JUDGMENT : H.P. SANDESH, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.09.2021 passed in Special C.C.No.383/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of corruption Act (‘PC Act’ for short), wherein the accused was imposed rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 8 of PC Act and four years with fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the ACB is that the accused is working as a Head Constable in Bagalagunte Police Station. The Bagalagunte police have registered the case in Crime No.238/2017 against the informant/P.W.2 and P.W.6 Arun. The accused and other two police officers on 15.06.2017 arrested P.W.2 and he was produced before the Court and he was enlarged on bail vide order dated 17.06.2017. It is alleged that the accused demanded the bribe of Rs.20,000/- from P.W.2/informant to close the aforesaid case registered in Crime No.238/2017. P.W.2 has recorded the said conversation between himself and the accused to substantiate the demand of bribe. P.W.2 had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the accused and also expressed his inability to make the payment of Rs.20,000/- as demanded by the accused and complaint was lodged and in pursuance of the said complaint, P.W.7 reduced the statement into writing and registered the FIR in terms of Ex.P.12 and trap was laid and tainted bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- was recovered from the possession of the accused and after trap panchanama, the matter was investigated and charge-sheet was filed. 4. The accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty and the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 45. The material objects M.O.1 to M.O.11 were marked. The accused was subjected to 313 statement and he did not choose to lead any defence evidence. 4. The accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty and the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 45. The material objects M.O.1 to M.O.11 were marked. The accused was subjected to 313 statement and he did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, comes to the conclusion that demand and acceptance was proved and in Ex.P.28 chemical examination report, the presence of the phenolphthalein is detected in both the right hand and left hand finger washes of the AGO - Manjunath and also detected in article Nos.3, 7 and 8 and comes to the conclusion that the expert opinion in Ex.P.28 clearly substantiate the prosecution case that the accused has received the tainted money with his both hands. The Trial Court also taken note of the evidence of P.W.10 Police Inspector, who deposed that during investigation he has collected Ex.P.38 sketch of the place of the incident from AEE and also he has collected P.W.11 CDR call details of the P.W.2/informant and after obtaining prosecution sanction as per Ex.P.1, filed the charge-sheet. The Trial Court taking into note of the evidence of the complainant and shadow witnesses as well as trap mahazar witnesses and convicted and sentenced the accused. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed before this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the appellant was working as a Head Constable. The learned counsel submits that a case was registered against P.W.2 and P.W.6 and P.W.2 was arrested and produced before the Court and later on released on bail. The case of the prosecution is that the accused demanded an amount of Rs.20,000/-, but it was settled for Rs.10,000/- and phone conversation was recorded. The learned counsel contend that no work was pending with the accused. P.W.1 is the sanctioning authority and P.W.2 is the complainant and other witnesses were also examined. The learned counsel contend that the phone conversation has not been proved and no certificate is obtained from the person who transcribed the conversation and there is no compliance of Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. P.W.1 is the sanctioning authority and P.W.2 is the complainant and other witnesses were also examined. The learned counsel contend that the phone conversation has not been proved and no certificate is obtained from the person who transcribed the conversation and there is no compliance of Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. P.W.3 panch witness was turned hostile and P.W.4 is also the panch witness and the evidence of these witnesses cannot be relied upon. P.W.7 is the Dy.S.P. and P.W.8 is the Sub Inspector. The learned counsel contend that the amount was kept in seal and the accused was asked to remove the said money and thereafter he was subjected to formalities of collecting of phenolphthalein sodium carbonate water. The learned counsel contend that the recovery is only an improvement and sodium water will not tilt the case. The very case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. The learned counsel contend that when there was no official work pending with the accused, mere recovery of money not amounts to an offence and the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act cannot be invoked and there is no any demand and acceptance and the prosecution has not proved the case. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of JAGTAR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 320. The learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that 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. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.9, wherein it is held that 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. The prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact in order to bring home the guilt of the accused. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. 8. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.SHANTHAMMA v. STATE OF TELENAGANA reported in (2022) 4 SCC 574 and brought to the notice of this Court the principles laid down in the judgment in paragraph Nos.10 and 11, wherein discussion was made with regard to the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act relating to public servants taking bribe requires proof of demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof. The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine qua non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. It is also held that the very demand and acceptance appears to be highly doubtful. P.W.1 is the only witness to the alleged demand and acceptance by the appellant and P.W.1 did not state that the appellant reiterated her demand at the time of trap. His version is that on his own, he told her that he had brought the amount. What is material is the cross-examination on this aspect. P.W.1 accepted that his version regarding the demand made by the appellant on various dates was an improvement. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that Section 8 of the PC Act is very clear with regard to the obtainment acceptance and agrees and attempt to obtain the bribe amount. The fact that the complainant and P.W.6 are accused in Crime No.238/2017 is not in dispute. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused being the Head Constable demanded money and conversation was recorded on 05.07.2017. The prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W. 6 i.e., the complainant and trap witness and the panch witnesses spoken about collecting of money. The learned counsel submits that in 313 statement, there is no explanation by the accused and the evidence of P.Ws.2, 4, 6 and 8 is consistent. P.W.11 is the expert of FSL and herevidence also corroborates the case of the prosecution. 10. The learned counsel submits that in 313 statement, there is no explanation by the accused and the evidence of P.Ws.2, 4, 6 and 8 is consistent. P.W.11 is the expert of FSL and herevidence also corroborates the case of the prosecution. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NEERAJ DUTTA v. STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.68, wherein distinguishing a presumption under Section 4(1) of the 1947 Act with a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, it was observed in Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1964 SC 575 that a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act is discretionary in nature inasmuch as it is open to the Court to draw or not to draw a presumption as to the existence of one fact from the proof of another fact. The burden resting on the accused is such a case would not be as light as it is where a presumption is raised under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and cannot be held to be discharged merely by reason of the fact that the explanation offered by the accused is reasonable and probable. 11. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.88.3 with regard to proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence. In paragraph No.88.5 discussion was made with regard to the presumption of fact with regard to 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. 12. The learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that foundational facts are proved and also contend that presumption could be drawn. 13. 12. The learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that foundational facts are proved and also contend that presumption could be drawn. 13. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SITA SOREN v. UNION OF INDIA reported in (2024) 5 SCC 629 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.125, wherein discussion was made that the unamended text of Section 7 of the PC Act also indicates that the act of “accepting”, “obtaining”, “agreeing to accept” or “agreeing to obtain” illegal gratification is a sufficient condition. The act for which the bribe is given does not need to be actually performed. This was further clarified by Explanation (d) to the provision. In explaining the phrase ‘a motive or reward for doing’, it was made clear that the person receiving the gratification does not need to intend to or be in a position to do or not do the act or omission for which the motive/reward is received. 14. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA v. CHANDRASHA reported in 2024 SC ONLINE SC 3469 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.20, wherein discussion was made that no plausible reason was adduced on the side of the respondent, as to why, it was retained in the office of the Sub Treasury without being issued to the party concerned. It is a common knowledge that when the bill was submitted to the office of Sub Treasury for sanction, only after issuance of the cheque to the concerned, the work will be treated as completed. In the instant case, no cheque was issued, and it was kept pending as on the date of trap. 15. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.21, wherein it is held that it is settled law that the two basis facts viz., ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of gratification have been proved, the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked to the effect that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.24, wherein discussion was made that the appellate Court would not be justified in setting aside the acquittal merely because the other view is also possible. No two views are possible in the matter and thus the approach adopted by the High Court is perverse and liable to be interfered with. 16. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MUKUT BIHARI AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in (2012) 11 SCC 642 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.17, wherein discussion was made that no provision analogous to the paragraphs contained in the Railway Vigilance Manual, applicable in the Health Department of the State of Rajasthan at the relevant time had been brought to the notice of the Courts below, nor had been produced before us. Therefore, it can be held that it is always desirable to have a shadow witness in the trap party but mere absence of such a witness would not vitiate the whole trap proceedings. 17. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF A.P. v. C.UMA MAHESHWARA RAO AND ANOTHER reported in (2004) 4 SCC 399 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.18 and 19, wherein discussion is made with regard to illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act says that the Court may presume that “a man who is in the possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. In paragraph No.19, it was observed that in the judgment in the case of Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana it is held that the very fact that the accused was in possession of the marked currency notes against an allegation that he demanded and received the amount is “res ipsa loquitur”. 18. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M. NARSINGA RAO v. STATE OF A.P. reported in (2001) 1 SCC 691 , wherein discussion was made with regard to Section 114 of the Evidence Act. A legal or mandatory presumption can be drawn from a factual or discretionary presumption. 18. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M. NARSINGA RAO v. STATE OF A.P. reported in (2001) 1 SCC 691 , wherein discussion was made with regard to Section 114 of the Evidence Act. A legal or mandatory presumption can be drawn from a factual or discretionary presumption. It would however be unsafe to draw another discretionary presumption and detailed discussion was made with regard to presumption. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.22, wherein the judgment in the case of Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana was discussed. 19. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of HAZARI LAL v. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) reported in (1980) 2 SCC 390 and brought to the notice of this Court that presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act also raised against the accused. The accused having failed to rebut the presumption, his conviction under Section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of PC Act and Section 161 of IPC upheld. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.10, wherein discussion was made with regard to presumption is of course rebuttable but in the present case there is no material to rebut the presumption. 20. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PRAHLAD v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in (2019) 14 SCC 438 , wherein discussion was made with regard to scope of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Examination of accused and silence of accused, what it indicates and held that it leads to adverse inference against the accused and the learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.11 of the judgment. 21. 21. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. SARAVANAN AND ANOTHER reported in (2008) 17 SCC 587 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.18 that there were some discrepancies and improvements in the statement of the witnesses, their evidence should not be relied upon and relied upon the judgment in the case of State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony reported in (1985) 1 SCC 505 and extracted paragraph No.10 of the said judgment, wherein it is held that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the Investigating Officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. 22. In reply to this argument, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that with regard to the complainant phone is concerned, the person who transcribed the conversation is not examined and no there is no credible evidence. The learned counsel contend that Section 114 of the Evidence Act cannot be pressed into service having considered the material on record and the material on record is very clear that the prosecution has not proved its case. 23. The learned counsel contend that Section 114 of the Evidence Act cannot be pressed into service having considered the material on record and the material on record is very clear that the prosecution has not proved its case. 23. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and considering the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra by both the learned counsel, and the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act and whether it requires interference of this Court by exercising the appellate jurisdiction? (ii) What order? 24. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and also considering the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, this Court has to re-analyze the material available on record whether the Trial Court committed an error as contended in his argument and fails to consider the material on record. 25. The prosecution mainly relies upon oral and documentary evidence, the P.W.1 is a sanctioning authority who gave the sanction as he is competent to take decision of disciplinary action and also remove the accused and he gave the sanction in terms of Ex.P1. 26. The P.W.2 is the complainant and in his evidence he says that when he was standing along with his friend Ravi Kumar, the accused and 2 Police came and took them to Gangammanagudi Police Station and he was having acquaintance with accused prior to that and he was also produced before the Court and thereafter, he had called the accused and demanded the key of his two wheeler and he called him near the M.I ground and he went along with his friend Arun Kumar since he demanded to bring him. It is also his evidence that he demanded Rs.20,000/- to compromise the matter with the complainant. It is also his evidence that he demanded Rs.20,000/- to compromise the matter with the complainant. It is also his evidence that on 30.06.2017, accused called him and asked him to come near the Hesaraghatta main road, Canara bank and he questioned how much capacity he is having and hence, he replied that he can give only an amount of Rs.10,000/- and hence he demanded more and left the place and before leaving the place also he demanded whatever he brought to give him and hence, he gave the amount of Rs.1,000/- and when he demanded more, he was not having more money, but he says that he recorded the said conversation in digital voice recorder and the same was given to the ACB Police and he gave the complaint, C.D, also the release order and the same is marked as Ex.P2 and his signature as Ex.P2(a) and typed copy Ex.P2(c) and arrest notice as Ex.P2(d) and order of release at Ex.P2(e). In further chief examination he says that he produced 20 notes of Rs.500/- each to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and conducted entrustment mahazar and kept the amount in his pocket and instructed that only on demand give that money to the accused and note number was also noted. 27. It is also his evidence that the instruction was given to record the conversation and instructed him to introduce the person along with him as his brother or his friend and instructed to watch the conversation and photos were also taken while drawing the entrustment mahazar and he identifies the signature in Ex.P3(b). 27. It is also his evidence that the instruction was given to record the conversation and instructed him to introduce the person along with him as his brother or his friend and instructed to watch the conversation and photos were also taken while drawing the entrustment mahazar and he identifies the signature in Ex.P3(b). It is his evidence that thereafter they went to Bagalagunte Police Station and parked the vehicle at the distance of 1 Kms and when he called the accused, he says that he is not in the station and on that day, they came back and returned the money and accused asked him to come on next day and accordingly the Police instructed them to come on the next day and again the mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P4 and he identifies the signature as Ex.P4(b) and accordingly, they went to the office of Investigating Officer and again the amount was kept in his pant pocket and again gave the voice recorder and mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P5 and he identifies the signature and then he called the accused and he says that he will call him and again came back since he was in Tamilnadu and returned the money and mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P6. It is also his evidence that he was called to ACB office on 15.07.2017 and the very same panch witnesses were present and kept the money in his pant pocket and at that time, his friend Arun Kumar was also with him and instructed him to make the payment only on demand. It is his evidence that they left the ACB office at 2 ‘O’ clock and as per instructions, he went along with his friend Arun Kumar and panch witness and both himself and Arun Kumar first met the accused. It is his evidence that they left the ACB office at 2 ‘O’ clock and as per instructions, he went along with his friend Arun Kumar and panch witness and both himself and Arun Kumar first met the accused. The panch witness was staying near the gate and accused took both of them near the Rajakaluve and he demanded money and he told that he brought the money and he gave the money and receiving the money, he kept the money in his pocket and immediately he gave the signal and the Police immediately came and held the accused and immediately accused took out the money from his pocket and kept the same near the window and accused hands were subjected to wash and it turns to pink colour and the same was seized and also the Investigating Officer got removed the amount which was kept in the window and the notes which have recovered tallies with the same notes and the same were seized and also alternative pant was provided to the accused. It is also his evidence that digital voice which he was returned, the same was transferred to the C.D and accused sample voice was also collected and the same also transferred to the C.D and case records were also seized and mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P10. This witness was subjected to cross-examination, in the cross-examination he admits that 03.07.2017, he accompanied with Arun Kumar while lodging the complaint. It is suggested that along with Arun Kumar one Ravi Kumar was also present and the same was denied, he says he went along with Ravi Kumar to ACB office and Arun Kumar never came to ACB office and Ravi Kumar was there along with him on the date of compliant and also on the next day. He admits that voice recorder was in his custody and the same was seized during the investigation by the investigating officer. It is suggested that he is falsely deposing that he told that he is capable to give Rs.10,000/- and the said suggestion was denied. It is suggested that accused not met him on 30.06.2017 and the same was denied. He admits that his friend Surya transferred the conversation since he was not having computer knowledge and the same was transferred at Kammagondanahalli. It is suggested that accused not met him on 30.06.2017 and the same was denied. He admits that his friend Surya transferred the conversation since he was not having computer knowledge and the same was transferred at Kammagondanahalli. The distance between his house and Kammagondanahalli is 2 kms and the same was transferred in the shop of Surya and on the next day he went to ACB office at 10:30 and accused was not there on that day and they waited till 9:00 pm and admits that accused No.2-Arun Kumar took the anticipatory bail in his case. It is suggested that he told the I.O that the amount is in the window and the same was denied. It is suggested that amount was got remove through the accused and the same was denied, but he admits that after removal of the amount from the window, prepared the solution and he admits that both hands were subjected to wash. It is suggested that when the Investigating Officer asked the accused, he said that he did not see the money and not collected and the same was denied. He says that his friend Arun Kumar was there along with him and mahazar Ex.P10 got prepared through the staff of Investigating Officer. 28. It is suggested that when the Investigating Officer asked the accused, he said that he did not see the money and not collected and the same was denied. He says that his friend Arun Kumar was there along with him and mahazar Ex.P10 got prepared through the staff of Investigating Officer. 28. The P.W.3 in his evidence says that his superiors told him and his colleague to go to ACB office to be as pancha and accordingly he went to ACB office at 3:30 on 03.07.2017 and they informed that they are going to conduct a trap against one Manjanna and in the office of ACB, Mirja Ali, Staff and complainant was there and complainant was talking to the Investigating Officer and he says that complainant gave Rs.500/- denominations to ACB staff and the said amount was kept in the custody of his colleague Anand and also kept a micro phone in his pocket and they waited till 9 ‘O’ clock, but the accused did not turn and they came back and returned money in the ACB office and on the very next day also they went to ACB office and amount was given to his hand and on the next day, he kept the amount in the pocket of Anand and again took them to Bagalagunte Police Station and came to know that accused also will not be there on that day, this witness was treated as hostile and cross-examination was made and he identifies the signature and panchanama Ex.P3(a) his signature and so also Ex.P4(a), Ex.P5(a) confronted and he admits the same. He admits that the complainant gave the amount of Rs.500/- each in total and an amount of Rs.10,000/- and also he admits that the said note numbers are noted and his signature was also taken and he identifies the signature in Ex.P7 that is Ex.P7(a) and also given the notes to Anand and told him to compare the note number and except that money, no other notes were got it confirmed. He also admits that he gave the statement and the same is marked as Ex.P8 and he admits that instructions was given after receiving the money to give signal and also instructed to record the conversation. He also admits that he should watch what would happen between the complainant and the accused. He also admits that he gave the statement and the same is marked as Ex.P8 and he admits that instructions was given after receiving the money to give signal and also instructed to record the conversation. He also admits that he should watch what would happen between the complainant and the accused. He also admits after hand wash, it turns to pink colour and sodium was seized and again they came back since accused did not come to the Police Station on that day also. 29. The P.W.4 in his evidence, he says that he was sent to office of Lokayukta and found the complainant and copy of the complaint was also given to him and he read the same and came to know that a demand was made to close the case and complainant was also gave the voice recorder and the data of the voice recorder was transferred to laptop and complainant gave the amount of Rs.500/- and the same was noted in Ex.P7 and he identifies the signature as Ex.P7(b) and he also speaks about conducting of entrustment mahazar and making the signature to Ex.P3 which is identified as Ex.P3(c) and he also re-iterates that they went and came back since accused was not there in the office and also drawn the mahazar in terms of Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 and identifies the signature in both the documents and also next time they went and came to know that the accused was not there and came back to ACB office and mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P6 and in his evidence he says that on 15.07.2017 the Nagaraj was unable to come to ACB office and he was called to ACB office and he went and met Mirja Ali and Arun Kumar was also there along with the complainant and the same was verified and formalities were done since the accused No.2 was taken anticipatory bail in connection with the earlier case. It is also his evidence that on that day at around 2:45 to 2:50 again they went to the Bagalagunte Police Station and he himself and Purushotam went and stand near the entrance of the Police Station and after some time, one person came out along with the complainant and taken him to near the compound of vacant site and thereafter went inside the Police Station and he gave the signal and immediately Police came and held the accused and in the meantime when the accused kept the money near the window, the same was shown to them by the complainant and immediately Police came and subjected for mahazar and amount was got it removed through him and verified the amount and the same amount was tallied to entrustment mahazar and when the accused was asked to give reply if any, he did not give any reply and his voice also transferred to the C.D and he identifies M.O.1 and signature in Ex.P9(a) and Ex.P10 identifies the signature as Ex.P10(a). This witness was subjected to cross-examination and he came to know that complainant was accused in another case and he was arrested and Arun Kumar was also the accused and he also read the contents of mahazar Ex.P10 and he admits that complainant only discloses that amount was kept near the window. It is suggested that when they went to the office of P.S.I he was not there and accused only there and the same was denied. It is suggested that amount was got it removed through accused and witness says that he does not remember the same and also he does not remember whether he removed the amount or accused removed the same, however he says that his hand was subjected to wash. It is suggested that he is not aware of the conversation between the complainant and also the accused and transferring the voice to the C.D and he says that he does not remember the same. 30. The P.W.5 is the nodal officer and in his evidence he says that mobile phone details were asked and he gave the report and also he issued the certificate in terms of Ex.P11 and he identifies the signature. This witness was not subjected to cross-examination. 31. 30. The P.W.5 is the nodal officer and in his evidence he says that mobile phone details were asked and he gave the report and also he issued the certificate in terms of Ex.P11 and he identifies the signature. This witness was not subjected to cross-examination. 31. The other witness is P.W.6 and he says that the complainant has given the complaint to ACB and complainant produced an amount of Rs.10,000/- and phenolphthalein powder was smeared and instructed the complainant to pay the amount to the accused when he demands. The complainant was taken near the office of the accused and he also accompanied him and accused was also got introduced to him and accused demanded the money and complainant gave the money and he had received the same and kept the amount in his pant pocket and complainant gave the signal and Police came and apprehended the accused and immediately the accused thrown the amount near the window and when the accused hand was subjected to wash, it turns to pink colour. In the cross-examination he admits that the complainant was arrested on 09.06.2017. It is suggested that instruction was given that whatever it may be the accused must touch the bribe money and the said suggestion was denied. It is suggested that he himself and Raju were sent to the Police Station but he says that Raju only went and he does not know about the conversation between the complainant and accused. It is suggested that he was sitting inside the Police Station and the same was denied and he says that he was sitting outside the Police Station, but he says that the complainant was talking to the accused and thereafter the complainant gave the signal and immediately the Police came. It is suggested that he did not go inside the Station and the same was denied. He admits that complainant only told the Investigating Officer that amount is near the window, but he admits that amount was got it removed through accused and thereafter the hands of the accused was subjected to wash. 32. The other witness is P.W.7 and he says that accused came and gave the complaint in terms of Ex.P12 and in the cross-examination, he admits that it is mentioned Ravi Kumar friend of the complainant and there was no any difficulty to reduce the oral complaint of complainant in writing. 32. The other witness is P.W.7 and he says that accused came and gave the complaint in terms of Ex.P12 and in the cross-examination, he admits that it is mentioned Ravi Kumar friend of the complainant and there was no any difficulty to reduce the oral complaint of complainant in writing. However, he admits that complaint was got typed in the office that is Ex.P2 and whatever the complainant told, the same was got it typed and also admits that accused was arrested in connection with other case. 33. The other witness is P.W.8 and he says that he came to know about the registration of Cr.No.26/2017 through complainant and request letter was mentioned was marked as Ex.P13 and Anand and Nagaraj were sent in terms of Ex.P13 and he says that complainant produced 20 notes of Rs.500/- each and the same was noted in Ex.P7 and amount was given to the complainant and inceptions was given and also he speaks about drawing of mahazar in terms of Ex.P3 to Ex.P6. In his evidence he says that the complainant went inside the Police Station and came back and Arun Kumar was standing in front of the Police Station and both complainant and his friend Arun Kumar were talking to the accused and complainant gave the amount to the accused and all of them went inside the Police Station and complainant gave the signal and immediately they went and found the money near the window and instructed the accused to assist him in drawing of trap mahazar and subjected the hand wash of the accused and complainant also told that amount was kept near the window and got it removed the amount through Anand which was kept near the window and the very same notes which were mentioned in the Ex.P7 were found and tallies with each other and recorded the statement of Anand, Arun Kumar and complainant and also seized MOs’ are identified through him and also he identifies the signature in Ex.P10(c) and also got marked the documents through him and Ex.P16 to Ex.P33 and this witness was subjected to cross-examination and he speaks about the arrest of accused and complainant and produced before the Court and released with conditions on 17.06.2017. It is suggested that no such entrustment mahazar procedure was done in terms of Ex.P3 and the same was denied and he admits that Arun Kumar obtained an anticipatory bail and suggested that the accused did not demand any money and false case is registered against him and the same was denied. He admits that after got it removed the money from window, accused hands were subjected to wash. However, a suggestion was made that accused only removed the money and the said suggestion was denied. He admits that accused was working as Police Constable in Bagalagunte Police Station and also admits that he was not having any power to registration of case and conducting of any investigation and closing of the case. He admits that no work with regard to complainant was pending with the accused. He admits that while drawing Ex.P10 Arun Kumar was present, but his signature was not taken. He admits that on the date of trap, the pant pocket was not subjected to wash and suggestion was made that Ex.P18 to Ex.P26 photographs were taken for his convenience and the same was denied. 34. The P.W.9 is the alternate nodal officer and he speaks about issuance of certificate Ex.P34 and identifies the signature Ex.P34(a) and also he provided all the details of mobile from 18.06.2017 to 15.07.2017. 35. The other witness is P.W.10 and he is a Circle Inspector and he says that he obtained the records from C.W.19 and accused and complainant details were given and also request was made to prepare the sketch and Ex.P11 was obtained and also obtained the sketch marked at Ex.P37 and Ex.P38 and obtained the sanction letter in terms of Ex.P1 and also obtained the C.D and sample of C.D M.O-9 to M.O-11 and he was subjected to cross-examination and in the cross- examination he admits that registration of case against the complainant and his friend Arun Kumar in Cr.No.238/2017 and arrest and producing of accused before the Court. It is suggested that when he obtained the document Ex.P38 except the complainant, panch witnesses were not there and the same was denied. It is suggested that M.O-9 to M.O-11 are created for the purpose of this case and the same was denied. 36. It is suggested that when he obtained the document Ex.P38 except the complainant, panch witnesses were not there and the same was denied. It is suggested that M.O-9 to M.O-11 are created for the purpose of this case and the same was denied. 36. The P.W.11 is the senior scientific officer and in his evidence he says that he examined the articles for voice examination and case is received and registered in the laboratory and conducted the voice examination and he received the three sealed articles and case file and he conducted the examination, the description of the articles were also mentioned that is article-1, article -9 and article -10. He conducted oral examination and voice future extraction via semi-automatic method in a respective speeches yet to be suspect of Manjunath and found recorded in the C.D and marked as article No.1 and sample speeches are found recorded in C.D and marked as article No.9 are similar and belongs to same male speaker and article-1, article -9 and article -10 are not carried out and after analysis he had prepared the detailed report and annexed sample seal of the laboratory and also identifies the report as Ex.P39 and his signature and also sample seal is marked as Ex.P40 and voice examination Ex.P42 to Ex.P44 and this witness was subjected to cross-examination and he admits that Investigating Officer did not send the device in which original conversation was recorded for examination, but it was copied and sent in C.D and after receipt of requisition from the Investigating Officer, he has given the opinion after almost 2 years and he has not given any reasons in opinion for delay and also Investigating Officer has sent 3 sheets containing transcription of the conversation relating to article -1, 9 and 10. It is suggested that if the voice recorded contains background disturbances, it is not possible to give accurate opinion and the same was denied and he admits that there are similarities in the accent and fluency of speech, but witness volunteers there is difference in the pitch and he has examined the C.D and sent for examination and the Director, FSL has not done any examination. 37. 37. Having perused the both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the sanction was given in terms of Ex.P1 to proceed against the accused and P.W.1 evidence is very clear regarding applying his mind and giving the sanction and when the suggestion was made that an attempt was made to implicate the accused and the said suggestion was denied by the P.W.1 and application of mind by P.W.1 for giving sanction is not disturbed in the cross-examination, however, he only admits that Arun Kumar was witness to the trap panchanama. 38. The main witness is P.W.2 complainant and he categorically says that when he was standing along with Ravikumar, he was taken to the Police Station and he was arrested and produced before the Court. The fact that the case was registered against complainant is not in dispute, however, it is a specific case of complainant that when he went and met accused along with his friend Arun Kumar, the accused demanded the money and on the first day visit also he gave the money of Rs.1,000/- to him, but he demanded more and it was settled down for Rs.10,000/- and in the cross-examination he categorically says that when the accused demanded the money, he gave the money and accused got the money and kept the same in his pant pocket and also accused was apprehended and also the accused immediately kept the money near the window and both the hands of the accused was subjected to wash and the same turns to pink colour. It is his clear evidence that amount got removed through panch witness and hence the evidence of P.W.2 is very clear that amount was received by the accused and subjected for hand wash and it turns to pink colour and FSL report was also confirms that hand wash of the accused was turned to pink colour and main contention of the counsel appearing for the accused that the amount got it removed through the accused only and hence, it turns to pink colour. 39. It is important to note that the evidence of Nagaraj who is panch witness was incomplete and he speaks only about drawing of Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 and given instructions to him to give the complaint and watch what would happen between them. 39. It is important to note that the evidence of Nagaraj who is panch witness was incomplete and he speaks only about drawing of Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 and given instructions to him to give the complaint and watch what would happen between them. The other panch witness is Anand who is examined as P.W. 4 and he also speaks about drawing of entrustment mahazar and also noting down the note numbers in Ex.P7 and also drawing up of mahazar Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 when the accused was not in the office and also he speaks about he accompanied with complainant and he was standing near the door and complainant came along with the one person and both of them went near the vacant site compound and both of them also conversated each and complainant gave the signal and conducting of trap mahazar and he categorically says that he only got removed the money and he same tallied with the bribe money which he noted and also categorically says that accused has not given any explanation after his trap, but in the cross-examination he categorically says that he read the contents of Ex.P10 and Arun Kumar was also sent to the Police Station and it is emerged that complainant only told the investigating officer that amount was kept near the window. When the suggestion was made that amount was got removed through accused and he categorically says that he does not remember the same and he cannot say that whether he removed or accused removed the same, but the fact that he categorically deposes before the Court that the accused hands were subjected to wash. 40. It is important to note that the main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant that certificate was issued by P.W.5 and the same is not valid but when the P.W.5 was examined who is a nodal officer and got marked the certificate under Section 65B and the same was marked without any objections and now cannot contend that Ex.P11 is not issued by the competent officer and once the same was marked and not objected, now cannot question the same is also taken note of by the Trial Court. 41. 41. The other witness is P.W.6, though he says that the complainant gave the money and he says that when the complainant gave the money to the accused on demand and complainant gave the signal and accused was apprehended and in the cross-examination he admits that he cannot tell what conversation was taken place between the complainant and the accused, but he says that the complainant alone went inside the Police Station, but in the cross-examination he says that he was sitting outside, but categorically says that complainant was talking to the accused and also speaks about signal was given and immediately after giving the signal, Investigating Officer came and when suggestion was made that he did not go inside the Police Station, but he denies the same. He also admits that the amount was kept near the window and though he admits that amount was got it removed through the accused and in his evidence, there is a discrepancy, but witness P.W.4 categorically deposed before the Court that he only got removed the amount near the window and hence, it is very clear that there was a trap and amount was recovered at the instance of the accused. The counsel appearing for the accused would vehemently contend that there is no any consistent evidence, but the fact that accused only called the complainant and demanded money calling him to particular place and it is evident from the records and when the call details also secured and marked through the witness and nothing is disputed in the cross-examination. 42. It is important to note that Ex.P34 is the certificate issued by the P.W.9 the nodal officer under Section 65B of Evidence Act and Ex.P35 counter application appearing in the name of the accused relating to his mobile and Ex.P36 is the call details register relating to above said mobile phone for the period from 18.06.2017 to 15.07.2017. It is also observed by the Trial Court that accused neither cross-examined P.W.9 nor disputed Ex.P34 to Ex.P36. It is also important to note that Ex.P11 CDR dated 30.06.2017, there is a specific entry that P.W.2 has received a phone call from the mobile of the accused and there is a corresponding entry in Ex.P36 CDR. It is also observed by the Trial Court that accused neither cross-examined P.W.9 nor disputed Ex.P34 to Ex.P36. It is also important to note that Ex.P11 CDR dated 30.06.2017, there is a specific entry that P.W.2 has received a phone call from the mobile of the accused and there is a corresponding entry in Ex.P36 CDR. It is also important to note that evidence of P.W.2 and contents of Ex.P2 – First Information Statement in this regard proves that accused only called the P.W.2 through phone. Having considered the contents of Ex.P11 and Ex.P36, it is proved that on 19.06.2017, 28.06.2017 and 30.06.2017, the accused only made the phone call to P.W.2 and the entries in the CDR also shows that P.W.2 also made several phone calls to the accused and hence, it is clear that both the accused and also the complainant were in constant touch over the phone and these documentary evidence corroborates with the testimony of P.W.2 that accused only made telephone call to him and demanded illegal gratification. 43. It is also important to note that the evidence of P.W.2 shows that Sony voice recorder was provided in connection with conversation dated 30.06.2017 and the same was not during the trap, but during the cross-examination of P.W.8 the accused has failed to make out that during the trap, P.W.8 he has provided voice recorder to P.W.2 to record the conversation. It is also important to note that Court has to take note of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. It is the specific evidence of the P.W.2 that accused only called him and demanded money and overall records available though contend that 65B certificate is cannot be relied upon and I have already pointed out that the same was marked without any objections and also the CDR is very clear that there was a phone call between the complainant and the accused and also it is important to note that when the accused was subjected to 313 statement except denying the incriminating evidence as construed, he did not choose to submit any explanation immediately after the trap when the P.W.8 was asked him to give reply. He ought to have explained satisfactorily each of the circumstances put to him, but the contents of the written statement filed by the accused during his examination under Section 313 is similar to the defense taken during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. 44. It is important to note that when the prosecution was able to prove the demand and acceptance of money by the accused, it is a bounden duty to explain why he handled the cash. It is also important to note that his defense is that the amount was got it removed through him when he was working as a Police Constable what made him to remove the money, no explanation is given, but though there is a discrepancies in the evidence for recovery of money at the instance of the accused, but specific evidence of P.W.2 is that amount was got removed through panch witnesses and P.W.4 categorically deposed before the Court that he only got removed the money and not the accused. The FSL report is also very clear that hand wash of the accused in respect of both the hands turns to pink colour in terms of Ex.P39 FSL and apart from that documentary evidence is very clear Ex.P36 CDR report and also photographs Ex.P18 to Ex.P24 also relied upon for having done the same at the time of drawing the mahazar photos were taken. It is also important to note that Ex.P11 is the Airtel call details records which discloses the complainant and accused both of them were in constant touch and also it is the specific evidence of the P.W.2 that when he went and met the accused he demanded the money to help him to compromise the case when the case was registered against him and at that time Arun Kumar was along with him and no doubt the said Arun Kumar was not examined before the Trial Court, but the evidence of P.W.4 is very clear and so also evidence of Ex.P6 is also very clear with regard to the demand and acceptance. The evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated through witness P.W.4 and P.W. 6 and though P.W.3 was examined, his evidence is not complete regarding trap is concerned and evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding FSL report as well as chemical examination report Ex.P28 and also Ex.P31 and 32 certificate under Section 65B of evidence Act which has not been disputed during the course of cross-examination of witnesses and both got marked through the witnesses and the same was not disputed during the course of cross-examination and the same was taken note of by the Trial Court and particularly at paragraph No.58 comes to the conclusion that the evidence placed by the prosecution is consistent with guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence and also held that minor discrepancies are contradictions in the evidence which do not affects the merits of the case and the same should be ignored unless the same goes to the very root of the case. The Trial Court also taken note of evidence of P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W. 6 and P.W.8 and also the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the notes which have been noted in Ex.P7 are the very same notes which are recovered at the instance of the accused and also it is the very case of complainant that immediately when he gave the signal and he kept the amount in the window frame in the chamber of the Bagalagunte Police Station and also it is emerged during the course of the evidence that complainant only pointed out that amount was kept near the window frame and evidence of prosecution witness is cogent, corroborative except the minor discrepancies and incriminating evidences led by the prosecution was not disproved by the accused and also he did not choose to lead any contra evidence against the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 45. The judgment relied upon by the counsel appearing for the respondent that even in the absence of shadow witness evidence the Court can look into the same and the same is held in MUKUT BIHARI ‘s case in the evidence complainant is consistent even in the absence of shadow witness evidence, the Court can rely upon the same in paragraph No.17 it is held that it is always desirable to have a shadow witness in the trap party but mere absence of such a witness would not vitiate the whole trap proceedings. 46. 46. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the judgment of JAGTAR SINGH ‘s case which is referred above is very clear that 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 and in the case on hand there is a material with regard to the demand and acceptance and the same is also spoken by P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.6 and when such being the case, the very contention that no demand and acceptance and also no proof cannot be accepted and the judgment of JAGTAR SINGH ‘s case will not comes to the aid of appellant. No doubt in the other case relied upon by the counsel appearing for the appellant in K.SHANTHAMMA ’s case also it is held that the proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine qua non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and no dispute with regard to the principles laid down in the judgment and while invoking Section 7 and 13 there must be a demand and acceptance in the judgment of STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. SARAVANAN AND ANOTHER it is held that minor contradictions and inconsistencies are immaterial which without affecting the core of the prosecution case, ought not to come to the Court to reject evidence in its entirety. The Court also cannot expect mathematical niceties in a criminal case and Court has to take note of the same inspires the confidence and in the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondent also regarding 313 statement held that in a case of Prahlad referred above and silence of accused which indicates and leads to adverse inference against the accused except filing of written statement nothing is placed on record and also held the silence on the part of the accused in such a matter wherein he is expected to come out with an explanation leads to an adverse inference against the accused. 47. 47. Having re-assessed the both oral and documentary evidence placed on record as well as the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra both by the prosecution as well as the accused, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in coming to such a conclusion in the case on hand that there is a demand and acceptance and also FSL report goes against the accused and minor discrepancies regarding recovery of money is concerned will not go to the very root of the prosecution case and benefit of doubt cannot be extended in favour of the accused only on minor discrepancies as contended by the appellant’s counsel and overall consideration of the evidence available in toto, the foundational material are found that there is a demand and acceptance and when there is a demand and acceptance and also the very case of the prosecution is also that only in order to help the complainant demand was made and telephonic calls are made that too at the instance of the accused only made several calls to the complainant and also complainant also called him and call details also goes against the accused and when such material available before the Court, I do not find any error to comes to other conclusion that the Trial Court has committed an error and M.O-10 C.D containing voice samples of the accused was also marked and the evidence of the prosecution witness is also clear that the sample voice of the accused and also the voice which was found both are same and the same is also spoken by the witness P.W.11 that he has conducted the examination and respective speeches are said to be suspected Manjunath recorded in C.D marked as Article No.1 and sample speeches found recorded in C.D marked as article No.9 are similar and belongs to the same male speaker and when such corroborative material is also found and report is also given in terms of the Ex.P39 and the same is not rebutted in the cross-examination of P.W.11 with regard to the sample conversation was recorded and now contend that only C.D was subjected to conversation and original conversation which was recorded was not secured and device was also not secured cannot be accepted and the same was marked without any objections. The suggestion that the report was given after 2 years cannot be relied upon is not accepted and only delay is concerned, cross-examination was made but with regard to its genuineness and C.D conversation not disputed and the specific case also that article Nos.9 and 10 sample conversation was also recorded and copied on 15.07.2017 and when such report is available before the Court in terms of Ex.P39, all material goes against the accused and when such being the case, this Court cannot form any other conclusion as formed by the Trial Court and the same is cogent, corroborative piece of evidence which goes against the accused and hence, I answer the point as ‘negative’. 48. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.