigation and after obtaining the necessary sanction from the concerned Department, recording statement of the witnesses and other usual formalities, the charge- sheet was filed before the learned trial Court for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Act, 1988. 3. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Act, 1988. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed trial. 4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of CrPC of the appellant has also been recorded in which she denied the circumstances appeared against her, pleaded innocence and has submitted that she has not demanded any amount from the complainant and she has been falsely implicated in the offence. She further submitted that all the witnesses are related to police therefore they have deposed against her. 5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has held that the prosecution has established the offence of the accused/appellant under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Act, 1988 and sentenced her as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. 5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has held that the prosecution has established the offence of the accused/appellant under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Act, 1988 and sentenced her as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of conviction and sentence is illegal and passed in absence of reliable and clinching evidence. The prosecution story itself is evident and reveals that a concocted story has been developed to implicate the appellant in a false case. The prosecution has completely failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that in the case the demand and acceptance has not been proved by the prosecution. Mere recovery alone is not sufficient to hold guilty of the appellant in the offence in question. The complainant PW-1 has not supported the case of the prosecution and he specifically had stated that the appellant has not demanded any amount from him and he does not have any conversation with the appellant. Even when he had gone to the office of the appellant, she refused to accept the amount and he insisted her to accept the amount and thereby he himself kept the amount in her handkerchief. He further submits that PW-5 Prabhat Kumar Saxena who is the shadow witness and member of trap party has stated that he could not see giving of the amount to the appellant and the complainant could reach there only when the Investigating Officer and the other members of the team have already caught hold the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that transcription produced by the prosecution Ex. P4 and 13 cannot be relied upon because the same are not admissible in evidence for want of sufficient proof that the same conversation was in between the appellant and the complainant and the original tape recorder and the mobile phone by which the conversation was recorded was not produced before the Court to prove its genuineness. He would also submit that there is no voice sample or test report of the frequency of the voices of complainant and the appellant so as to hold that there was conversation between the appellant and complainant either in mobile phone or in tape recorder. He would also submit that there is no voice sample or test report of the frequency of the voices of complainant and the appellant so as to hold that there was conversation between the appellant and complainant either in mobile phone or in tape recorder. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not reliable and there are material inconsistencies in their evidence with that of the trap proceeding and, therefore, the prosecution has completely failed to prove the charges against the appellant. He further submits that as per Section 17 of the Act of 1988, the Investigation must have been done by the person having minimum rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police but in the present case, the investigation has been done by the inspector who is incompetent to carry out the investigation as well as filing of the charge-sheet and thus, the whole proceeding stands vitiated. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of:- (i) Suraj Mal v. The State (Delhi Administration) reported in AIR 1979 SC 1408 . (ii) State of Kerala v. C. P. Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450 . (iii) B. Jayaraj v. State of A. P (2014) 13 SCC 55 . (iv) Sejappa v. State (2016) 12 SCC 150 . (v) Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731 . 7. Per contra, opposing the above arguments, learned counsel for the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and submits that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the demand as well as the acceptance has duly been proved. There is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the appellant has demanded Rs. 3,000/- and ultimately settled for Rs. 1,000/- against delivery of the bamboo card to the complainant. He would further submit that but for minor omission or contradiction the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is fully reliable. The recovery has also been proved by the prosecution that the tainted currency notes were found in possession of the appellant which gives presumption against her that it was accepted in lieu of illegal demand as bribe. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is justified and needs no interference. 8. The recovery has also been proved by the prosecution that the tainted currency notes were found in possession of the appellant which gives presumption against her that it was accepted in lieu of illegal demand as bribe. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is justified and needs no interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the concerned Court. 9. It is an admitted fact in the case that at the time of incident, the appellant was working as a Forest Guard and was posted at the office of Sub Divisional Officer, forest Rajnandgaon. 10. In the case of illegal gratification, there are three essential ingredients to constitute the offence, they are (i) Demand (ii) Acceptance and (iii) Recovery. 11. In the case of Mukhtiar Singh (Since Deceased) through his legal representatives Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2013) 14 SCC 153 it was held by the Supreme Court in paras 14 & 23 which reads as under:- “14. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy, this Court took note of its verdict in B. Jayaraj V. State of A.P. Underlining the mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It was recounted as well that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. Not only the proof of demand thus was held to be an indispensable essentiality and an inflexible statutory mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it was held as well qua Section 20 of the Act, that any presumption thereunder would arise only on such proof of demand. This Court thus in P. Satyanarayana murthy on a survey of its earlier decisions on the prerequisites of Sections 7 and 13 and the proof thereof summed up its conclusions as hereunder: (SCC p. 159, para 23) "23. 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. 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." 12. In the instant case the complainant PW-1 has made a written complaint on 07.06.2010 stating therein that he moved an application for obtaining the bamboo card to the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Rajnandgaon and when he inquired about his bamboo card he came to know that his bamboo card was already prepared and lying with the appellant and when he asked from the appellant to give his bamboo card, the appellant demanded Rs. 3,000/- as illegal gratification and ultimately settled to give her Rs. 1,000/-. He got the conversation recorded in his mobile phone, prepared a CD and made complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau. 13. The complainant PW-1 Raju Prasad Uikey has stated in his deposition that he had a conversation with the appellant on 07.06.2010 and settled to give Rs. 1,000/- against the said bamboo card and on the next day the appellant called him to her office and on the same day he went to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau and made a complaint there. In cross-examination he has stated a completely different story that she has never made any conversation with the appellant, the relevant part of his deposition is as under:- 14. PW-5 Prabhat Kumar Saxena who is a shadow witness and member of trap party has stated in his deposition that he was posted as Sub Divisional Officer at Publics Works Department, Division No. 3, Raipur. By the order of the District Magistrate, Raipur he had gone to the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau where he was introduced with the complainant by the officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau. By the order of the District Magistrate, Raipur he had gone to the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau where he was introduced with the complainant by the officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau. He read over the complaint of the complainant and heard the conversation of the CD. After hearing the conversation of the CD they proceeded for constitution of trap party and the trap proceeding. In para 5 he has stated that when the complainant had made a gesture about giving the tainted amount to the appellant, he along with the other members of the trap party went inside the office of the appellant where he saw that Madam Meena Choudhary and Madam Nalini Gajbhiye have already caught hold the appellant. Thereafter, Madam Meena Choudhary has searched the tainted currency note which was found in the handkerchief of the appellant and then the proceeding of washing of the hand etc. were drawn. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of State of Kerala v. C. P. Rao reported in (2011) 6 SCC 450 that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. Para 10 of the above judgment is quoted as below:- “10. In C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI { 2009 (3) SCC 779 ), this Court while dealing with the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by referring to its previous decision in Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.) ( AIR 1979 SC 1408 ) held that mere recovery of tainted money, divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid, is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. In the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained.” 16. In the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55 it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 7 which reads as under:- “7. In the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55 it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 7 which reads as under:- “7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. ( (2010) 15 SCC (1 ) and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI { (2009) 3 SCC 779 ).” 17. In the case of RPS Yadav Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2015) 11 SCC 642 it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 10 which reads as under:- “10. In fact, we do not find any such legally acceptable evidence either from PW 3 or from the other so-called independent witness PW 6 or the shadow witness in order to show that the mandatory requirement for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d), namely, the demand, acceptance and recovery was chronologically proved as against the appellant. In the light of our above conclusion based on the analysis of the evidence led before the Court, we are constrained to hold that the conviction imposed on the appellant by the trial Court as well as confirmation of the same by the High Court cannot be sustained. 18. In the case of Sejappa v. State reported in (2016) 12 SCC 150 it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 10 & 21 which reads as under:- “10. In order to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, “proof of demand” is a sine qua non. This has been affirmed in several judgments including a recent judgment of this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. { (2014) 13 SCC 55 }, wherein this Court held as under: (SCC p. 58, para 7) “7. This has been affirmed in several judgments including a recent judgment of this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. { (2014) 13 SCC 55 }, wherein this Court held as under: (SCC p. 58, para 7) “7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. ( (2010) 15 SCC 1 ) and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI { (2009) 3 SCC 779 ).” “21. While dealing with the contention that it is not enough that some currency notes were handed over to he public servant to make it illegal gratification and that the prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid was an illegal gratification, reference can be made to the following observation in Mukut Bihari v. State of Rajasthan { (2012) 11 SCC 642 ), wherein it was held as under: (SCC pp. 645-46, para 11) “11. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused, when the 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 bribe. Mere receipt of amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten the guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification, but the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the 1988 Act, 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 1988 Act. 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 as to 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 and in a proper case the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person.” 19. Recently in the matter of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731 , the constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the scope of proof of Section 7, 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which reads as under:- 88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarized as under: 88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. 88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence. 88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind: (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe-giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe- giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.5. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. 88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns "hostile", or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. 88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns "hostile", or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. 88.7. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Sections 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature. 89. In view of the aforesaid discussion and conclusions, we find that there is no conflict in the three-Judge Bench decisions of this Court in B. Jayaraj and P. Satyanarayana Murthy with the three-Judge Bench decision in M. Narsinga Rao, with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for the offences under Sections 7 or 13(1) (d) (I) and (ii) of the Act, when the direct evidence of the complainant or "primary evidence" of the complainant is unavailable owing to his death or any other reason. The position of law when a complainant or prosecution witness turns "hostile" is also discussed and the observations made above would accordingly apply in light of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that there is no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three cases. 20. In the instant case, the fact of demand has not been supported by the complainant himself as well as PW-5 Prabhat Kumar Saxena. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that there is no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three cases. 20. In the instant case, the fact of demand has not been supported by the complainant himself as well as PW-5 Prabhat Kumar Saxena. From the evidence of PW-1/complainant it appears that the appellant had denied to accept the currency note but he insisted to accept it and when she did not accept it he put the currency note in her handkerchief. 21. PW-5 Prabhat Kumar Saxena has stated in his evidence that when he entered into the room, he saw that the appellant was already caught hold by the Investigating Officer PW-10 Meena Choudhary and PW-7 Nalini Gajbhiye. He has not stated that when he entered into the room, he saw giving tainted amount to the appellant by the complainant or she accepts or refuses the same, but he saw only that the appellant was caught hold by the Investigating Officer PW-10 Meena Choudhary and PW-7 Nalini Gajbhiye. 22. PW-10 Meena Choudhary the Investigating Officer has also stated that when she received the gesture of completion of the transaction, she along with the other persons of trap party entered into office and asked about the appellant and caught hold her. She was also not the witness of acceptance of any currency note by the appellant from the complainant. 23. There are no other witnesses of the office of the Sub Divisional Officer, forest or Divisional Forest Officer, Forest who have been examined to prove transaction between the complainant and the appellant that exactly the appellant had received the amount from the complainant or she refused to receive the amount from the complainant and it was the complainant who insisted her to accept the amount and when she did not accept the amount he put the currency note in her handkerchief. In the present case only the complainant is the witness with respect to demand and acceptance of the currency note by the appellant as illegal gratification in which he too has not supported his own case and has stated that he never met the appellant and there is no conversation between him and the appellant. 24. PW-2 A. K. Shrivastava was working as Asst. Grade- II in the office of Forest Division, Rajnandgaon on the date of incident. 24. PW-2 A. K. Shrivastava was working as Asst. Grade- II in the office of Forest Division, Rajnandgaon on the date of incident. He proved the office register Articles A1 to A3 in which the application for obtaining the bamboo card was received by the office from the complainant. Evidence of this witness is not having much significance because it is not disputed that the complainant has moved an application for obtaining the bamboo card from the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Rajnandgaon. 25. PW-3 Harish Kumar Kashyap is the Patwari who has prepared the spot map Ex. P-30. PW-4 Lochan Pandey was the Station House Officer at State Economic Offence Bureau, Raipur at the time of incident, who had registered the FIR Ex. P-31 and sent a copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur vide covering letter Ex. P-32. PW-6 Dhaniram Bhagat who is the constable, who took the pink coloured solution to the FSL, Raipur for its chemical examination in which he has not supported the case of the prosecution. 26. PW-7 Nalini Gajbhiye is the member of trap party and had stated in her deposition that she had gone to the office of Sub Divisional Officer, Forest Rajnandgaon having laptop with her. When she received gesture from the complainant about the completion of the transaction, she along with the Investigating Officer (PW-10) Madam Meena Choudhary entered into the room, asked about the appellant and then caught hold her. The Investigating Officer PW- 10 Meena Choudhary had seized the bribed amount and when her hand was washed she found that the colour of the solution turned into pink. This witness has also not stated specifically that the complainant has given the currency note to the appellant and it is the appellant who accepted the same from the complainant, she is the witness only to the extent of the recovery of the currency note from the appellant. 27. This witness has also not stated specifically that the complainant has given the currency note to the appellant and it is the appellant who accepted the same from the complainant, she is the witness only to the extent of the recovery of the currency note from the appellant. 27. PW-8 Pawan Kumar Pathak the Head Constable Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur is also a member of trap party and organized the entire affairs of the trap proceeding, applied the phenolphthalein powder on the two currency notes of 500 denomination, got prepared the various panchnamas, instructed the search proceedings to the member of trap party and thereby proceeded towards the office of Sub Divisional Officer, forest and when the complainant has made gesture about the completion of transaction, he too has entered into the room and the Investigating Officer Meena Choudhary and the DA have caught hold the appellant. Thereafter, he had drawn the entire proceeding of the search and trap. This is also the witness only to the extent of recovery of the tainted currency from the handkerchief of the appellant. 28. PW-9 Kishore Kumar Bisen is the Divisional Forest Officer posted at Rajnandgaon at that time who proved the service record of the appellant that she was posted at the office of Sub Divisional Officer, forest Rajnandgaon. 29. From the aforesaid evidence available on record, the whole story of the prosecution, statements of the complainant and Panch witnesses, it is quite vivid that there is lack of clinching evidence with respect to the demand and acceptance of tainted note by the appellant which makes the entire story of the prosecution doubtful. The evidence adduced by the prosecution, in my considered opinion, both the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification by the appellant is not established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the learned trial Court is not sustainable and the appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt. 30. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the offences alleged against her. As the appellant is on bail, her bail bonds shall continue for further period of six months as provided under Section 437A of CrPC. 31. The record of the trial Court be sent back along with the copy of this judgment.