ORDER : 1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.05.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Anti-Corruption Act Cases Court, Bikaner, in Sessions Case No. 52/2006, whereby the appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced to undergo 1 year's imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, PW-4 Om Prakash Nayak, submitted a complaint dated 04.03.2005 before the Anti-Corruption Department, alleging that his wife had applied for a loan through Nagar Parishad, Bikaner, under a State Government scheme called POP. As per the scheme, she applied for the establishment of a grocery shop and was eligible for a loan of Rs.20,000/-, of which Rs.10,000/- was to be subsidized. It was alleged that the complainant contacted the appellant, who was a bank officer at the relevant time, to facilitate the loan, whereupon the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.1,500/- for doing the needful, and subsequently demanded Rs.500/- for the final disbursement of the loan amount. A trap was organized by PW-11 Nandlal, Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB. It was alleged that Rs.500/- was accepted by the appellant. After due investigation, he was arrested and charge-sheeted for the aforementioned offences. 3. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and tendered 31 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded innocence and clearly stated that he neither demanded nor accepted any bribe. 4. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, seeking to assail the findings recorded by the learned trial court as being unsustainable in law and on facts. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record of the case. 6. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record of the case. 6. The core question before the learned trial court was whether the appellant demanded unlawful gratification of Rs.500/- from the complainant Om Prakash or his wife Sushila Devi to facilitate the release of the loan amount, and further, whether he accepted the said amount, thereby committing criminal misconduct. 7. Before proceeding further, it is apt to mention that, after detailed discussion of the evidence brought on record, the learned trial court concluded that the prosecution had utterly failed to establish the fact of demand of bribe or illegal gratification by the appellant. This conclusion was recorded in Paragraph 32 of the impugned judgment. The learned trial court held that the question of demand of bribe by the appellant was not proved. This finding has not been challenged either by the State of Rajasthan or otherwise, and has therefore attained finality. For the satisfaction of this Court, the evidence on record, particularly the statements of the complainant Om Prakash, his wife, and the members of the trap-laying party, has also been perused, and nothing contrary to the conclusion of the trial court has been found. 8. The star witness, complainant PW-4 Om Prakash, did not support the case of the prosecution and even denied the proceedings of the trap. Although his signatures appear on Exhibit P-22 (memo of transcript of demand verification), Exhibit P-17 (memo of proof of currency notes), Exhibit P-13 (memo of recovery of tendered amount), and Exhibit P-18 (memo of transcript of demand of bribe), it is noticed that there is an absence of primary evidence. The case of the prosecution, in respect of these documents, falls within the ambit of secondary evidence. This Court finds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the existence and contents of the electronic record in compliance with Section 65-B of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , as interpreted by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal , (2020) 7 SCC 1 . Therefore, the trial court’s finding regarding the deficiency of evidence concerning the demand of bribe does not warrant interference by this Court, whether in its extraordinary jurisdiction or its appellate jurisdiction under Section 386 Cr.P.C. 9. Therefore, the trial court’s finding regarding the deficiency of evidence concerning the demand of bribe does not warrant interference by this Court, whether in its extraordinary jurisdiction or its appellate jurisdiction under Section 386 Cr.P.C. 9. The learned trial court convicted the appellant solely on the ground of recovery of Rs.500/- and the appellant's failure to furnish a satisfactory explanation for the same. 10. This Court is required to examine whether, in the absence of direct evidence of demand or acceptance, a conviction can be sustained merely on the basis of recovery of Rs.500/-. The complainant has denied handing over any amount to the appellant. It is also undisputed that the amount of Rs.500/- was recovered from a table and not from the person of the appellant. In this scenario, the testimony of PW-1, Narendra Kumar Jain, the then Branch Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, Banswara, assumes significance. He deposed that on 09.03.2005, five to seven persons, including ACB officers and the complainant Om Prakash, came to the branch. When the ACB officers asked the appellant about the allegation, he spontaneously replied that Om Prakash had forcibly attempted to hand over the money to him, and upon inquiry, he was told that the amount was meant to be deposited into the account. The appellant then asked Om Prakash to fill out the deposit slip along with the account number, and at that time, the money was lying on the table. Similar statements were made by PW-2 Sunil, an Assistant Professor at the Veterinary College, Bikaner, and PW-3 Rajesh Garg, an independent witness and public servant, who also confirmed that the money was not received by the appellant but was found on a table. 11. Upon perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded during the trial, it is evident that the amount of Rs.500/- was not recovered from the possession of the appellant. The spontaneous response of the appellant and his explanation that the money was placed on the table after being forcibly handed over by the complainant with instructions to deposit it cannot be ignored. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. , (2014) 13 SCC 55 , held that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict a public servant under Sections 7 or 13 of the PC Act, unless demand and voluntary acceptance are proved. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. , (2014) 13 SCC 55 , held that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict a public servant under Sections 7 or 13 of the PC Act, unless demand and voluntary acceptance are proved. In the present case, the total denial by the complainant and the decoy, as well as the independent witnesses' statements that the money was not received by the appellant but was lying on a table, strongly suggest that the recovery was not made from the appellant personally. In the absence of direct evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe, and since the recovery was not from the person of the appellant, convicting him under Sections 7 or 13 of the PC Act cannot be sustained. There are serious loopholes in the prosecution’s case, and it would be unsafe to convict the appellant on the nature of evidence brought on record. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and hence, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges. 12. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. The order of sentence dated 15.05.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Anti-Corruption Act Cases Court, Bikaner, in Sessions Case No. 52/2006, is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. His bail bonds stand discharged. He need not surrender. 13. The record be sent back forthwith.