JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is arising out of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.01.2003 passed by Learned Special Judge and First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Sessions Case No. 06/1998, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 hereinafter called as (Act of 1988) and sentenced him in the following manner with the direction to run the sentence concurrently:- S.L. Conviction Sentence 1 U/s 7 of the Anti Corruption Act. (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of fine additional R.I. for 3 months. 2 U/s 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Anti Corruption Act. (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) R. I. For 4 years and fine of Rs. 3000/- in default of fine additional R.I. for 6 months. Both sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Patwari and was posted at Patwali Halka No. 41, Motimpur Kala Circle, Kharora District- Raipur. The sister of the complainant namely Paraniyabai was the owner of certain land situated at Motimpur, Patwari Halka No. 41, Tehsil Kharora District-Raipur. She wants to sale her land for which the revenue documents was required and the demarcation of her land was also required before its sale. The complainant Dukhuram Dewangan was taking care of the land of his sister Paraniyabai and he was to manage the various proceedings of the execution of sale deed including obtaining the revenue documents from the concerned patwari. He asked the appellant for attested true copies of Khasra Panch Sala, B-1 and map of the land for which the appellant demanded Rs. 2500/- as bribe/illegal gratification. On 28.05.1997 the complainant Dukhuram Dewangan made a written complaint Ex.-P/1 to the Superintendent of Police Lokayukt Raipur. To verify his complaint, a mini tape recorder was given to the complainant by the officers of Lokayukt, Raipur and convinced him to get the conversation with the appellant recorded with respect to illegal demand by him. The complainant again went to the appellant, get the conversation recorded and again on 29.05.1997 another complaint Ex.-P/2 was made by the complainant on which the unnumbered F.I.R. Ex.-P/25 was registered. 3. On his application a trap party was constituted, the panch witnesses were called. The complainant gave Rs. The complainant again went to the appellant, get the conversation recorded and again on 29.05.1997 another complaint Ex.-P/2 was made by the complainant on which the unnumbered F.I.R. Ex.-P/25 was registered. 3. On his application a trap party was constituted, the panch witnesses were called. The complainant gave Rs. 2500/- to the officers of the Lokayukt and the panchnama of its serial number was prepared. The currency notes were tainted with phenopthenil powder. The tainted currency notes was kept in left pocket of the shirt of the complainant and convinced him to touch it only at the time of handing it over to the appellant and convinced him to made gesture after completion of the transaction. Again one mini tape-recorder was given to the complainant for recording of the conversation with the appellant at the time of handing over the bribe amount and thereafter the trap party proceeded towards the residence of the appellant. 4. The complainant handed over the bribe to the appellant which has been received by him and on being gesture made by the complainant, the officers of the trap party came there, caughthold the hands of the appellant, get his hands washed and then the solution turned pink which has been seized and sealed separately. The bribe amount of Rs. 2500/- was seized from the appellant and the serial number of currency notes were tallied with the pre-trap panchnama. After holding the due procedure of investigation and various seizures, recording statement of witnesses, a numbered F.I.R. Ex.-P/3 was registered on 29.05.1997. The seized property sent for its chemical examination to FSL Sagar from where the FSL report has been received in which presence of phenopthenil chemical was found positive. The appellant has been arrested and after due process of investigation charge sheet was filed before learned trial Court, for the offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the present appellant for the offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed trial. 6. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. 5. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the present appellant for the offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed trial. 6. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the appellant has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and have submitted that on the date of incident he was busy in his official work the Sarpanch of village Motimpur, Kotwar of village Motimpur and Ex-Sarpanch were also there in his house/office, all of sudden some persons entered into his house and said that he has taken bribe of Rs. 2500/- from a person on which he denied and said that the application for certified copy of the document is to be filed at Tehsil office and on the written direction of the Tehsildar the certified copy is to be delivered to the concerned person and then the persons who entered into his house have pressurized him and obtained his signature over various papers. Two defence witnesses have been examined by the appellant. 7. After appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties, the learned trial Court has held that the prosecution has established the offence of the appellant under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the demand has not been proved in the case. There is no demand by the appellant from the complainant. The complainant was not the owner of the property for which he was demanding attested true copy of the revenue documents and, therefore, there was no occasion to demand the bribe from him when he was not entitled to get the copy of the document of other person. There is no demand by the appellant from the complainant. The complainant was not the owner of the property for which he was demanding attested true copy of the revenue documents and, therefore, there was no occasion to demand the bribe from him when he was not entitled to get the copy of the document of other person. Even otherwise the application for supplying of the attested true copy/certified copy is to be filed at Tehsil Office and on the written direction the concerned Tehsilar, he was required to deliver the same to the concerned party but here there is no written direction from the Tehsildar for the same and, therefore, the appellant was not having authority to deliver the attested true copy/certified copy of the revenue record which was of the sister of the complainant. The complainant was not having power of attorney of his sister. He would further submits that from the tape recorder, it has not been proved that the complainant has made conversation with the appellant and he demanded bribe from him because there is no report of voice analyst and no voice analysis has been done by the prosecution, no voice sample of the appellant or the complainant has been taken. The transcript prepared by the authority is also not clear. There are material omission and contradictions in the evidence of the complainant himself as well as other witnesses. He would also submits that there is no independent witnesses examined by the prosecution who were said to have been present at the time of incident. The transcript/tape-recorder not proved the demand and acceptance of tainted money. Merely recovery of tainted amount cannot be a ground of conviction of the appellant. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appellant is entitled for his acquittal. 9. On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that the prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt. The case of the prosecution is proved by shadow witnesses and other panch witnesses also. 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 has demanded Rs. The case of the prosecution is proved by shadow witnesses and other panch witnesses also. 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 has demanded Rs. 2500/- from the complainant as illegal gratification in lieu of supply of attested true copy of the revenue documents of the land of sister of the complainant Paraniyabai. He would further submit that the recovery of tainted currency notes have also been proved by the prosecution and the same was found in possession of the appellant which gives presumption against him that it was accepted in lieu of illegal demand as bribe. The minor omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, does 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. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the concerned trial Court. 11. In the case of illegal gratification, there are three essential ingredients to constitute the offence, they are demand, acceptance and recovery. 12. In the case of Mukhtiyar (since deceased) through his Legal Representative Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2017 (8) SCC 136 , it has held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:- “The indispensability of the proof of demand and illegal gratification in establishing a charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, has by now engaged the attention of this Court on umpteen occasions. In A Subair v. State of Kerala (2009) 6 SCC 587 , this Court propounded that the prosecution in order to prove the charge under the above provisions has to establish by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification and till that is accomplished, the Accused should be considered to be innocent. Carrying this enunciation further, it was exposited in State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450 that mere recovery by itself of the amount said to have been paid by way of illegal gratification 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.” 13. In the present case the complainant Dukhuram Dewangan PW- 5 have stated in his deposition that Paraniyabai is his sister. He entered into an agreement to sale the land of two acre of Paraniyabai to Lalji Dewangan at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. For registration of the sale deed of the land the revenue papers are required and the land is required to be demarcated by the patwari. The present appellant was the patwari of village Motimpur. He engaged in sale/purchase of the land for Paraniyabai because she is his sister. On the request made by Paraniyabai he asked from patwari for the attested true copy of the revenue record and to get the land demarcated for which he demanded Rs. 2500/- as bribe. He informed illegal demand made by the appellant to one Cheduram Verma, he (Cheduram Verma) said that they will not give any amount to Patwari and convinced the complainant to lodge the report against his illegal demand. Thereafter they went to the Lokayukt Office, informed the officers, where they asked for written complaint. Cheduram Verma has scribe the complaint, in which he put his signature and after giving the complaint to the officers of Lokayukt, they gave him a tape recorder and asked him to get the conversation with the appellant recorded with respect to illegal demand by him and convinced him to operate the same. On the same day he went to the residence of the appellant at village Motimpur and in the evening he made conversation with respect to the bribe amount to the appellant and assured him that he will come along with the amount tomorrow on which he asked to come upto 09:00-10:00 a.m. In the next morning at about 08:00 a.m. the officers of Lokayukt came to village Chhadiya at the house of Cheduram Verma and he was also called there. He handed over the tape recorder to them which they listen its conversation. Cheduram again scribe another complaint Ex.- P/2. He gave the amount of Rs. 2500/- which was of 50 currency notes of 50 denominations to the officers of the Lokayukt. He handed over the tape recorder to them which they listen its conversation. Cheduram again scribe another complaint Ex.- P/2. He gave the amount of Rs. 2500/- which was of 50 currency notes of 50 denominations to the officers of the Lokayukt. The currency notes were tainted with powder like substance and it was kept in his left pocket of shirt and they convinced him it shall be touched only at the time handed over the currency notes to the appellant various panchnamas and transcript were prepared in which his signatures were taken by the Officers. 14. At about 09:00 a.m. they proceeded towards the house of the appellant and again a mini tape recorder was given to him for recording of the conversation at the time of handing over the bribe amount to the appellant. When he entered into the house of the appellant he was busy in his official work. He handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant and went inside of his house in the meantime he came out from his house made gesture of completion of transaction and then the officers of Lokayukt entered into the house of the appellant caught-hold the appellant and taken out him from his house, he was not having currency notes in his hand at that time. When he was asked about the currency notes. He again went inside and came with the tainted currency notes. The mini tape-recorder was return back to the officers of the Lokayukt they again listen it but the voice was not clear. Thereafter again various panchnamas, seizures and transcript were prepared and his signatures were obtained. 15. In his cross-examination he stated that the land for which he went to Patwari, belongs to his sister. He admitted that the attested true copy of the revenue document is to be supplied only to the actual owner of the property and on their request the land is usually demarcated. On the first occasion when he met with Patwari he demanded the money. He admitted that he has not made any complaint to the police station nor the Tehsil Office. He further stated in his cross-examination that he gave the amount in his hands of patwari after the trap incident he went back to his house he could not say as to whether he again made the tape-recorder on or off or not. He admitted that he has not made any complaint to the police station nor the Tehsil Office. He further stated in his cross-examination that he gave the amount in his hands of patwari after the trap incident he went back to his house he could not say as to whether he again made the tape-recorder on or off or not. He could not remember the conversation of the tape-recorder. 16. The PW-1 Cheduram Verma who accompanied with the complainant and scribe of the written complaint Ex.-P/1 and P-2 have stated in his deposition that the complainant Dukhuram informed him about demand of Rs. 2500/- by Patwari for delivering attested true copy of the revenue record of the land. He has taken him to Lokayukt Office and informed the illegal demand by the appellant. The Officers of the Lokayukt asked them to complete the formality of applying certified copy of the document and, thereafter they again went to the appellant, he was determined not to give the attested true copy of the document to the complainant and, thereafter, they again went to the Lokayukt Office and then the Officers of the Lokayukt gave them a mini tape-recorder to get the conversation recorded. The complainant alone went to the house of the appellant they again went to Lokayukt office. When tape-recorder was listen by them it contains with the conversation that the complainant was having Rs. 2000/- with him and requested to grant time of 1 to 2 days to collect Rs. 400 to 500/- more and thereafter they went to their respective houses. He aloSng with the officers of Lokayukt had gone to village Chadiya and in his house the complainant was called, the complainant came along with Rs. 2500/- and various panchanamas were prepared in which they have made their signatures. 17. In cross-examination he has stated that he could not know the procedure that the attested true copy is to be given only to the actual owner of the property and there is requirement of submission of application he did not know. The complainant has sold the land of Village Motimpur for which he came to met and informed that he is in necessity of the revenue documents. Prior to the incident he had not gone along with the complainant to the Patwari and met with the appellant. The complainant has sold the land of Village Motimpur for which he came to met and informed that he is in necessity of the revenue documents. Prior to the incident he had not gone along with the complainant to the Patwari and met with the appellant. He convinced the complainant to request again from the Patwari because it was public duty and no fees is required. After about 4 days Dukhuram again came to him and said that the Patwari is determined not to give the attested true copy of the document unless he give him Rs. 2500/-. On his advice, Dukhuram went to Lokayukt Office. He went to the village along with the Officers of Lokayukt. He further stated that he has not entered into the house of the appellant along with Dukhuram and, therefore, he could not say as to whether the Patwari has asked him to submit his application for attested true copy or not. Dukhuram have made gesture to him from the house of the appellant on which he made gesture to the Lokayukt Officers. He did not know about the tainted money. When the hands of the appellant washed, the solution turned pink. The cash amount was seized but his signature was not obtained in the seizure memo. Since the public were gathered he left the place and came back to his house. The Lokayukt officers have not recorded his statement. Who has applied chemical powder on currency notes he could not remember. The solution of the hand-washed of the person who tainted chemical powder on the currency notes was preserved or not he could not know. 18. PW-8 Paraniyabai who is the owner of the land have not supported the case of the prosecution. Before declaring hostile she has stated in her deposition that her brother informed that since her land was not demarcated, the registry could not be done her brother has not informed about illegal demand by the Patwari she also not stated to her brother to take action against the Patwari. She stated that her brother has subsequently informed that he wants to take action against the Patwari against his illegal demand of 2500/- and ultimately the action has been taken against him. She stated that her brother has subsequently informed that he wants to take action against the Patwari against his illegal demand of 2500/- and ultimately the action has been taken against him. In her cross-examination she shown his ignorance about the time when her voice was recorded, the denominations of the currency notes which was given by her to her brother. She could not know as to what her brother did with Rs. 2500/-. She could not know as to what amount was received towards sale of her land. 19. PW-8 Satyanarayan who was the member of the trap party have stated in his deposition that on the complaint made by the complainant, he was made a member of trap party, the complainant was convinced with the recording of the conversation in the mini tape-recorder and he and other witnesses were called at about 05:00 a.m. in the next morning. In the next morning at about 05:30 a.m. they proceeded to the village and reached there at about 07:00 a.m. The complainant has given him the tape-recorder and cassette and they listen its conversation. The complainant informed him that appellants conversation is there in the tape-recorder. The complainant has made another complaint there and then they made an endorsement in it. He has given Rs. 2500/- of 50 denomination of 50 currency notes. A panchanama of its serial number was prepared. Inspector Dubey had applied the chemical powder in the currency notes and kept the same in the left pocket of the shirt of the complainant. The hands of the witnesses of trap party were washed but the solution remained unchanged and when hand of the inspector Dubey was washed it turned into pink color which was seized and sealed. The inventory was prepared vide Ex.-P/12 in which his signatures were taken. The transcript of conversation was prepared which is Ex.-P/10 and the cassette has been seized and sealed vide seizure Memo Ex.-P/11. They again proceeded towards the house of the appellant and stopped at a considerable distance with the house of the appellant and the complainant was sent to the house of the appellant. After convinced him about the transaction. The transcript of conversation was prepared which is Ex.-P/10 and the cassette has been seized and sealed vide seizure Memo Ex.-P/11. They again proceeded towards the house of the appellant and stopped at a considerable distance with the house of the appellant and the complainant was sent to the house of the appellant. After convinced him about the transaction. After about 30-40 minutes, the complainant came out from the house of the appellant and made gesture and then he and DSP entered into the house of the appellant, caughthold the hands of the appellant, at that time the appellant was having currency notes in his left hand. Thereafter the other persons of trap party were called, the currency notes was kept in a table by the appellant thereafter various panchanamas and seizures were prepared, the hand of the appellant washed which turned into pink color and solution were seized and sealed. In cross-examination he stated that since he was not acquainted with the voice of the appellant, therefore, he could not tell as to whose voice is there in the tape-recorder. He further stated that the hands of the complainant was not wahsed and when he made gesture and they reached the inside the house of the appellant then also his hands was not washed. He did not know as to who has sealed the seized articles. He admitted in his cross-examination that the currency notes were seized from the table. 20. PW-10 N.S. Kamar Investigating Officer who was the DSP at Lokayukt, Raipur at the relevant time have stated in his deposition that on 28.05.1997 the complainant Dukhuram and Cheduram Verma came to the Lokayukt Office and submitted his complaint Ex.-P/1 for its verification, he gave a mini taperecorder along with its cassette to the complainant Dukhuram after convincing him for its operation and asked him to get the conversation recorded in the said tape-recorder with respect to the illegal demand by the appellant. 21. The panchnama Ex.-P/9 was prepared on 29.05.1997 the complainant Dukhuram and his companion Cheduram Verma again appear before him at Village Chadiya where the members of the trap party are present. The complainant Dukhuram again made a written complaint Ex.-P/2 and gave the tape-recorder. The complaint read over by the members of the trap party and listen the tape-recorder. He recorded Dehati Nalsi Ex.-P/25. The complainant Dukhuram again made a written complaint Ex.-P/2 and gave the tape-recorder. The complaint read over by the members of the trap party and listen the tape-recorder. He recorded Dehati Nalsi Ex.-P/25. The transcript Ex.-P/10 was prepared in which the signatures of the complainant and witnesses were obtained and the cassette was seized vide Ex.-P/11. The complainant has given Rs. 2500/- for trap proceedings which was in 50 numbers of 50 denominations. A preliminary panchnama was prepared. Satish Dubey who was the member of the trap party applied the phenopthenil power in the currency notes and he kept the said tainted currency notes in the left pocket of the shirt of the complainant. The complainant was convinced about the gesture which is to be made after completion of transaction. Again the tape-recorder was given to the complainant for recording of the conversation with the appellant at the time of handing over the bribe amount. When the complainant entered into the Office of the appellant, after about 5-6 minutes the complainant came out from the office of the appellant and made gesture then the members of the trap party entered into the office of the appellant and caught-hold him. At that time the appellant was having the tainted currency notes in left hand. Thereafter the trap proceedings was drawn, hands of the appellant were washed the solution were seized and sealed and various panchnamas were prepared and seizures have been made. 22. In cross-examination the stated that there is no panchnama prepared by him with respect to the fact that the cassette fix into tape-recorder was blank. He admitted that he has not get the voice of the accused recorded so that the voice of the appellant as well as voice of the complainant could be verified. He denied that the dummy voice was get recorded in the said taperecorder he admitted that although the Office opening time is 10:30. But from the oral order of the S.P. the Office can be opened at any time. 23. He has further stated in his deposition that he received complaint on 28.05.1997 at about 04:00 p.m. He was in possession of the case diary, he could not say as to on what point of time, letter to the Collector for constitution of a trap Party was sent. 23. He has further stated in his deposition that he received complaint on 28.05.1997 at about 04:00 p.m. He was in possession of the case diary, he could not say as to on what point of time, letter to the Collector for constitution of a trap Party was sent. He also did not know as to on what point of time the witnesses came there. When the complainant went back along with the tape-recorder he informed the Superintendent of Police about the recording of conversation and then the Superintendent of Police informed him about the information given by the complainant at about 08:15 p.m. but this is not endorse in the case diary. The members of the trap party were asked to come in the morning but the same is not endorse in the case diary. In cross-examination this witness have admitted certain manipulations and over-writings in panchnama Ex.-P/12. There is no signature of Cheduram Verma obtained in the document Ex.-P/12. The P-12 bears with the page number in handwritten in which No. 17, 18 and 19 and by ink pen and No. 12, 13 and 14 by pencil. In Para 18 of his cross-examination he admitted that he has not get the taperecorder examined about its voice and the person whose voice was there in the tape-recorder. He further admitted there are certain over-writings in the documents Ex.-P/11 and P-13 and P-16. He did not state about the reason as to why the local persons of the village have not been made as the member of trap party. 24. From the above evidence led by the prosecution it appears that on 28.05.1997 the complainant made a written complaint Ex.- P/1 to the Lokayukt, Raipur about illegal demand by the appellant for which a tape-recorder was given to him towards the conversation recorded in it. As per the evidence PW-10 the complainant has informed the Superintendent of Police about the recording of the conversation of the appellant and then the Superintendent of Police has informed him about the allegation without verifying the complaint as well as the conversation allegedly recorded by the complainant, the trap party was constituted and proceeded towards the village. There is no examination of voice sample of the complainant and the appellant that the voice recorded in the tape-recorder is of the appellant’s voice which proves the demand made by him. There is no examination of voice sample of the complainant and the appellant that the voice recorded in the tape-recorder is of the appellant’s voice which proves the demand made by him. PW-1 Cheduram Verma was not the witness of any conversation and he stated that he was not with the complainant when he made conversation with the appellant. 25. In the matter of Rajesh Gupta Vs. State through Central Bureau of Investigation 2022 (2) SCR 864 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the tape recorded statement is admissible in evidence if the voice of the speaker is identifying by the maker of record and other persons recognizing his voice. In paragraph 12 of the judgment, it has been held as under; “On the issue of evidentiary value and credibility of the recording in the case of trap, the law is well settled in the case of Ram Singh v. 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. The accuracy of the taperecorded 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 taperecorded 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.” 26. Admittedly in the present case the prosecution has not proved the fact that the voice recorded in the tape-recorder was the voice of the appellant and, therefore, the possibility of the tempering with the tape-recorded cannot be ruled out. 27. In the matter of Sanjaysingh 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. 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. 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.” 28. 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 so far 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).” 29. In the case of RPS Yadav Vs. 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).” 29. 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 read as under:- “10. In fact, we do not find any such legally acceptable evidence either from P.W. 3 or from the other so called independent witness P.W. 6 or the shadow witness in order to show that the mandatory requirement for conviction under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 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.” 30. 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 ad under:- “10. In order to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, ‘proof of demand’ is a sine quo non. This has been affirmed in several judgments including a recent judgment of this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (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. 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 following observation in Mukut Bihari and Anr. 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 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.” 31. 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.” 31. 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) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which reads as under:- “74. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under: (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. (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. (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. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of Criminal Appeal No.1669 of 2009 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. (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 Section 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 Section 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 Criminal Appeal No.1669 of 2009 a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13(1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act. (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. (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. (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. (g) In so far 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 Criminal Appeal No.1669 of 2009 presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act. (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 (e), above, as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature. In view of the aforesaid discussion and conclusions, we find that there is not 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 Section 7 or 13() (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.” 32. From perusal of the transcript Ex.-P/10 it appears that the complainant was seeking time to collect Rs. 2500/- he was shortfall of the said amount. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that there is no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three cases.” 32. From perusal of the transcript Ex.-P/10 it appears that the complainant was seeking time to collect Rs. 2500/- he was shortfall of the said amount. This was recorded on 28.05.1997 after about 04:00 p.m. because the PW-10 have stated in his deposition that he has given the tape-recorder to the complainant after 04:00 p.m. when he was received the complaint from the complainant. As per the evidence of PW-8 Paraniya Bai has given the amount of Rs. 2500/- to his brother/complainant for giving it to the appellant or giving it to the Lokayukt Officers. Paraniyabai is the resident of Lohidpara, Raipur whereas the complainant Dukhuram is the resident of Village Chedipur Police Station Kharora. As per the evidence of PW-10 the distance of between Chediya and Raipur is about 45-50 kilometers. It is not stated by the complainant PW-5 that when he recorded the conversation of the appellant in the taperecorder on 28.05.1997, he has taken the amount from her and came back to the village in the same night which was given to the Lokayukt Officers in the next morning. When the transcript Ex.-P/10 reflects that in the evening of 28.05.1997 the complainant was not having the amount of Rs. 2500/- with him, then giving the full amount of Rs. 2500/- to the Lokayukt Officers in the very next morning would creates a doubt upon the conversation recorded in the tape-recorder and the conduct of the complainant. Had he was having the entire amount of Rs. 2500/- he would have directly said that he is having the entire amount as demanded by the appellant and he will come in the next morning to get his work done. Further there is nothing recorded in the tape-recorder on 29.05.1997 which was said to have been recorded at the time of handing over the bribe amount to the appellant. 33. As per the evidence of PW-5 the appellant after receiving the amount from the complainant he went inside his house along with the currency notes and in the meantime he (complainant) came out from his house made gesture and then the Lokayukt Officers came there. When the Lokayukt Officers taken the appellant from inside of his house he was not having the currency notes with him. When the Lokayukt Officers taken the appellant from inside of his house he was not having the currency notes with him. Whereas the PW-1 who accompanied with the complainant throughout the proceeding have stated in his deposition that the complainant had made gesture to him and then he made gesture to the Lokayukt Officers. He did not know where the currency notes was kept and his statement has not been recorded by the Lokayukt Officers. He has not entered into the house of the appellant along with the complainant and did not know as to what conversation was there between them. PW-9 who is the member of the trap party has stated in his deposition that the complainant came out from the house of the appellant after 30-45 minutes and when the complainant made gesture they entered into the house of the appellant and at that time he was having currency notes in his left hand. Further PW- 10 have stated in his deposition that when the complainant entered into the house of the appellant which is after 5 -6 minutes he came out from his house and made gesture about completion of the transaction. These evidence of witnesses creates a doubt overall trap proceeding was duly conducted on 29.05.1997. In absence of any material and to show that at the time of handing over the bribe amount, there was any demand or acceptance by the appellant for issuing the attested true copy of the revenue records in favour of the complainant. 34. 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. The 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.” 35. Further the complainant was not the owner of the land for which he asked for attested true copy of the revenue record. He was not having any power of attorney executed by PW-8 Paraniyabai who was the owner of the property in favour of the complainant. The complainant has not made any application before the Tehsildar concerned for issuance of the attested true copy to him and there is no direction to the Patwari to issue the same to the complainant. 36. For the foregoing discussions the evidence available on record is not of that sterling quality which required for holding conviction of the appellant and the offence against the appellant has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and further the appellant has succeeded in creating doubt on the case of the prosecution, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is not sustainable. 37. In the result, the appeal succeeds and allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the alleged offence of Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 38. The appellant is reported to be on bail, his bail bond shall continue for the further period of 6 months as provided under Section 437-A of CrPC. 39. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.