JUDGMENT : Rajani Dubey, J. 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 28.07.2005 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 20/2002 by Special Judge & First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Special Case No. 20/2002, whereby the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced them as under:- Conviction Sentence U/S 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. R.I for 02 years with fine amount of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I for 02 months. U/S 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. R. I for 03 years with fine amount of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I for 03 months. (Both substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.) 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Malikram Sahu is the resident of village Jammuda, Police Station-Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.), he had a dealing with Indrajit Gaud of his village regarding purchase of 1.96 acre land. As the land was in possession of one Indrajit Gaud, who belongs to Scheduled Tribe caste, his land cannot be purchased from an Unreserved caste person without the permission of the Collector. As such, the complainant Malikram Sahu went to the office of Collector, for taking no objection certificate (NOC) regarding purchase of land from Indrajit Gaud and the complainant gave an application on the last week of January, 2001. Regarding this, the Collector had sent the application to the Tehsil office Mahasamund and after that, the same was sent to the SDM office Mahasamund, (C.G.). When the complainant Malikram Sahu did not receive the no objection certificate for land transfer, he went to the office of Collector Mahasamund for multiple times, there he met the reader of Collector Mahasamund, accused Human Singh Nishad. Then the accused told him that the work will not be done without paying some money. On this, the complainant Malikram Sahu again went to the Collector’s office Mahasamund on 23.04.2001 and met the reader, Human Singh Nishad, whereupon a demand of Rs. 8,000/-was raised by the accused/appellant and he further mentioned that if his demand is met, he would release the applicant’s no objection certificate (NOC) and told the complainant to bring the said money. On this, the complainant Malikram Sahu again went to the Collector’s office Mahasamund on 23.04.2001 and met the reader, Human Singh Nishad, whereupon a demand of Rs. 8,000/-was raised by the accused/appellant and he further mentioned that if his demand is met, he would release the applicant’s no objection certificate (NOC) and told the complainant to bring the said money. Since, the complainant did not want to give money to the accused/appellant, therefore, on 24.04.2001, the complainant along with his acquaintance Tikas lal Sahu went to Police Officer, Lokayukta Office Raipur on 24.04.2001 and the complainant submitted a written complaint as Ex. P/26 and on the basis of complaintg the Superintendent of Police authorized Police Inspector Ramkumar Sharma to take legal action on the application and gave the complainant a micro tape recorder cassette and instructed him to go to the reader i.e., accused/appellant Human Singh Nishad and talk to him regarding the bribe amount and inform it over the telephone. Thereafter, the complainant went to the office of Human Singh Nishad in the evening of the same day and recorded the conversation regarding bribe amount of Rs. 8,000/- with the accused/appellant and then he informed about the incident over telephone to the Deputy Superintendent Police, Mr. Banjare. On this, the Deputy Superintendent of Police Mr. Banjare instructed the complainant Malikram Sahu to go to village Godhari on 25.04.2001 at 01:00 pm. The complainant Malikram Sahu again submitted an application on 25.04.2001 vide Ex. P/01 in the name of Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta Office, Raipur and directed the Police Inspector Mr. R. K. Sharma to take action against the accused/appellant Human Singh Nishad. Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma (PW-01), Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment Lokayukta Office, Raipur had summoned Panch witnesses Kaushalendra Mishra, Assistant Fisheries Officer, Raipur and Shri Suprio Sanyol, Fisheries Inspector, Raipur to Lokayukta Office, Raipur on 24/04/2001 in the evening. Thereafter, on the next day i.e., on 25/04/2001 he called them to the Lokayukta Office in the morning and he instructed them to reach the railway crossing before reaching Mahasamund, where the complainant Malikram Sahu and his acquaintance Tikas lal Sahu were present. There, the complaint letter Ex. Thereafter, on the next day i.e., on 25/04/2001 he called them to the Lokayukta Office in the morning and he instructed them to reach the railway crossing before reaching Mahasamund, where the complainant Malikram Sahu and his acquaintance Tikas lal Sahu were present. There, the complaint letter Ex. P/1 was given by Malikram Sahu which was read by the Panch witnesses Kaushalendra Mishra (PW-01) and Supriyo Sanyol and they questioned the complainant Malikram Sahu regarding the complaint and they listened the conversation of the complainant and the accused regarding the complaint in the tape recorded by the applicant, whose transcription is Ex. P/02. The tape was seized as per the seizure memo vide Ex. P/03 and a note was written and action was taken after finding the complaint letter written by the complainant to be correct. Thereafter, the case was registered against the accused Human Singh Nishad under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for unnumbered Dehati Nalsi (Ex. P/30). Trap party was formed and the applicant Malikram Sahu presented the bribe amount Rs. 4,000/- as 40 notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each. The number of bribe notes were noted in the preliminary Panchnama vide Ex. P/6. After searching the clothes of the complainant Malikram Sahu, the Constable Amaldas Lakda kept the bribed notes in the complainant’s shirt pocket and he was advised that before and after giving the bribed notes to the accused, he will not shake hands with the accused and after giving the bribe amount to the accused, he will signal the trap party by making gesture of scratching his head. Thereafter, the proceedings took place where the Constable Pawan Pathak prepared the solution of Sodium Carbonate and except Constable Amaldas Lakda, the remaining trap party members hands were washed and they found that there is no change in colour of the solution and as it was of no help they threw the solution away. Constable Pawan Pathak again prepared the solution of Sodium Carbonate and this time the fingers of the Constable Amaldas Lakda were washed and the colour of the solution turned pink and the same was sealed in a vial. The samples of Phenolphthalein powder and Sodium Carbonate were prepared. Constable Amaldas Lakda was not included in the trap party. Constable Pawan Pathak again prepared the solution of Sodium Carbonate and this time the fingers of the Constable Amaldas Lakda were washed and the colour of the solution turned pink and the same was sealed in a vial. The samples of Phenolphthalein powder and Sodium Carbonate were prepared. Constable Amaldas Lakda was not included in the trap party. The complainant Malikram Sahu was again instructed to record his conversation with the accused/appellant while giving the bribe amount to him and a tape recorder was given to him and its panchnama is Ex. P/05. Preliminary Panchnama proceeding is Ex. P/06. The trap party left for Mahasamund in Government Jeep on 25/04/2001 from the railway crossing of village Belsonda, Godhari at 09:00 am and thereafter the trap party left for the accused/appellant's house and reached Mahasamund’s bus stand around 10:00 am. After getting down from the Government Jeep, the applicant Malikram Sahu and Tikas Lal Sahu went to the official residence of the accused/appellant by walk and the members of the trap party were standing near the accused/appellant’s house. The applicant Malikram Sahu and Tikas lal Sahu then went inside the official residence of the accused/appellant and gave him the bribe amount, after some time Tikas lal Sahu came outside the house and nodded his head. On the indication being received, DSP Mr. G. R. Banjare (PW-11) held the left hand of the accused and Police Inspector, Mr. Ramkumar Sharma (PW-10) held the right hand’s wrist of the accused/appellant and introduced himself to the accused/appellant and got identity of the accused. The accused had told that the bribe amount was in his hand and was kept in his cupboard. Constable Pawan Pathak (PW-06) prepared the solution of Sodium Carbonate in which except the accused/appellant Human Singh Nishad and the complainant Malikram Sahu, hands of the remaining members of the trap party were washed and the colour of the solution was colourless, and the same was sealed and kept in a vial, thereafter, Constable Pawan Pathak (PW-06) again prepared the solution of Sodium Carbonate in which both the hands of the accused/appellant were washed and the colour of the solution turned into pink, which was sealed and kept in a vial. The accused/appellant told that he kept the bribe amount in his cupboard, and the same was seized as per seizure memo Ex. P/08. The accused/appellant told that he kept the bribe amount in his cupboard, and the same was seized as per seizure memo Ex. P/08. When the bribed currency notes were compared with the numbers noted earlier in the preliminary Panchnama (Ex. P/06), it was found same. Constable Pawan Pathak (PW-06) prepared the Sodium Carbonate Solution and in that the bribed currency notes were dipped and it was found that the colour of the solution turned into pink, and the same was sealed and kept in a vial. Constable Pawan Pathak (PW-06) again prepared the Sodium Carbonate Solution and the complainant Malikram Sahu’s hands were dipped in it and it was found that the colour of the solution turned into pink and it was also sealed and kept in a vial. Police Inspector, Mr. Ramkumar Sharma, seized the vials and also seized the tape recorder in which the conversation between the complainant and the appellant was recorded regarding bribe amount. The documents related to settlement of the accused were seized/appellant and the police statements of the witnesses were recorded. Chhabiram (PW-03) prepared the spot map (Ex. P/14). The panchanama (Ex. P/16) of the proceedings at the incident site was prepared in presence of the witnesses. After completion of the due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant before the concerned jurisdictional Court, followed by framing of charges accordingly against him and the case was later committed to the Special Judge & First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 20/2002 and the accused person/appellant was put to trial for the offence punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) whereby the accused persons/appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. 3. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and the accused/appellant also examined 01 witness in his defence. The statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. The statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has held that the prosecution has established the offence of the accused/appellant under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Act, 1988 and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of trial Court convicting the appellant is perverse and not sustainable in law. The learned trial Court has failed to see that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the ingredients of the charges of Sections 7 & 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act. The learned trial Court has failed to see that for granting permission by the Collector, the appellant has no role to play, the appellant being the person working in the office of Collector cannot be said to have any control over the Collector while exercising jurisdiction under Section 165 of the Land Revenue Code and, therefore, there is no question of demand or granting permission by the present appellant. The learned trial Court has failed to see that the complainant was aware of the fact that an order has been passed in his favour prior to the date when he allegedly paid the illegal gratification and, therefore, it cannot be said that for getting the complainant requisite permission, the appellant has been paid any amount by the complainant. The appreciation of the evidence brought on record by the learned trial Court is not in accordance with the principle of appreciation of evidence established by plethora of case laws under the Evidence Act. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, erred in convicting the appellant. So, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. Lastly, he submits that during pendency of this appeal, the appellant was died and his legal representative is continuing his appeal and because of this ongoing case, the retiral dues are not paid to his legal representative. 6. So, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. Lastly, he submits that during pendency of this appeal, the appellant was died and his legal representative is continuing his appeal and because of this ongoing case, the retiral dues are not paid to his legal representative. 6. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Jagtar Singh Versus State of Punjab reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 320 and also in the matter of Neeraj Dutta Versus State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 280. 7. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court after minute appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is justified and needs no interference by this Court. This appeal is being bereft of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9. It is clear from material available on record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court has framed charges under Section 7 and Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As per the complainant/Malik Ram Sahu the accused/appellant demanded Rs. 8,000/- as a bribe amount (illegal gratification). The prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses to prove the guilt of the appellant and the accused/appellant also examined 01 witness in his defence. The learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence convicted the accused/appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. 10. The Complainant- Malik Ram Sahu (PW-08) stated that he purchased two acres of land from Indrajeet Singh and he filed application before Collector Mahasamund for permission regarding his transaction related to the land and he went to the Collectorate Office with Tikas Lal Sahu and Tikas Lal Sahu prepared the application and they went to Raipur (C.G.). Tikas Lal Sahu had previous enmity with the accused/appellant and in Lokayukta office Tikas Lal took the signature of the complainant on the paper (Ex. Tikas Lal Sahu had previous enmity with the accused/appellant and in Lokayukta office Tikas Lal took the signature of the complainant on the paper (Ex. P/26) on which the complainant admitted his signature from A to A part in which something was already written and he was not aware of the information written on that paper as it was not read out before him. He also stated that he did not know about the tape recorder and after passage of two-three days he along with Tikas Lal went to Godhari, whereby the complainant gave some application, but he is unable to recollect his memory regarding the matter in that application and in Lokayukta office he signed on A to A part of Ex. P/01. He also admitted his signature on seizure memos Ex. P/03 & Ex. P/05. Thereafter, they went to the appellant’s house at Mahasamund and at that time, the appellant was taking bath and his daughter came, Tikas then gave some money to the appellant’s daughter and told her to give it to her dad and after that he along with Tikas left the home of the appellant and came back to their village. The prosecution declared this witness as hostile and cross-examined him, but he denied all suggestions of the prosecution and he also denied all the proceedings of the Lokayukta. He only admitted his signature, but as per Malik Ram, Tikas had previous enmity with the appellant and Tikas Lal took his signature on all papers and upon reaching Mahasamund (C.G.) at appellant’s house, when appellant was taking bath, Tikas Lal gave some money to the appellant’s daughter. In cross-examination, he admitted that before the date of incident, Collector passed an order in his favour and on 23.04.2001, he enquired about his order and it was informed to him that the order was passed on 23.04.2001 and he signed on order Sheet Ex. P/17 on A to A part and he came to know that many criminal cases are pending against Tikas Lal and Tikas Lal used to threaten the people for money by implicating them in a false case if not complied with his demands. 11. Tikas lal Sahu (PW-12) supported the prosecution case and stated that Malikram told him that accused/appellant demanded Rs. 11. Tikas lal Sahu (PW-12) supported the prosecution case and stated that Malikram told him that accused/appellant demanded Rs. 4,000/- as a bribe amount (illegal gratification) so that he can get approval letter from the Collector office regarding transaction of the land which he purchased from Indrajeet Singh. Then, he suggested complainant Malik Ram to lodge a complaint against the accused/appellant in Lokayukta office, Raipur (C.G.) and he went with the complainant to Lokayukta office and after lodging the F.I.R against the accused/appellant, on the date of incident he went with the complainant to the appellant’s house, where his daughter came out and then, Malikram gave some amount to his daughter and thereafter, a trap team of Lokayukta office came there and caught hold the hand of the accused/appellant. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him, but he denied all suggestions of the prosecution. So, it is clear that Malikram (PW-08) and Tikas Lal (PW-12) have not supported the prosecution case. 12. Trap witness (PW-01) Kaushalendra Mishra stated that he listened to the conversation which was taped in the tape recorder and prepared a transcription Ex. P/02 and seizure of tape/cassette is Ex. P/03, and on the date of the incident, they went with the complainant Malik Ram to the house of the accused/appellant and were standing at some distance and when someone gave them a signal, they reached the house of the accused/appellant and he saw that member of trap team caught the hand of the accused/appellant and thereafter, the accused/appellant brought 40 notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each from his cupboard. In cross-examination he admitted that before him when the trap team enquired about the bribe money, the appellant stated that he did not take any bribe from the complainant and the trap team searched the accused/appellant, but bribe amount was not found from the accused/appellant and he also admitted that before the arrival of the trap party the complainant Malik Ram along with his acquaintance Tikas Lal were inside the house of the accused/appellant. It is true that while searching the accused/appellant only Rs. 345/- was recovered from his possession and the other trap witness Supriyo Sanyal was not examined by the prosecution before the learned trial Court. 13. It is true that while searching the accused/appellant only Rs. 345/- was recovered from his possession and the other trap witness Supriyo Sanyal was not examined by the prosecution before the learned trial Court. 13. It is clear from the statements of the complainant and his witness Tikas Lal, that they did not support the prosecution case before the learned trial Court, but the learned trial Court relied upon all proceedings of trap team/party and convicted the appellant. However, it is clear from transcription (Ex. P/02) that it is not written in Ex. P/12 that who prepared this transcription. PW-01 Kaushalendra Mishra admitted his signature, but he stated that conversation was not clear and it was informed by the complainant that this conversation was between him and some employees. 14. Hon’ble Apex Court held in the matter of Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari (supra) in paragraphs 19 & 24 which reads as under:- “19. We think that the High Court was quite right in holding that the tape records of speeches were “documents”, as defined by Section 3 of the Evidence Act, which stood on no different footing than photographs, and that they were admissible in evidence on satisfying the following conditions: (a) The voice of the person alleged to be speaking must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who know it. (b) Accuracy of what was actually recorded had to be proved by the maker of the record and satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial had to be there so as to rule out possibilities of tampering with the record. (c) The subject matter recorded had to be shown to be relevant according to rules of relevancy found in the Evidence Act. These requirements were deduced by High Court from R. v. Maqsud Ali, (1965) 2 AII ER 464. 24. As regards the shorthand transcripts of the tape records, the evidence of their makers is there. It is certainly corroborative inasmuch as it only goes to confirm what the tape records contained. The tape records were the primary evidence of what was recorded. The transcripts could be used to show what the transcriber had found recorded there at the time of the transcription. This operated as a check against tampering. They had been rightly used by the High Court only as corroborative evidence.” 15. The tape records were the primary evidence of what was recorded. The transcripts could be used to show what the transcriber had found recorded there at the time of the transcription. This operated as a check against tampering. They had been rightly used by the High Court only as corroborative evidence.” 15. In the present case also, it was not proved by the prosecution that in cassette, voice was of the accused/appellant and also in this case, complainant himself admitted this fact that the order was passed in his favour before the date of trap. 16. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Neeraj Dutta (supra) held in para 18 which reads as under:- “18. The allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision of the Constitution Bench does not dilute this elementary requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Constitution Bench was dealing with the issue of the modes by which the demand can be proved. The Constitution Bench has laid down that the proof need not be only by direct oral or documentary evidence, but it can be by way of other evidence including circumstantial evidence. When reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for gratification, the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance from which the prosecution wants the Court to draw a conclusion of guilt. The facts so established must be consistent with only one hypothesis that there was a demand made for gratification by the accused. Therefore, in this case, we will have to examine whether there is any direct evidence of demand. If we come to a conclusion that there is no direct evidence of demand, this Court will have to consider whether there is any circumstantial evidence to prove the demand.” 17. The complainant and his witness stated that bribe money was given to the accused/appellant's daughter and at the time of trap, accused/appellant was taking bath. PW-01 also admitted this fact that at the time of search from the accused/appellant, no bribe money was recovered from him and only Rs. 345/- was recovered. The prosecution did not examine the other trap witness, but the learned trial Court only relied upon the statement of the Investigating Officer and the other police witnesses and convicted the appellant. 18. PW-01 also admitted this fact that at the time of search from the accused/appellant, no bribe money was recovered from him and only Rs. 345/- was recovered. The prosecution did not examine the other trap witness, but the learned trial Court only relied upon the statement of the Investigating Officer and the other police witnesses and convicted the appellant. 18. Hon'ble Apex Court held in Jagtar Singh (supra) in para 9 which reads as under:- “9. The conclusions of the Constitution Bench judgment referred above, have been summarized in paragraph 74, which read thus: “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 approve 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 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 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. 19. In the light of above judgments and in the present case also, it is apparent that the complainant and his friend/acquaintance have turned hostile. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. 19. In the light of above judgments and in the present case also, it is apparent that the complainant and his friend/acquaintance have turned hostile. Trap witness (PW-01) has also not supported demand and acceptance and PW-01 only eye witness, who stated that the bribe money was recovered from some box, as such, it is quite vivid that there is lack of admissible and clinching evidence with respect to the demand and acceptance of tainted currency note by the appellant which makes the entire story of the prosecution doubtful. The evidence adduced by the prosecution, in my considered opinion, both the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification (bribe amount) by the appellant is not established beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact and convicted the appellant. 20. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the statement of all witnesses, this appeal is allowed. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant are not sustainable. So, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence upon the appellant is set aside and the accused/appellant late Human Singh Nishad is acquitted of all charges. 21. 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.