JUDGMENT : Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. Heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. U.C. Rabha, learned counsel representing Respondent No.1 as well as Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel representing Respondent No.2. 2. This is an appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment and order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam in Special Case No.19 of 2017. 3. The informant (PW-1) is the owner of a pharmacy called Kripa Medical Hall situated at Bongaigaon Town. He applied for a Restricted Pharmacy Licence (RPL) in the office of the Drug Inspector, Bongaigaon. The Respondent No.1 Rajen Saikia was working as the Drug Inspector at that time in the said office. He told the informant to deposit Rs.1015/- by Treasury challan and asked to meet the Respondent No.2. The informant met Respondent No.2 and this time, Respondent No.2 demanded an amount of Rs.35,000/- for issuing the Restricted Pharmacy Licence. 4. Therefore, the PW-1 lodged an FIR before the Anti Corruption and Vigilance Department, Guwahati narrating the aforesaid facts. It may be mentioned that before lodging the FIR, PW-1 had managed to convince the Respondent No.2 that he would be paying an amount of Rs.20,000/- initially and the remaining part shall be paid later on. 5. On 09.08.2016, a trap was set up. A bunch of currency notes comprising of Rs.20,000/- in total were smeared with chemicals and according to the plan, the PW-1 accompanied by two persons namely, Safiur Rahman and Safiur Rahman Khan went to the office of the Drug Inspector. First, they went to meet the Respondent No.1 and on seeing them, the Respondent No.1 called the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 accepted the said amount of Rs.20,000/- and put it into the table drawer of the Respondent No.1. The people from the law enforcement agency immediately stepped in and seized the money. 6. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against both the respondents. 7. As many as 18 (eighteen) prosecution witnesses were examined. The respondents also examined one defence witness. On conclusion of trial, both the respondents were acquitted by the trial court on benefit of doubt. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the State of Assam has filed this appeal. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. I have also gone through the evidence. 9. The respondents also examined one defence witness. On conclusion of trial, both the respondents were acquitted by the trial court on benefit of doubt. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the State of Assam has filed this appeal. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. I have also gone through the evidence. 9. Here, in this case, none of the witnesses has claimed that the Respondent No.1 had demanded the bribe of Rs.35,000/-. Except for the evidence of PW-1, there are no other witnesses to support the allegation that Respondent No.2 demanded a bribe of Rs.35,000/-. 10. In Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “ Relevant provisions of the Act 4. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) and 20 of the Act as they stood prior to their amendments are extracted as under: “ 7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act .—Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanations.—(a) “Expecting to be a public servant”. If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section. (b) “Gratification”. Explanations.—(a) “Expecting to be a public servant”. If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section. (b) “Gratification”. The word “gratification” is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money. (c) “Legal remuneration”. The words “legal remuneration” are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organisation, which he serves, to accept. (d) “A motive or reward for doing”. A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression. (e) Where a public servant induces a person erroneously to believe that his influence with the Government has obtained a title for that person and thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any other gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant has committed an offence under this section. *** 13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant .—(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct— (a)-(c)*** (d) if he— (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; *** Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “known sources of income” means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. *** 20. *** 20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration .—(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. (2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 12 or under clause (b) of Section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7, or as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn.” 5. The following are the ingredients of Section 7 of the Act: (i) the accused must be a public servant or expecting to be a public servant; (ii) he should accept or obtain or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person; (iii) for himself or for any other person; (iv) any gratification other than legal remuneration; and (v) as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or to show any favour or disfavour. 6. 6. Section 13(1)(d) of the Act has the following ingredients which have to be proved before bringing home the guilt of a public servant, namely: (i) The accused must be a public servant. (ii) By corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or by abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or while holding office as public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. (iii) To make out an offence under Section 13(1)(d), there is no requirement that the valuable thing or pecuniary advantage should have been received as a motive or reward. (iv) An agreement to accept or an attempt to obtain does not fall within Section 13(1) (d). (v) Mere acceptance of any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage is not an offence under this provision. (vi) Therefore, to make out an offence under this provision, there has to be actual obtainment. (vii) Since the legislature has used two different expressions, namely, “obtains” or “accepts”, the difference between these two must be noted.” 11. In Neeraj Datta (supra), it is held that for recording a conviction under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, the prosecution has to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence or circumstantial evidence. In other words, to convict a person under the aforesaid provision demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is sine qua non. 12. In Mahendra Singh Chotelal Bhargad vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. (1998) 2 SCC 357 , the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the case where the bribe was demanded by one person and was accepted and recovered from a third person. The conviction of the said third person was set aside, holding that accepting money on behalf of another person may certainly constitute an abetment of an offence, but in the absence of a charge of abetment, the person accepting the bribe is not liable to be convicted. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the Trial Court as well as High Court manifestly erred in convicting him for an offence under Section 7 and Section 13 of the Act. 13. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the Trial Court as well as High Court manifestly erred in convicting him for an offence under Section 7 and Section 13 of the Act. 13. I have already held hereinbefore that none of the prosecution witnesses have supported the fact that either the Respondent No.1 or the Respondent No.2 had demanded Rs.35,000/- from PW-1. Except for the evidence of the PW-1, there is no other evidence to that effect. It is a settled position of law that demand and acceptance are sine qua non of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. There is no evidence in this case that the PW-1 had managed to pay an advance amount of Rs.20,000/- to Respondent No.2. 14. There is another aspect that is visible in the evidence of PW-1. The PW-1 is the owner of Kripa Medical Hall. But he applied for Restricted Pharmacy Licence for Sneha Medical Hall, which at that time did not exist. PW-1 has admitted in his cross- examination that his brother Saiful Islam had applied for the Restricted Pharmacy Licence for the selling medicines and the Treasury challan was also showed that the fee was deposited for Sneha Medical Hall, though there was no such entity existed at that time. According to the PW-1, he already had a Restricted Pharmacy Licence that was issued All Assam Pharmacy Council. 15. In this case, there is evidence that the cash amount of Rs.20,000/- was accepted by the Respondent No.2 but there is no evidence in this case to prove that the Respondent No.2 had actually demanded an amount of Rs.35,000/-. In Mahendra Singh Chotelal Bhargad (surpra), it was held that accepting money on behalf of another person may certainly constitute an abetment of an offence, but in the absence of a charge of abetment, the person accepting the bribe is not liable to be convicted. So far as the accusation against the Respondent No.1 is concerned, there is no evidence at all in this case to prove that he demanded money from PW-1. The amount of Rs.20,000/- allegedly paid as bribe to the Respondent No.1 was put into the drawer of the table of the Respondent No.1 by the Respondent No.2. So far as the accusation against the Respondent No.1 is concerned, there is no evidence at all in this case to prove that he demanded money from PW-1. The amount of Rs.20,000/- allegedly paid as bribe to the Respondent No.1 was put into the drawer of the table of the Respondent No.1 by the Respondent No.2. I have already held hereinbefore that there is evidence at all in this case to prove that the Respondent No.2 had demanded a bribe of Rs.35,000/- and agreed to accept an amount of Rs.20,000/- as part payment. There is no corroboration of the evidence of the PW-1. Without any corroboration, the evidence of PW-1 cannot be held to be sacrosanct. 16. Under the given circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court had arrived at a correct finding and rightly gave the benefit of doubt to both the respondents. This Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly. Send back the trial court record.