JUDGMENT : 1. Since common facts and issues are involved in these two appeals and arise out of common judgment, they are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. 2. The challenge in these appeals are judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act)/4th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Special Criminal Case No.113/2016, whereby the appellant Ganga Prasad Kaushal (Cr.A. No. 1951/2017) has been convicted for the offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the PC Act) and sentenced to RI for four years with fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation whereas, the appellant Poonam Sharma (Cr.A. No. 1882/2017) has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and sentenced to RI for three years with fine of Rs. 2000/- and RI for four years and fine of Rs. 2000/- respectively with default stipulations. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Poonam Sharma was Patwari at PH No.7, Village Oatgan, Tehsil Tilda, District Raipur, whereas, the appellant Ganga Prasad was Assistant of the said Patwari Poonam Sharma. The complainant Ishwar Paul, PW-8, purchased a piece of land bearing Khasra No. 296/3, Area 0.202 Hect. situated at village Oatgan, PH No. 7, Tehsil Tilda, District Raipur from Shivaji and Jethiya through a registered sale deed dated 08.06.2015. After its purchase, he approached the appellant Poonam Sharma for its Rin-Pustika in his favour and submitted his deed of title before her however, she demanded Rs. 2000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant. Since the complainant was not willing to give her illegal gratification, he made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (in short, ACB), Raipur on 29.10.2015 vide Ex. P/27, in which he alleged that the appellant Poonam Sharma is demanding Rs. 2000/- as illegal gratification in lieu of preparing Rin-Pustika of his land and he does not want to give her the said money. 4. The officers of ACB Raipur had given him a digital voice recorder for verification of complaint of complainant and asked him to get the conversation recorded in the said digital voice recorder about demand of illegal gratification by the appellant Poonam Sharma. 4. The officers of ACB Raipur had given him a digital voice recorder for verification of complaint of complainant and asked him to get the conversation recorded in the said digital voice recorder about demand of illegal gratification by the appellant Poonam Sharma. On 02.11.2015, when the complainant again went to the office of appellant Poonam Sharma and asked for Rin-Pustika, then she again demanded Rs. 2000/- which was recorded by him in digital voice recorder and gave it to ACB office on 28.11.2015. Thereafter, on 28.11.2015, the officers of ACB wrote a letter to the Collector, Raipur, who deputed two officers of Irrigation and Forest Department of the State to be the member of trap party and to conduct the trap proceeding. The complainant was asked to come again on 30.11.2015 along with the amount of Rs. 2000/- as demanded by the appellant Poonam Sharma and the recorded voice recorder. On 30.11.2015 a trap team was constituted. The complainant again made a written complaint on 30.11.2015 vide Ex. P/7 to the Superintendent of Police, ACB Raipur, and after its satisfaction the Panch witnesses have endorsed their note in the said complaint. Dehati Nalisi Ex. P/4 was recorded for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. The transcript Ex. P/8 was prepared from the voice recorder. The CD of said voice recorder was also prepared and seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/9. Pre-trap Panchnama was prepared. The currency notes were tainted with Phenolphthalein powder and after convincing the complainant about the trap proceeding, the search party proceeded towards the place of incident. The hands of members of the trap party were washed in the office of ACB which remain unchanged. The hand of the Constable who tainted the currency note with phenolphthalein powder was also washed and the solution turned Pink. The same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/11 and sealed. The digital tape recorder was again given to the complainant after convincing him for its on and off and a Panchnama Ex. P/13 was prepared. The Panch witnesses have also convinced about the proceeding and all of them proceeded towards the place of incident. The same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/11 and sealed. The digital tape recorder was again given to the complainant after convincing him for its on and off and a Panchnama Ex. P/13 was prepared. The Panch witnesses have also convinced about the proceeding and all of them proceeded towards the place of incident. The complainant entered into the office of the appellant Poonam Sharma and after giving the bribe amount when the complainant came out from the office of appellant Poonam Sharma, he made a gesture and informed that the appellant Poonam Sharma has not received the tainted amount and asked him to give it to appellant Ganga Prasand Kaushal and on the instructions of appellant Poonam Sharma he had given the tainted amount to Ganga Prasad. The trap party entered into the room of the appellant Poonam Sharma and conducted a raid. The tainted currency notes were seized from the pocket of the fulpant of Ganga Prasad. The number of said tainted notes was tallied with preliminary Panchnama prepared during the trap proceeding. The hands of the complainant were washed, and the solution turned Pink. The hands of accused appellant Ganga Prasad were also washed which also turned into Pink colour. The fulpant of Ganga Prasad was also washed and the solution too has turned pink. All these solutions were separately seized and sealed, and the tainted currency notes have been seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/15. 5. The digital voice recorder which was given to the complainant at the time of handing over currency notes to the appellant Poonam Sharma was again examined and its transcript Ex.P/17 has been prepared by the Inspector Vaijanti Mala. CD of the said conversation have also been prepared through laptop and all these articles were sealed. The documents with relates to the complainant have been seized from the appellant Poonam Sharma vide seizure memo Ex.P/19. The accused persons were arrested and the Panchnama Ex.P/21 have also been prepared with respect to entire proceeding. The seized solutions were sent for its chemical examination to FSL vide memo Ex.P/35 along with list of articles Ex.P/36 from where the FSL report Ex.P/39 was received. 6. The attested true copy of the place of posting of Poonam Sharma and her service book were seized vide Ex.P/22 to P/24. The statements of the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC have been recorded. 6. The attested true copy of the place of posting of Poonam Sharma and her service book were seized vide Ex.P/22 to P/24. The statements of the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC have been recorded. The sanction note for the prosecution was also obtained from the Law & Legislative Department, State of Chhattisgarh Raipur, vide sanction order Ex.P/26. 7. After completion of the usual investigation, the charge sheet against the appellants has been filed for the offence under Section 7, 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act read with Section 34 IPC before the learned trial court. 8. The Trial court has framed charge against the appellant Ganga Prasad Kaushal for the offence under Section 7 of PC Act read with Section 34 IPC, Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act read with Section 34 IPC and against the appellant Poonam Sharma, the charge of Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of PC Act have been framed. The appellants abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 9. In order to establish the charge against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 CrPC of the appellants was recorded in which they denied the circumstances that appear against them. The appellant Ganga Prasad has submitted that in the capacity of village Kotwar, his mother was allotted Kotwari land which was taken by the father of the complainant on rent of Rs.14,000/-, out of which Rs.12,000/- was already paid by him and the remaining amount of Rs.2000/- was outstanding, which was demanded by him from the complainant. The appellant Poonam Sharma have stated that she does not know the complainant and she never met with complainant and there was no conversation between them. She has not demanded any amount from him. 10. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has convicted the appellant Ganga Prasad for the offence under Section 8 of the PC Act whereas, the appellant Poonam Sharma has been convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and sentenced them as mentioned in the earlier paragraph of this judgment. Hence these appeals. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the demand has not been proved in the case. There is no demand by the appellant Poonam Sharma. Hence these appeals. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the demand has not been proved in the case. There is no demand by the appellant Poonam Sharma. From the voice recorder it has not been proved that the complainant has made conversation with the appellant Poonam Sharma and she demanded bribe from him because no analysis of voice has been done by the prosecution. No voice samples of the accused persons or the complainant have been taken. There is no certificate of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act in the case. The transcript prepared by the authority is also not clear. The complainant himself have turned hostile and have not supported the case of prosecution. The alleged tainted amount is said to have been seized from the appellant Ganga Prasad whereas, there is no demand by him. The demand is alleged against the appellant Poonam Sharma, but the amount has not been seized from her. The sanction to prosecute the appellant Poonam Sharma is illegal and not proper. The appointing authority of Poonam Sharma is the Collector whereas sanction for prosecution was obtained from Law & Legislative Affairs Department, State of Chhattisgarh and there is no sanction from her appointing authority. The transcript of voice recorder is not duly proved. The digital voice recorder cannot be taken into consideration without any certificate of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. The demand and acceptance in the present case has not been proved. Merely recovery of tainted amount cannot be the ground for conviction of the appellants. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The case of the prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the appellants are entitled for their acquittal. 12. On the other hand, the counsel for the State has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Even though the complainant has turned hostile, the case of the prosecution is proved by the shadow witnesses and other Panch witnesses. From the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the demand as well as acceptance has duly been proved. There is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the appellant Poonam Sharma had demanded Rs.2000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification in lieu of preparing of his Rin-Pustika. From the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the demand as well as acceptance has duly been proved. There is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the appellant Poonam Sharma had demanded Rs.2000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification in lieu of preparing of his Rin-Pustika. The appellant Ganga Prasad Assisting her in her office work has taken the amount of illegal gratification on her behalf which has also been proved by the prosecution witnesses. The recovery has also been proved by the prosecution that the tainted currency notes were found in possession of the appellant Ganga Prasad which gives presumption against them that the it was accepted in lieu of illegal demand as bribe. The minor omissions or contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses do not wash out the entire case of the prosecution. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is justified and needs no interference. 13. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records of the concerned trial Court. 14. In a case of illegal gratification, there are three essential ingredients to constitute the offence. They are demand, acceptance and recovery. 15. In 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 as under:- “14. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy, this Court took note of its verdict in B. Jayaraj V. State of A.P2. 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. 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: "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 therefore, 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.” 16. In the present case, the complainant Ishwar Paul, PW-8 made a written complaint on 29.10.2015 (Ex.P/27) stating therein that he has submitted a copy of his title deed for preparation of Rin-Pustika of his land, but the appellant Poonam Sharma, Patwari, is demanding Rs.2000/- as bribe and he does not want to give her bribe. In her written complaint dated 29.10.2015 there is no mention of name of appellant Ganga Prasad, even there is no mention that Poonam Sharma has directed him (complainant) to go before the appellant Ganga Prasad and negotiate with him. 17. PW-8, Ishwar Paul, have stated in his deposition that after purchase of land from Shiv Thakur, he inquired from villagers about preparation of Rin-Pustika and after due consultation he met with appellant Ganga Prasad and handed over the copy of title deed. After about one month, he asked from Ganga Prasad about his Rin Pustika to which he replied that he has not given any amount and therefore his document is not ready and asked him to give Rs.1000/- immediately and thereafter he would be required to give more amount as per demand of the officers. After about one month, he asked from Ganga Prasad about his Rin Pustika to which he replied that he has not given any amount and therefore his document is not ready and asked him to give Rs.1000/- immediately and thereafter he would be required to give more amount as per demand of the officers. At that time, he gave Rs.1000/- to appellant Ganga Prasad. 18. The complainant has stated that after a further period of one month when he again asked from appellant Ganga Prasad about his Rin Pustika then he demanded Rs.2000/- as illegal gratification. Thereafter he requested Ganga Prasad to return his document, but he refused to return the same. He made a written complaint Ex. P/27 to the Superintendent of Police, ACB Raipur. He denied that after giving written complaint to ACB, they had given him a digital voice recorder, but he has stated in his deposition that the officers of ACB had called him after about a month. He again went to ACB office after 15 days of Diwali festival of the year 2015 and again made a complaint Ex.P/7. The officers of ACB have not done anything on his written complaint. Neither they heard the digital voice recorder nor any transcript have been made from the same. He also denied that the officers of ACB have seized any articles from him. Although he admits his signature over the documents, but have submitted that he has given Rs.2000/- to the officers of ACB which was of four currency notes of 500 denominations, but what the officers did with said currency notes, he did not know. He further states that ACB have applied some powder on the said currency notes. The officers of ACB have convinced him about trap proceedings; the tainted currency notes were put in his right pocket of fulpant; asked him not to touch the same. After handing it over to appellant Poonam Sharma, the Patwari, made a gesture to them. He further states that no further proceedings were drawn in ACB office. He admits his signature only in the Panchnama Ex.P/12 & P/13. When he reached Tilda and made a telephonic call to appellant Ganga Prasad, he confirms that he is in Patwari office. Then he called the officers of ACB to Tilda. He further states that no further proceedings were drawn in ACB office. He admits his signature only in the Panchnama Ex.P/12 & P/13. When he reached Tilda and made a telephonic call to appellant Ganga Prasad, he confirms that he is in Patwari office. Then he called the officers of ACB to Tilda. At Tilda he again made a telephonic call to appellant Ganga Prasad and said him that as per his demand, he has brought Rs.2000/- with him and then Ganga Prasad called him at Patwari office. When he went to Patwari office, he gave tainted currency notes to appellant Ganga Prasad and made gesture to the officers of ACB. As and when he made gesture to the officers of ACB, they entered into the Patwari office and recovered the tainted currency notes from the appellant Ganga Prasad. Thereafter, the hands were washed which turned into pink. Except, for the appellant Ganga Prasad, the hands of other persons were not washed. The officers of ACB obtained his signatures on various papers. 19. When leading question has been asked from the complainant, he denied that appellant Poonam Sharma has demanded Rs.2000/- as bribe for preparing Rin-Pustika of his land. He further denied that the officers of ACB had given him a digital voice recorder for verification of his complaint. He also denied that on 02.11.2015 he went to the Patwari office at Tilda and made conversation with the appellant Poonam Sharma with respect to illegal gratification demanded by her. He admits that on 02.11.2015 he recorded the conversation, but he was busy in the paddy harvesting process and therefore he could not contact with ACB office immediately and on 28.11.2015 he informed the officers of the ACB and then they called him to the ACB office on 30.11.2015 along with bribe amount of Rs.2000/-. He admits that on 30.11.2015 at about 8 am he went to ACB office along with the demanded bribe amount, but he denied that on that day he has taken the digital voice recorder with him. He further states that except for the hand wash of the person who applied powder on the currency notes, the solution of hand wash of other person was not turned pink and the hand wash of persons who applied the powder on the currency notes has turned into pink colour. He further states that except for the hand wash of the person who applied powder on the currency notes, the solution of hand wash of other person was not turned pink and the hand wash of persons who applied the powder on the currency notes has turned into pink colour. He further denied that the officers of ACB had given him a digital voice recorder to record conversation at the time of handing over bribe amount. He denied in paragraph 12 of his evidence that appellant Poonam Sharma had instructed him to give the bribe amount to Ganga Prasad. He admits that he has given bribe amount to Ganga Prasad. When the hands of appellant Ganga Prasad were washed, the solution turned into pink colour which was seized separately and sealed. The tainted currency notes were seized from the pocket of fulpant of Ganga Prasad and the solution of pocket of fulpant on which the tainted currency notes were kept was also turned into pink colour which was also separately seized and sealed. He denied that he signed the transcript after hearing the same. He further denied that on the instruction of appellant Poonam Sharma, he had given the bribe amount to Ganga Prasad. He has stated in paragraph 16 of his deposition that he has not wrote the complaint Ex.P/27 and he does not know as to who wrote the same, but his signature is there in the said complaint. The second complaint Ex.P/7 is in his handwriting. He further states that he has signed both these complaints on the same day on the instructions of officers of ACB. He further admits that he met with Poonam Sharma first time on 30.11.2015 i.e. on the date of the trap. Before that, he never met with her. He admits that Poonam Sharma has never demanded any amount from him, and he has not given the amount of bribe to Poonam Sharma. In paragraph 17, he admits that he went to ACB office to make a complaint against Ganga Prasad because he demanded bribe from him for his document. He had not gone to the office of ACB to lodge report against Poonam Sharma. The ACB officers never gave him any voice recorder for recording the conversation and he has not recorded any conversation in it. He himself has not heard any voice from the said tape recorder. He had not gone to the office of ACB to lodge report against Poonam Sharma. The ACB officers never gave him any voice recorder for recording the conversation and he has not recorded any conversation in it. He himself has not heard any voice from the said tape recorder. The transcript has not been prepared in his presence. The transcript was prepared inside the room. He was sitting outside. After its preparation, he was called inside the room and he signed the document. He does not know as to what was written in the papers in which his signatures were obtained by the officers of ACB. After trap proceeding, what documentation was done by the officers of ACB, he did not know. He voluntarily states that he only signed the documents. He admits that Kotwari land was sown by Ganga Prasad and Ganga Prasad had usually given it on rent. He admits that his uncle has taken the land from Ganga Prasad on rent of Rs.14000/-, but he did not know as to whether an amount of Rs.2000/- was outstanding towards rent of the said land or not. He admits that Ganga Prasad was not an employee of the Tehsil office, but he used to assist the officers. He admits that he has not given any document to appellant Poonam Sharma. 20. PW-1, Santosh Kumar Verma, is the Patwari of village Bhursuda, RI Circle No.9, district Raipur, and in additional charge of PH No.8 Tilda. He has prepared the spot map Ex.P/2. 21. PW-2, KS Minz, Station House Officer, at State Economic Offence Bureau, ACB Raipur, have stated in his deposition that on the basis of Dehati Nalisi Ex.P/4, he has registered the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act vide Ex.P/5. 22. PW-3 SK Lal, Senior Technical Officer, posted at the forest office Raipur, stated in his deposition that on 28.11.2015, he received an order from the office of District Magistrate Raipur with respect to conducting search in the capacity of a member of the trap party and trap proceeding. 22. PW-3 SK Lal, Senior Technical Officer, posted at the forest office Raipur, stated in his deposition that on 28.11.2015, he received an order from the office of District Magistrate Raipur with respect to conducting search in the capacity of a member of the trap party and trap proceeding. He was called at the office of ACB Raipur on 30.11.2015 at about 08.00 am and when he went to the office he met with complainant Ishwar Paul who gave him a written complaint along with digital voice recorder and after their satisfaction and hearing of the conversation recorded in the said tape recorder, they made their note in the written complaint Ex.P/7. The transcript from the digital voice recorder was prepared vide Ex.P/8 and CD was prepared by connecting it to the laptop. They managed the trap proceeding. Constable Santosh Kumar Sahu had applied Phenolphthalein powder over the currency notes and he put the tainted currency notes in the right pocket of pant of the complainant. After the preliminary proceeding of the trap, digital voice recorder was again given to the complainant and get him instructed about its operation and asked him to bring the conversation between him and the accused person and Panchnama Ex. P/12 and P/13 was prepared. They proceeded towards the place of incident at Tilda. After some time when the complainant went inside the office of the accused persons and after a few moments he came out and made gesture, they entered the office room and then trap proceedings were drawn. The hands of the accused persons were washed. The solutions were separately seized and sealed, the tainted currency notes were seized from the appellant Ganga Prasad and all the seizure proceedings were drawn in accordance with the law in due manner. The tainted currency notes were seized vide Ex.P/15 from Ganga Prasad. A transcript of the digital voice recorder was prepared which is Ex.P/17 and a CD was also prepared by connecting it to the laptop. In his cross examination, he stated that he did not know as to who has written the complaint. He also shown his ignorance as to who has given the digital voice recorder to the complainant and when it has been given to him. He did not tell as to on whose instruction the computer type was made. In his cross examination, he stated that he did not know as to who has written the complaint. He also shown his ignorance as to who has given the digital voice recorder to the complainant and when it has been given to him. He did not tell as to on whose instruction the computer type was made. He did not know as to when recordings were made in the digital voice recorder. He did not know the name of the computer operator who prepared the CD. He admits in paragraph 15 that when he reached at Patwari office, 4-5 other persons were also there and the farmers were used to visit there. He admits that he did not know as to what was the conversation in between the complainant and the appellant Poonam Sharma. He further admits in paragraph 17 that he did not know as to whose voice was recorded in the digital voice recorder. When he reached in the office, the other persons were also there. He met with accused persons for the first time during the trap proceeding. He admits that appellant Ganga Prasad is not an employee of Tehsil office and never posted on any government post. He is not authorized to do any official work in Tehsil office. He could not tell as to whether there is any relation between Poonam Sharma and Ganga Prasad or not with respect to the official work. The officers of ACB have not seized any document with respect to any authority to do the work in between them. He did not know what the conversation was in between both the accused persons. He has not seen any transaction between the complainant and the accused persons. 23. PW-4, Shiv Prasad Sahu, Constable of ACB Raipur, was a member of trap party. He has stated in his evidence that on 28.11.2015 he received an order that he had to accompany the trap party and the raid was to be conducted on 30.11.2015 at 08.00 am. When he reached the office of ACB, the complaint made by the complainant along with the digital voice recorder was given to him. Pre trap Panchnama was prepared. Phenolphthalein powder was applied over the currency notes, and it was kept carefully in the right pocket of the fulpant of the complainant and convinced him about the proceedings. When he reached the office of ACB, the complaint made by the complainant along with the digital voice recorder was given to him. Pre trap Panchnama was prepared. Phenolphthalein powder was applied over the currency notes, and it was kept carefully in the right pocket of the fulpant of the complainant and convinced him about the proceedings. When the hands of members of trap party were washed, the colour of solution was not changed, whereas the colour of solution of hand wash of Constable Santosh Kumar Sahu was changed and turned into pink and the solution was seized and sealed. The digital voice recorder was again given to the complainant and asked him to get the conversation recorded in it. Thereafter, the members of the trap party proceeded towards the place of the incident. The complainant entered into the office room of Poonam Sharma and after some time, he came out from the office and made gesture. As and when they received the gesture made by the complainant, the trap party entered the office room and caught hold the hands of appellant Poonam Sharma. Her hands were washed, but the colour of solution was not changed. The solution was sealed and seized. She informed them that she asked the complainant to give the amount of bribe to Ganga Prasad on which he has taken the currency notes and when the hands of Ganga Prasad were washed, it turned into pink colour and the solution was seized and sealed. After the proceeding of search, the tainted amount was seized from the left pocket of fulpant of Ganga Prasad and its number was tallied with the number mentioned in the pre trap panchnama. Various Panchnamas of trap proceedings were drawn. The solution was seized and sealed. In cross-examination, he has admitted that prior to his appearance in the office, he did not know about the conversation made between the complainant and other officers. He did not know as to when the digital voice recorder was given to the complainant. He further admits that the complainant has not written the complaint in front of him. The trap party was constituted on the instructions of the investigating officer, but no separate Panchnama was prepared for the same. He stated that the place where he was standing, the position of inside of the office of Patwari was not visible. He further admits that the complainant has not written the complaint in front of him. The trap party was constituted on the instructions of the investigating officer, but no separate Panchnama was prepared for the same. He stated that the place where he was standing, the position of inside of the office of Patwari was not visible. He did not know as to who was sitting there in the Patwari office. He did not know as to what conversation was made between the complainant and the accused persons. He has not seen the transaction between the complainant and the accused persons. He has shown his ignorance about the contents of the complaint, the timing of the preparation of the solution and the preparation of the verification Panchnama of the complaint. He admits in 17 that the complainant had not disclosed before him that the appellant Poonam Sharma had asked the complainant to give the bribe amount to appellant Ganga Prasad. He voluntarily stated that Poonam Sharma had informed him. 24. PW-5, Jageshwar Kaushal, is the Tehsildar and was posted at Tehsil office Tilda. He has given the posting order and attested copy of the service book of appellant Poonam Sharma to ACB Raipur. He has stated in his cross-examination that Patwari has no authority to pass an order of mutation, and she is only to comply with the orders passed by the Tehsildar and to keep the records updated. After the mutation order, the Patwari has to issue the Rin Pustika. 25. PW-6, Shiv Charan Sahu, Constable at ACB Raipur, has also stated that on the instructions of Inspector Lakda, he appeared in the office of ACB Raipur on 30.11.2015 at 08.00 am. The complainant has given his second complaint along with the digital voice recorder and after reading over the complaint and hearing the voice recorder, they made their note in the complaint and he prepared its transcript which is Ex.P/8. CD of the contents of the digital voice recorded was also prepared from the same and the seizure memo of CD Ex.P/9 is prepared. The complainant has given four currency notes of 500 denominations and after applying Phenolphthalein powder in it, it was carefully kept in the pocket of the complainant. Another digital voice recorder was given to him and convinced him about recording of the conversation. Thereafter, they proceeded towards the place of the incident. The complainant has given four currency notes of 500 denominations and after applying Phenolphthalein powder in it, it was carefully kept in the pocket of the complainant. Another digital voice recorder was given to him and convinced him about recording of the conversation. Thereafter, they proceeded towards the place of the incident. When the complainant entered the office room of Patwari and after some time he came out and made gesture about the completion of the transaction and informed that on the instruction of appellant Poonam Sharma he has given the tainted currency notes to Ganga Prasad, the trap party caught hold both the accused persons and other proceedings of trap was drawn. In cross-examination, he has shown his ignorance about the conversation between the complainant and other members of trap party before reaching to ACB office. He has not read over the second complaint of the complainant and did not know what was written in it. He does not know when conversation was recorded in the digital voice recorder, who has recorded the conversation and where it has been recorded. Further, whose voice was there in the voice recorder he does not know. He voluntarily stated that the complainant had informed that the voice of accused was there in voice recorder. Since the contents of Ex.P/8 was not recorded in his presence, he does not know about the facts. He also does not know as to whose voice was there in voice recorder because the voice recorder was not examined. He does not identify the voice of the complainant as well as the appellant Poonam Sharma. While preparing the transcript, he made transcription on his hand-writing and subsequently it was typed by computer operator, but he does not know as to who was the computer operator. The original handwritten copy of the transcript is not attached to the case. He has not taken the signature of the witnesses of transcription. Even the investigating officer has not signed the said transcription. Document Ex.P/8 was prepared by the Steno of ACB office under his instruction. He does not know the mobile numbers of complainant and accused and therefore the same is not mentioned in Ex.P/8. In the transcription Ex.P/8, there is no mention of the fact that appellants have talked to any other person. Document Ex.P/8 was prepared by the Steno of ACB office under his instruction. He does not know the mobile numbers of complainant and accused and therefore the same is not mentioned in Ex.P/8. In the transcription Ex.P/8, there is no mention of the fact that appellants have talked to any other person. The CD of transcription was also prepared by connecting it to the laptop which was prepared by the computer operator and the CD has also been seized. He does not know who has given the voice recorder to the complainant. 26. PW-7, Mukesh Kumar, is the Translator at Law & Legislative Department, Mantralaya, Raipur, who has proved the sanction of prosecution Ex.P/25. He has stated that he was working under the then Additional Secretary who has given his sanction for prosecution against appellant Poonam Sharma. Therefore, he was very well acquainted with the signature of the then Additional Secretary. The sanction of prosecution was sent to ACB office Raipur along with covering memo Ex.P/26 and he duly identified the signature of the Under Secretary who sent the same. In cross-examination, he stated that the sanction for prosecution has not been prepared in his presence and he does not know as to what documents were considered at the time of passing of the sanction order for prosecution against the appellant Poonam Sharma. 27. PW-9, Vaijanti Mala Tigga, is the investigating officer of the case. She stated about the trap proceeding and the manner in which the trap proceeding was conducted. In paragraph 12 of her deposition, she stated that at the time when the complainant reached at Patwari office, the appellant Poonam Sharma was not there in her office and she came later on. 28. PW-10 Jerol Lakda, Inspector at ACB Raipur, stated in his deposition that on the complaint of the complainant, he constituted a trap party and gave a digital voice recorder to the complainant to get the conversation recorded in it. On 30.11.2015 they conducted raid after the due process of the trap. The transcription of the conversation was prepared and conducted raid in the office of appellant Poonam Sharma and recovered the tainted currency notes from the fulpant of the appellant Ganga Prasad and proved the entire process of the complaint, verification of the complaint, preparation of trap party and trap proceeding and also the process of investigation. The transcription of the conversation was prepared and conducted raid in the office of appellant Poonam Sharma and recovered the tainted currency notes from the fulpant of the appellant Ganga Prasad and proved the entire process of the complaint, verification of the complaint, preparation of trap party and trap proceeding and also the process of investigation. In crossexamination, he admits that the complainant informed him on 28.11.2015 that he had recorded the conversation on 02.11.2015. There was no document for constituting the trap party and it has been constituted under the instructions of higher authority. He has shown his ignorance about any written order for transcription to Constable Shiv Charan Sahu or Inspector Vaijanti Mala Tigga. He admits that in Ex.P/9 and P/17 there is no mention of details of persons who prepared the CD. In paragraph 48 of his evidence he admits that in Ex.P/17, the name of Vaijanti Mala Tigga was mentioned as the person who made transcription. He also admits that in the last line of Ex.P/17, the name of Shiv Charan Sahu was mentioned who has prepared the transcription. He admits the mistake committed by him. He further admits that the voice of conversation of the voice recorder has not been examined. He further admits that in between 29.10.2015 to 30.11.2015 the complainant did not make any complaint against the appellant Ganga Prasad. He admits that in the first complaint, there is no mention of the name of the appellant Ganga Prasad. 29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of State of Kerala Vs. 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. 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.” 30. 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 that mere recovery of currency notes cannot prove the offence 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 ). 31. 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.” 32. 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. 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: “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 the 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: “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 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.” 33. 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 and 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 34. In the present case, the initial complaint was made on 29.10.2015 (Ex.P/27) in which the allegation was made against the appellant Poonam Sharma that she demanded Rs.2000/- for Rin-Pustika of the land of the complainant and there is no mention in the said complaint that Ganga Prasad also demanded or the appellant Poonam Sharma demanded the amount through Ganga Prasad or instructed him to give the amount of bribe to Ganga Prasad. PW-8, the complainant in his deposition has not stated that appellant Poonam Sharma has demanded the bribe amount of Rs.2000/-, but has stated that he talked to appellant Ganga Prasad who asked him to give the bribe and he gave him Rs.1000/- along with the documents. In his evidence, he has not stated that the appellant Poonam Sharma has ever demanded any amount, or he asked her for Rin-Pustika. In paragraph 16, the complainant has specifically admitted that he met with Poonam Sharma on 30.11.2015 for the first time and before that he never met with her. In his evidence, he has not stated that the appellant Poonam Sharma has ever demanded any amount, or he asked her for Rin-Pustika. In paragraph 16, the complainant has specifically admitted that he met with Poonam Sharma on 30.11.2015 for the first time and before that he never met with her. The relevant portion of his deposition para 16 of the complainant P.W. 8 is reproduced hereunder: ^^-------------;g dguk lgh gS fd vkjksfi;k iwue 'kekZ ls esjh izFke eqykdkr fnukad 30-11-2015 dks jsM dk;Zokgh okys fnu gh gqvk FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd blds iwoZ iwue 'kekZ ls esjh dksbZ eqykdkr ;k ckrphr ugh gqbZ FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vkjksfi;k iwue 'kekZ ds }kjk esjs ls dksbZ Hkh iSls dh ekax ugh dh xbZ FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSus iwue 'kekZ dks iSlk ugh fn;k FkkA^^ 35. He further stated that he went to ACB office to make complaint against Ganga Prasad because he demanded amount against his stamp. The fact of demanding amount by the appellant Ganga Prasad against his stamp was not mentioned in his initial complaint which was made on 29.10.2015. Even in her second complaint made on 30.11.2015, there is no mention of conversation with Ganga Prasad and the allegation was only against the appellant Poonam Sharma. When the complainant has specifically stated that Poonam Sharma has not made any demand from him, the alleged allegation of demand by appellant Poonam Sharma is not proved. 36. So far as the demand made by appellant Ganga Prasad is concerned, he was not posted at the Patwari office. He was not having any authority either to prepare Rin-Pustika or to issue the same in favour of the complainant. The complainant had already handed over the deed of title to appellant Ganga Prasad and after about a month he demanded Rs.1000/- which has been given by him to appellant Ganga Prasad. One month thereafter when he asked from him about Rin-Pustika, then the appellant Ganga Prasad said him that unless he gives Rs.2000/- for providing bribe to the officers, his Rin-Pustika would not be prepared. Even, the appellant Ganga Prasad have not stated him that it is the Patwari Poonam Sharma who demanded Rs.2000/- as bribe. One month thereafter when he asked from him about Rin-Pustika, then the appellant Ganga Prasad said him that unless he gives Rs.2000/- for providing bribe to the officers, his Rin-Pustika would not be prepared. Even, the appellant Ganga Prasad have not stated him that it is the Patwari Poonam Sharma who demanded Rs.2000/- as bribe. As per the evidence of complainant PW-8, there was no conversation with Patwari Poonam Sharma whereas, as per the transcript of digital voice recorder allegedly recorded on 02.11.2015 is conversation with the Patwari Poonam Sharma. 37. One more important aspect of the matter is that the conversation is said to have been recorded on 02.11.2015, whereas the digital voice recorder was handed over to the ACB office on 28.11.2015. In between 02.11.2015 to 28.11.2015 the said digital voice recorder was kept in safe custody or there was no tampering in voice recorder, which has not been proved by the prosecution. 38. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the pocket of appellant Ganga Prasad who was neither any employee nor authorized to issue Rin-Pustika. From the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it appears that other persons were also present in the office of Patwari, but the prosecution has examined none of the independent witnesses to prove the trap proceeding that it was conducted on the date of the incident in its proper manner as projected by the prosecution. 39. In the matter of Rajesh Gupta Vs. State through Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 (2) SCR 864 it has been held by the Supreme Court that tape recorded statement is admissible in evidence if the voice of the speaker is identified by the maker of record and other persons recognizing his voice. In paragraph 12 of said judgment, it has been held as under : “12. On the issue of evidentiary value and credibility of the recording in the cases of trap, the law is well settled in the case of Ram Singh vs. Col. Ram Singh 1985 (Suppl) SCC 611, wherein this Court held that tape recorded statement is admissible in evidence if the voice of the speaker is identified by the maker of the record and other persons recognizing his voice. In case, the maker is unable to identify the voice, strict proof would be required to determine whether or not, the said voice is of alleged speaker. In case, the maker is unable to identify the voice, strict proof would be required to determine whether or not, the said voice is of alleged speaker. The accuracy of the tape recorded statement must be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial. The possibility of tampering with, or erasure of any part of the tape recorded statement must be totally excluded. The voice of the particular speaker must be clearly audible and must not be lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances, otherwise, the transcript as prepared, is inadmissible in evidence.” 40. Admittedly, in the present case, the prosecution has not proved the fact that the voice recorded in the digital voice recorder was the voice of appellant Poonam Sharma or Ganga Prasad. Therefore, the possibility of tampering with the tape-recorder and alleged conversation cannot be ruled out. 41. Further, in the absence of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, the evidence of a digital voice recorder is not admissible as held by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh Ramrao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and Others, 2015 (3) SCC 123 . In paragraph 16 of said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “16. It is to be noted that in the first complaint filed by the second respondent - the de facto complainant, there is no allegation for any demand for bribe by the appellant. The allegation of demand is specifically against accused no.2 only. That allegation against the appellant is raised only subsequently. Be that as it may, the only basis for supporting the allegation is the conversation that is said to be recorded by the voice recorder. The Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratories, State of Maharashtra vide Annexure-B report has stated that the conversation is not in audible condition and, hence, the same is not considered for spectrographic analysis. Learned Counsel for the respondents submit that the conversation has been translated and the same has been verified by the panch witnesses. Admittedly, the panch witnesses have not heard the conversation, since they were not present in the room. As the voice recorder is itself not subjected to analysis, there is no point in placing reliance on the translated version. Without source, there is no authenticity for the translation. Admittedly, the panch witnesses have not heard the conversation, since they were not present in the room. As the voice recorder is itself not subjected to analysis, there is no point in placing reliance on the translated version. Without source, there is no authenticity for the translation. Source and authenticity are the two key factors for an electronic evidence, as held by this Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and others.” 42. The other requirement to prove the offence of illegal gratification is the recovery of tainted money. Mere recovery of tainted money alone cannot be the sole ground for conviction as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Krishan Chander Vs. State of Delhi, 2016 (3) SCC 108 , wherein it has been held as under: “35. It is well settled position of law that the demand for the bribe money is sine qua non to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The same legal principle has been held by this Court in the case of B. Jayaraj (supra), A. Subair (supra) and P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra) upon which reliance is rightly placed by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant. 36. The relevant paragraph 7 from B. Jayaraj case (supra) reads thus: “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. and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI.” (emphasis supplied) 37. In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), it was held by this Court as under: “21. 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. and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI.” (emphasis supplied) 37. In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), it was held by this Court as under: “21. In State of Kerala and another vs. C.P. Rao, this Court, reiterating its earlier dictum, vis-à-vis the same offences, held that mere recovery by itself, would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained. 22. In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the imperative pre- requisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined in B. Jayaraj in unequivocal terms, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act. It has been propounded 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. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Qua Section 20 of the Act, which permits a presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that while it is extendable only to an offence under Section 7 and not to those under Section 13(1)(d) (i)&(ii) of the Act, it is contingent as well on the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, it was emphasized, could follow only if there was proof of demand. Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act would also not arise. 23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d)(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore, would fail. Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act would also not arise. 23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d)(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore, 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.” (emphasis supplied)” 43. On the minute examination of evidence led by the prosecution, it is quite clear that with regard to the initial demand, there are material contradictions in the statement of complainant PW-8 Ishwar Paul and other witnesses. Even, the complainant has not supported his complaint and deposed an altogether different story with regard to the demand made by the appellants/accused persons. From the evidence of investigating officer PW-9, Vaijanti Mala Tigga, it is clear that appellant Poonam Sharma was not present in her office and she came to her office later on, whereas, the other witnesses have made the contradictory statement that the appellant entered into the office of Patwari and after some time, he came out from his office and made the gesture about completion of transaction and then the trap party entered into the office for trap proceeding. 44. Although, the other persons were also present, but the prosecution has examined none of them. It is suspicious that the appellant Poonam Sharma who is authorized to issue Rin-Pustika would have demanded and accepted bribe money in the presence of witnesses. Only recovery of the tainted amount from the appellant Ganga Prasad would not be sufficient to hold them guilty for the alleged offences. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case of demand and acceptance of bribe money against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 45. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case of demand and acceptance of bribe money against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 45. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bond shall remain in operation for a further period of six months in view of provisions contained in Section 437-A CrPC. 46. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.