JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the sole accused in C.C.No.05/2008 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kottayam. Respondent is the State of Kerala represented by the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Kerala representing the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kottayam. 3. In a nutshell, the prosecution case is that the accused demanded Rs.500/- from PW2 for the issuance of Nijasthithi Certificate in respect of the property owned by his father on 15.02.2003 and there is further allegation that for issuance of patta in respect of the same property, a sum of Rs.2,000/- was also given by the father of PW2. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section s 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter), by the accused. 4. Reckoning the final report filed by the Investigating Officer, the learned Special Judge took cognizance for the said offences and proceeded with trial. During trial, PW1 to PW5 were examined, Exts.P1 to P19 and MO1 to MO9 series were marked on the side of the prosecution. DW1 was examined on the side of the defence. Thereafter, the Special Court, on evidence, found that the accused committed the offences and accordingly, he was sentenced as under: Hence for the conviction entered against the accused for the offence under S.13(2) r/w. 13(1) (d) of P.C. Act 1988, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 years (Three years) and in addition he shall pay a fine of Rs.10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and in default of payment of such fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months and for the conviction entered against him for the offence u/s.7 of P.C. Act 1988, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 years (Two years). The above sentences shall run concurrently. Set off shall be given to the accused as provided by S.428 of the Cr.P.C. MO1 series shall be returned to PW2 and MO9 series shall be forfeited to state revenue. Mos 2 to 8 being valueless shall be destroyed after appeal/ revision, if any. 5. The above sentences shall run concurrently. Set off shall be given to the accused as provided by S.428 of the Cr.P.C. MO1 series shall be returned to PW2 and MO9 series shall be forfeited to state revenue. Mos 2 to 8 being valueless shall be destroyed after appeal/ revision, if any. 5. While assailing the verdict of the Special Court, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/accused vehemently contended that the Special Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record, where the sole evidence to prove the demand, as per the prosecution case, was the testimony of PW2, who had, in fact, turned hostile to the prosecution. That apart, it is argued that the specific case of the prosecution is that, earlier, Rs.2,000/- was given when the application for issuance of patta was considered by the accused. But, as per Ext.P6 and as per the evidence of the Investigating Officer, no such records could be found. It is pointed out further that, normally, in trap cases, there would be instruction to give signal by referring a signal in a particular mode. In the instant case, the mode of signal not at all stated by any of the witnesses, and the Mahazar also does not mention it. The main contention of the accused is that, in any event, the essential ingredients to prove the offences under Section s 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, have not been established, since demand and acceptance are not proved; and for this reason alone, the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. 6. The main contention of the accused is that, in any event, the essential ingredients to prove the offences under Section s 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, have not been established, since demand and acceptance are not proved; and for this reason alone, the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. 6. The learned senior counsel placed decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Meena W/o Balwant Hemke v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 5 SCC 21 , where the Apex Court dealt with offence under Section 5(1)(d) r/w Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 to contend that offence under the PC Act also to be proved like any other criminal offence and the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and the accused should be considered innocent, till it is established otherwise by proper proof of acceptance of the illegal gratification, the vital ingredient necessary to be established to procure a conviction for the offences under consideration and mere recovery of currency note, that too, lying on the drawer of table of the accused by itself would not be sufficient to prove acceptance of bribe. 7. Another decision of this Court in P.A. Hariharan v. State of Kerala, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 1651 has been placed with reference to paragraph No.28 to contend that the statement made by the accused to the police officer during the course of investigation of the case is inadmissible in evidence in view of the embargo under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This decision has been placed by the learned senior counsel for the appellant/accused, since the evidence of the Investigating Officer in this line also was given by the Special Court to find demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. 8. Decision in State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v. C.B. Nagaraj, 2025 SCC OnLine 1175 has also been placed by the learned senior counsel to buttress the point that there is no cavil that while a reverse onus under specific statute could be placed on an accused, even then, there could not be a presumption which would cast an uncalled for onus on the accused. 9. 9. Another decision of the Apex Court in Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. State of A.P. (2024) 10 SCC 489 was referred with reference to paragraph Nos.28 and 31, where the Apex Court considered the Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 , to contend that the Trap Lying Officer makes efforts to verify the factum of demand of bribe by the public servant before initiating the trap proceedings and the factum of demand of bribe would also be verified by recording the telephonic conversation between the decoy and the suspect public servant by using a recording device secretly at the hands of the decoy witness to record the conversation which would transpire during the course of acceptance of bribe by the public servant. 10. In another decision of the Apex Court in K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana, (2022) 4 SCC 574 , it has been pointed out to highlight the procedure of trap. 11. Latest decision of the Apex Court in Sambasiva Rao M. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 KHC OnLine 6618 and the decision in Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2025) 4 SCC 624 have been placed by the learned senior counsel to contend that proof of demand of bribe by public servant and its acceptance are the essentials to prove the offences under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. 12. It is pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellant further that, the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta ’s case (supra) laid down certain principles in paragraph No.68 and when the said case was considered, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment impugned after holding that the demand should be for payment of money by way of gratification to prove the essential ingredient of demand. He has placed the said decision by a two bench of the Apex Court reported in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), 2023 KHC 6268. 13. The learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant/accused. He has placed the said decision by a two bench of the Apex Court reported in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), 2023 KHC 6268. 13. The learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant/accused. At the same time, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that PW2 was examined in this case to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused, turned hostile to the prosecution and he did not support the prosecution in the matter of demand and acceptance of Rs.500/- by the accused on 15.02.2003. But, according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, following the ratio in the decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 , demand should be inferred from the circumstances where the demand in money was recovered from the possession of the accused. Therefore, the ingredients are proved, as rightly found by the Special Court and in such a case, there is no necessity to interfere with the verdict under challenge. 14. In consideration of the arguments tendered, the points arise for consideration are: (i) Is it correct to say that the Special Court rightly entered into conviction for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988? (ii) Is it correct to say that the Special Court rightly entered into conviction for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988? (iii) Whether the verdict would require interference? (iv) The order to be passed? 15. Point Nos.(i) to (iv) In this matter, this case was emanated recording Ext.P1 statement given by PW2 before trap. Reading the deposition of PW2, he deposed that he made a complaint before the Vigilance Office, Thodupuzha when his father applied for possession certificate and Nijasthithi Certificate of his property to avail loan before the Village Officer, Baisenvalley. But, those certificates were not issued, even though his father reached the office on several occasions. Thereafter, the Village Officer deputed the Village Assistant to inspect the site and accordingly, a plan was drawn. Later, he was informed to reach the office on the next day. When PW2 reached the Village Office, the accused handed over plan and sketch, but Nijasthithi Certificate was not issued stating that the same was to be issued from Taluk Office. Thereafter, the Village Officer deputed the Village Assistant to inspect the site and accordingly, a plan was drawn. Later, he was informed to reach the office on the next day. When PW2 reached the Village Office, the accused handed over plan and sketch, but Nijasthithi Certificate was not issued stating that the same was to be issued from Taluk Office. He had produced the documents except Nijasthithi Certificate before the Bank and the Manager insisted for production of Nijasthithi Certificate to grant the loan. According to PW2, he borrowed Rs.2,000/- from Parthipan, a provisional store owner and his friend, to give to the Village Officer and accordingly, his father given Rs.2,000/- to the Village Officer and on the date of his examination, the father was no more. He stated further that he had given Ext.P2 complaint and the same would bear the signature. But he denied the prosecution case that his father had given Rs.2,000/- to the accused for getting patta. Later, he did not support the prosecution case as regards to demand of Rs.500/- and acceptance of the same from him by the accused. Thus, the evidence of PW2, who is the only witness cited by the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused, turned hostile to the prosecution and no evidence is available as that of him to support the prosecution case as to demand and acceptance of Rs.500/- by the accused. As regards to the acceptance of Rs.2,000/- from PW2 as alleged by the prosecution, PW2’s version is that, the amount was given by his father prior to the demand of Rs.500/-. 16. PW3 examined in this case is the decoy witness, who accompanied the trap team. In fact, he deposed about his appearance before the Dy.S.P. and presence of PW2 and other witnesses. He deposed about Phenolphthalein demonstration test and production of 500 rupee note by PW2 before the Dy.S.P. and seizure of the same by the Dy.S.P. after putting his signature on the water mark and noting the numbers. He identified the said notes as MO1 series. Later, he deposed about entrustment of MO1 series back to PW2 with direction to give the same only when demand by the accused. According to him, he was directed by the Dy.S.P. to show a sign by using his hand, but he did not depose as to the mode of sign. He identified the said notes as MO1 series. Later, he deposed about entrustment of MO1 series back to PW2 with direction to give the same only when demand by the accused. According to him, he was directed by the Dy.S.P. to show a sign by using his hand, but he did not depose as to the mode of sign. He also deposed that on getting the signal, the trap party including the Dy.S.P. entered into the office of the accused. PW2 stated that when the accused demanded the money, he had paid the same and when the accused was questioned regarding the money, he received from PW2 stating that he placed the same at the drawer of the table. He deposed about examination of the trap party and Phenolphthalein test on their hands to rule out pink colour change in their hands. He deposed that when the left fingers and right fingers of the accused was dipped in separate sodium carbonate solution, there was pink colour change and the solution so recovered were MO3 and MO4. On examining the drawer of the table, money was found kept inside a battery hard board. PW3, who was examined in court, identified the MO1 series, and when the same was dipped in sodium carbonate solution, it turned pink. Thus, the evidence of PW3 is confined to pre and post trap proceedings and the evidence, in no way, support demand of bribe by the accused. 17. PW4 is another decoy witness and he also support pre and post trap proceedings. Similarly, PW5, the Trap Laying Investigating Officer supported the prosecution case as spoken by the decoy witness. 18. In this matter, one among the series anomaly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the accused is that, in this case, FIS was lodged at 7.00 a.m. on 15.02.2003 and as per the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW5, it was brought out that PW5 had informed PW3 and PW4 to be present at the Village Office on the previous date even before registering the FIR, based on Ext.P1 FIS given by PW2. According to the learned senior counsel, no materials placed or no remote piece of evidence would fortify why and on what basis PW5 - Dy.S.P. informed the Gazetted Officers before getting of complaint regarding demand of bribe. According to the learned senior counsel, no materials placed or no remote piece of evidence would fortify why and on what basis PW5 - Dy.S.P. informed the Gazetted Officers before getting of complaint regarding demand of bribe. Even though it is argued by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that this was occurred due to the inexperience of PW5, since this was the first trap managed by him, the fact remains is that, as per the evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5, intimation to secure the presence of PW3 and PW4 was given on the previous day before registering FIR and the same shadows the prosecution case and its genuineness. 19. Now, it is necessary to address the ingredients required to attract the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. The same are extracted as under:- Section 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 three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 13:- Criminal misconduct by a public servant. Section 13:- Criminal misconduct by a public servant. – (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,- a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) xxxxxx (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. xxxxx (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. 20. In this context, it is relevant to refer the decision of this Court in Sunil Kumar K. v. State of Kerala, 2025 KHC OnLine 983 , in Crl. Appeal No.323/2020, dated 12.9.2025, wherein in paragraph No. 12, it was held as under: “12. Indubitably in Neeraj Dutta’ s case (supra) the Apex Court held in paragraph No.69 that there is no conflict in the three judge Bench decisions of this Court in B.Jayaraj and P. Satyanarayana Murthy with the three judge Bench decision in M. Narasinga Rao, with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under Section 7 or 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, when the direct evidence of the complainant or “primary evidence” of the complainant is unavailable owing to his death or any other reason. The position of law when a complainant or prosecution witness turns “hostile” is also discussed and the observations made above would accordingly apply in light of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion there is no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three cases. Further in Paragraph No.70 the Apex Court held that in the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary/oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution. In paragraph No.68 the Apex Court summarized the discussion. In paragraph No.68 the Apex Court summarized the discussion. That apart, in State by Lokayuktha Police ’s case (supra) placed by the learned counsel for the accused also the Apex Court considered the ingredients for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act,1988 and held that demand and acceptance of bribe are necessary to constitute the said offences. Similarly as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Aman Bhatia ’s case (supra) the Apex court reiterated the same principles. Thus the legal position as regards to the essentials to be established to fasten criminal culpability on an accused are demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. To put it otherwise, proof of demand is sine qua non for the offences to be established under Section s 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and dehors the proof of demand the offences under the two Sections could not be established. Therefore mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of bribe or as undue pecuniary advantage or illegal gratification or the recovery of the same would not be sufficient to prove the offences under the two Sections in the absence of evidence to prove the demand.” 21. In the case at hand, the prosecution examined PW2 to prove the demand and acceptance of MO1 series notes by the accused on the date of trap as well as demand and acceptance of Rs.2,000/- prior to that by the accused. But, PW2 turned hostile to the prosecution and he did not support the prosecution even on his cross examination at the instance of legal advisor of the prosecution. Apart from the evidence of PW2, the Special Court relied on the statement made by the accused to the Dy.S.P. admitting demand and acceptance of bribe, was given emphasis by the Special Court to find the demand. Apart from the evidence of PW2, the Special Court relied on the statement made by the accused to the Dy.S.P. admitting demand and acceptance of bribe, was given emphasis by the Special Court to find the demand. As pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the accused/appellant, the statement made by the accused to a police officer during the course of investigation of the case, is inadmissible in evidence in view of the taboo contained in Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 equivalent to Section 181 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and also under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 pari materia to Sections 31 and 32 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Therefore, the learned Special Judge went wrong in giving emphasis to the said statement as a piece of evidence to find the demand. Similarly, it is equally well settled that merely because a reverse burden is cast upon the accused, that by itself takes away the duty of the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubts and the reverse burden would be operative only when primary burden cast upon the prosecution is discharged. On evaluation of the evidence in the context of the discussion made hereinabove, in the instant case, insofar as the demand for bribe by the accused and consequential acceptance of Rs.500/- on 15.02.2003 by the accused are concerned, no direct evidence is forthcoming, since PW2 turned hostile to the prosecution. 22. Coming to the other evidence also, the same would not justify the demand contemplated under Section s 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. Thus, the Special Court went wrong in holding that the prosecution successfully proved the ingredients for the offences and entered into conviction. It is for these reasons, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court without support of sufficient evidence are liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to succeed. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The verdict under challenge stands set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted for the offences under Section s 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and he is set at liberty forthwith. The bail bond stands cancelled.