JUDGMENT : A. Badharudeen, J. The sole accused in C.C.No.23 of 2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Kozhikode, has filed this Criminal Appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him in the above case as per the judgment dated 31.01.2017. State of Kerala is the respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the VACB. Scrutinised the verdict under challenge and the evidence available. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused while working as Village Officer, Pandikkad Village Office and was serving as a public servant demanded Rs.1,000/- from PW4, Sri V.P.Shibu at 2.30 p.m as a motive for issuing possession certificates in respect of the property owned by the mother of PW4 in Pandikkad Village. Thereafter trap was arranged and as on 09.01.2006 at 2.30 p.m the accused demanded and accepted bribe. On this premise prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act, 1988’ for short), by the accused/appellant. 4. On completion of the investigation, final report was filed by the Special Court and the Special Court took cognizance of the offences. Thereafter on complying pre trial formalities, the learned Special Judge tried the matter. During trial, PW1 to PW14 were examined, Exts.P1 to P28 and M.O1 to M.O6 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Ext.D1 contradiction was marked through PW4 and also DW1 was examined on the side of the defence. 5. On analysis of the evidence tendered, the learned Special Judge found that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 and accordingly he was sentenced as under: a) He shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and, in default of payment of the fine, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988. b) He shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and, in default of payment of the fine, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. c) The substantial sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. b) He shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and, in default of payment of the fine, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. c) The substantial sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. d) Set off is allowed under Section 428 Cr.P.C. e) MO1 series currency notes are confiscated. Deposit those currency notes in government account after the expiry of appeal period. MOs.2 to 6 shall be destroyed, after the expiry of appeal period, being useless and valueless. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused vehemently canvassed that in the instant case the evidence of PW4, who is the complainant, was given emphasis by the prosecution to find the twin ingredients viz., demand and acceptance of bribe, by the accused as alleged by the prosecution at 2.30 p.m on 09.01.06. for the purpose of issuance of possession certificates in respect of the property owned by the mother of PW4, who was examined as PW5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, on scrutiny of the evidence of PW4, he did not support demand of bribe by the accused and in fact he has turned hostile to 5 the prosecution. 7. According to the learned counsel for the accused, even though the evidence of PW7, the decoy witness who had accompanied the trap team, as well as PW12, the Inspector who had assisted the Deputy Superintendent of Police in arranging the trap on 09.01.2006, was adduced by the prosecution to prove the pre as well as post trap proceedings, their evidence in no way would indicate that the accused had demanded the bribe. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the ingredients for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 and thus the Special Court went wrong in convicting and sentencing the accused on finding commission of the said offences. Thus the learned counsel for the accused pressed for interference in the conviction and sentence and to record acquittal of the accused. In this connection the learned counsel for the accused placed decision of this Court reported in [2025 KHC OnLine 1041 : 2025 KER 72111] , Abdul Rasheed K.A v. State of Kerala , with reference to paragraphs 20 and 21. In this connection the learned counsel for the accused placed decision of this Court reported in [2025 KHC OnLine 1041 : 2025 KER 72111] , Abdul Rasheed K.A v. State of Kerala , with reference to paragraphs 20 and 21. Paragraph 21 is relevant and the same is extracted as under: 21. In the instant case, as already pointed out, PW1, the complainant, who was examined to prove the demand of illegal 6 gratification of the accused, turned hostile to the prosecution and during cross examination of him by the learned legal advisor for the prosecution, he had inconsistent versions. During cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused, he had denied the demand of bribe by the accused as on 13/07/2009 and 20/07/2009, though M.O1 note were recovered from the possession of the accused. Thus the available evidence is either not sufficient or reliable to hold that the prosecution succeeded in establishing the necessary ingredients to prove the offences under S.7 as well as under S.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, particularly, the demand. In view of the matter, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court are liable to be interfered and set aside. Accordingly, I do so. 8. Similarly another decision of this Court reported in [2025 KHC OnLine 1104 : 2025 KER 79721 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3221], Asokan V.P v. State of Kerala , also has been placed with reference to paragraphs 17, wherein this Court held as under: 17. Adverting to the evidence available in this case, it is to be noted that, as per the statutory requirement, in order to sustain a prosecution alleging commission of offences punishable under S.7 as well as under S.13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, the demand and acceptance of bribe or illegal gratification - the twin ingredients must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, since PW1, who was examined by the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused, did not support the prosecution in the matter of demand, and no other evidence is available to see the demand, it is held that the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed offences punishable under S.7 and S.13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of the PC 7 Act, 1988, without proving the necessary ingredients. Therefore, the conviction and sentence are liable to be interfered with and set aside. 9. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that as per the ratio in [ (2023) 4 SCC 731 ], Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) , the Apex Court found that there is no apparent conflict in between the three-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court reported in [ (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543], B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P ; [ (2015) 10 SCC 152 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 11], P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P and [ 2001 (1) SCC 691 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 258], M.Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P , with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for the offences under Sections 7 or 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act, 1988, and in this case the Special Judge relied on P.Satyanarayana Murthy (supra) to find that, in the absence of the complainant to give evidence in support of the prosecution regarding demand and acceptance, the attending circumstances, inclusive of the evidence of the trap witnesses, sufficiently proved the demand of bribe by accused. Therefore, the conviction and sentence are liable to be confirmed. 10. Addressing the arguments advanced, the following questions arise for consideration: (i) Whether the finding of the Special Court that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C Act, 1988 is justifiable? (ii) Whether the finding of the Special Court is right in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C Act, 1988? (iii) Whether the verdict under challenge would require interference? (iv) The order to be passed? Points (i) to (iv) 11. First of all I am inclined to address the ingredients to attract offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. (iii) Whether the verdict under challenge would require interference? (iv) The order to be passed? Points (i) to (iv) 11. First of all I am inclined to address the ingredients to attract offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. In this connection, it is relevant to refer a 5 Bench decision of the Apex Court in [ AIR 2023 SC 330 ], Neeraj Dutta Vs State , where the Apex Court considered when the demand and acceptance under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 to be said to be proved along with ingredients for the 9 offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and in paragraph 68 it has been held as under : "68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under: (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind: (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded 10 gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. (f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or 11 is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. (g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) and (ii) of the Act. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.” 12. Thus the legal position as regards to the essentials under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the P.C Act, 1988 is extracted above. Regarding the mode of proof of demand of bribe, if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there 12 need not be a prior demand by the public servant. In such a case, there 12 need not be a prior demand by the public servant. The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. The mode of proof of demand and acceptance is either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. 13. In this context, it is relevant to refer the decision of this Court in Sunil Kumar K. v. State of Kerala reported in [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 . 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. 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 14 otherwise, proof of demand is sine qua non for the offences to be established under Sections 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.” 14. In this case on scrutiny of the evidence of PW4, it is emphatically clear that he supported lodging of complaint against the accused on 09.01.2006. He deposed that he was working as a parallel college teacher. Accused was working as Village Officer, Pandikkad. On 06-01-2006, he had lodged a complaint against the accused before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Malappuram. His version further is that his mother Khadeeja would own 59 cents of property in Pandikkad Village. He deposed that he was working as a parallel college teacher. Accused was working as Village Officer, Pandikkad. On 06-01-2006, he had lodged a complaint against the accused before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Malappuram. His version further is that his mother Khadeeja would own 59 cents of property in Pandikkad Village. It was necessary to produce possession certificate to get electricity connection to a shed constructed in the said property. His father Muhammedali (PW6) went to the Village Office on 05-01-2006. As the Village Officer was on leave on that day, his father could not meet the Village Officer. His father again went to the Village Office on 06-01-2006 and met the accused. As his father had not taken necessary documents with him, the accused asked his father to send 15 any one of his children to the Village Office. As sought by his father, on 06-01-2006 after 2 P.M, he went to the Village Office. When he reached the Village Office, the accused was not present there. He enquired about possession certificate with a person found there, and in turn he told that there was an issue of Rs.1,000/-. Then, he returned home and informed his father that there was an issue of Rs.1,000/-. He never contacted the accused before 06-01-2006 for the purpose of getting possession certificate. Accused had not demanded bribe from him on 06-01-2006. He lodged a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 06-01-2006 because of misunderstanding. PW4 was declared hostile and the Public Prosecutor/Additional Legal Adviser was given permission under Sections 154 of the Evidence Act and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to put questions. During such questioning, PW4 admitted that he signed Ext.P4 after writing the words 'statement read over'. He had put signature just below the above endorsement writing date 09-01-2006. He was fluent in English and Malayalam. He signed column No.13 of Ext.P4 FIR. He had worked in a gulf country for a short period. He had visited Pandikkad Village Office on many days about one year prior to 06-01-2006 in 16 connection with a matter relating to his father's brothers, Majeed and Mohammed Musthafa. When he had visited Village Office, Pandikkad earlier, the accused had been working there as Village Officer. He had worked in a gulf country for a short period. He had visited Pandikkad Village Office on many days about one year prior to 06-01-2006 in 16 connection with a matter relating to his father's brothers, Majeed and Mohammed Musthafa. When he had visited Village Office, Pandikkad earlier, the accused had been working there as Village Officer. He had visited Village Office earlier for getting Village Officer's signature in land relinquishment applications for surrendering land for the formation of Pandikkad Bye-pass. When he had visited Village Office one year ago, accused did not ask him to give a mobile phone. He and Abdurahiman went to the accused's house for clearing a doubt regarding one property. On seeing his mobile phone, accused had asked him to arrange a Similar mobile phone for him. Mobile phone used by him was worth Rs.4,000/-. Abdurahiman was doing business in foreign goods. He denied the suggestion that the accused demanded mobile phone when he went to the Village Office. On 05-01-2006, his father had entrusted applications to the Village Assistant. 15. PW4 testified further that he could not reach Vigilance Office on 09-01-2006 at 10 A.M. On 06-01-2006, he had entrusted Rs.1,000/- to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was incorrect to say that he had entrusted two currency notes of Rs.500/- to the Vigilance Deputy 17 Superintendent of Police on 09-01-2006. ?? entrusted Rs.1,000/- to the Deputy Superintendent of Police for giving to the Village Officer. He assumed that Rs.1,000/- was demanded as bribe when an officer informed him that there was an issue of Rs.1,000/-. He did not ask the officer what was the pending issue. It was true that he had lodged a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police as he was unwilling to give bribe. There were gazetted officers at the office of the Vigilance Deputy Superintendent of Police. He does not remember whether the Deputy Superintendent of Police had mutually introduced him and the gazetted officers. He did not remember whether he had given Exts.P5 to P5(g), P11 and D1 statements to the Investigating Officer. He had signed Ext.P6 seizure and entrustment mahazar with date 09-01-2006. MO1 series were the currency notes kept by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in his shirt's pocket for giving to the Village Officer. Deputy Superintendent of Police had demonstrated Phenolphthalein test through a policeman. He had signed Ext.P6 seizure and entrustment mahazar with date 09-01-2006. MO1 series were the currency notes kept by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in his shirt's pocket for giving to the Village Officer. Deputy Superintendent of Police had demonstrated Phenolphthalein test through a policeman. Phenolphthalein test had been demonstrated using a currency note of Rs.10/-. He had not seen the vigilance police smearing phenolphthalein powder on MO1 series notes before putting them in his pocket. Deputy 18 Superintendent of Police had given instruction to him that MO1 series currency notes need be given to the accused only on demand. He did not remember whether the Deputy Superintendent of Police had given instruction to give signal if the accused accepted MO1 currency notes. He along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police and gazetted officers left the vigilance office by 1.30 P.M. They reached near village office by 2.05 P.M and stopped their vehicle on the road margin. 16. He deposed further that the Deputy Superintendent of Police had sent him to the Village Office. When he reached the Village Office, accused was sitting in his office chair. When he asked the accused about possession certificate, accused demanded the title deed and tax receipt. He handed over title deed and tax receipt to the accused. Thereafter, accused signed certificates and delivered them to him. Then, he took MO1 series currency notes from his pocket and kept on the office table of the accused. Thereafter, he told the accused that this was the money demanded from the office. Then accused replied that he had not demanded money. Accused further stated that the officer had informed him about the money involved in mobile phone transaction. He stated to 19 the accused that he had already entrusted the money to Abdurahiman on that day itself. Then, accused told that he did not want money and moved forward the notes with his hands. He came out of the office. While he was standing on the village office veranda, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and party came there. He gave Exts.P7 and P8 certificates to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on that day itself while standing near the village office. Ext.P9 mahazar bore his signature. According to him, Exts.P10 and P10(a) were the applications signed by his mother and submitted by him for obtaining possession certificates. He gave Exts.P7 and P8 certificates to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on that day itself while standing near the village office. Ext.P9 mahazar bore his signature. According to him, Exts.P10 and P10(a) were the applications signed by his mother and submitted by him for obtaining possession certificates. On 09-01-2006, accused had affixed seal and put signature in Exts.P7 and P8. He had not seen the accused inspecting the site before issuing Exts.P7 and P8 certificates. He realized his mistake when the accused told him that the officer had informed him about the amount involved in mobile phone transaction. He had not taken documents to the Village Office on 06-01- 2006. He went to the Vigilance Office on 06-01-2006 along with his parents. On 06-01-2006, they had narrated the entire facts. Village Officials had orally instructed him to stop the construction of workshop when some persons raised allegation that the workshop was being 20 constructed on converted paddy land. His specific version is that the accused had never asked him to give a mobile phone free of cost. He had signed three or four papers when he went to the Vigilance Office on 06- 01-2006. When he lodged complaint on 06-01-2006, he had not stated to the Vigilance Police that the accused demanded money. 17. Apart from the evidence of PW4, PW5 the mother of PW4, who owned the property, and PW6 the father of PW4 were also examined. PW7 was a member of the trap party and he had given evidence that on 09-01-2006 at 12.00 Noon, as instructed by the Principal, he reached Vigilance Office, Malappuram. When he reached the vigilance office, CW2 Jose George was also present there. PW4 Shibu was present in the room of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. When he and Jose George entered that room, the Deputy Superintendent of Police mutually introduced them and PW4. Deputy Superintendent of Police read over to them the statement given by PW4. PW4 narrated his complaint to them. PW4 told them that the Village Officer, Pandikkad demanded Rs.1,000/- as bribe for issuing possession certificate and he had lodged the complaint before the vigilance police because he was not willing to give bribe. 18. The Deputy Superintendent of Police asked PW4 whether he had brought money for giving to the Village Officer. PW4 narrated his complaint to them. PW4 told them that the Village Officer, Pandikkad demanded Rs.1,000/- as bribe for issuing possession certificate and he had lodged the complaint before the vigilance police because he was not willing to give bribe. 18. The Deputy Superintendent of Police asked PW4 whether he had brought money for giving to the Village Officer. PW4 handed over 2 currency notes of Rs.500/- to the Dy.S.P. The Dy.S.P took those currency notes into custody after recording the serial numbers of the notes in the mahazar and writing identification number 5' on the water marks of those notes. MO1 and MO1(a) are the currency notes handed over by PW4 and seized by the Dy.S.P. The Dy.S.P took them to another room and he had demonstrated Phenolphthalein test through a Policeman. When Policeman dipped his hand in the solution, there was no colour change to the solution. Thereafter, the Policeman dipped his right hand in the solution after coating phenolphthalein powder on a Rs.10/- currency note. The solution turned to pink. The Dy.S.P collected pink coloured solution in a bottle and took that bottle into custody after sealing and labelling. MO2 was the bottle containing pink coloured solution. As instructed by the Dy.S.P, Policeman smeared phenolphthalein powder on MO1 and MO1(a) currency notes and put those notes in the pocket of PW4. The Dy.S.P gave specific instruction that the currency notes to be given to the Village Officer only on demand. Further instruction was given 22 to give signal to the Dy.S.P by combing his hair with hands if currency notes were accepted by the Village Officer. 19. His further version is that then he along with the trap team proceeded to village office, Pandikkad from Vigilance Office at about 1.30 P.M in 2 vehicles. Around 2.05 P.M, they reached near the Village Office, Pandikkad. Dy.S.P sent PW7 and PW4 to the village office. PW4 Shibu went to the office room of the Village Officer. He stood on the veranda observing the incidents happening in village officer's room. He saw PW4 and Village Officer making conversation. He identified the Village Officer as the accused at the dock. PW4 handed over something to the accused after having conversation and accused took a seal and affixed it in documents and handed over the documents to PW4. He stood on the veranda observing the incidents happening in village officer's room. He saw PW4 and Village Officer making conversation. He identified the Village Officer as the accused at the dock. PW4 handed over something to the accused after having conversation and accused took a seal and affixed it in documents and handed over the documents to PW4. Thereafter, PW4 came out of the office and gave signal by combing his hair with hands. On getting signal, he entered the veranda and asked PW4 whether the accused received money. PW4 gave a positive reply. 20. He added that the Deputy Superintendent of Police and his party came to the Village Office. PW4 was standing on the Veranda of the Village Office. PW4 told the Dy.S.P that the accused received money 23 and put it in his shirt's pocket and issued possession certificate. Deputy Superintendent of Police and party rushed to the room of the accused. Accused was sitting in his room. The Deputy Superintendent of Police introduced him and his party members to the accused. Thereafter, the Dy.S.P asked the accused whether he had accepted bribe from PW4 Shibu. Accused got perplexed and replied that he had received money from PW4. When questioned by the Dy.S.P, accused stated his name as Sathyanathan. Accused rose from his seat and rubbed his hands on the drawer of the table. When asked about the bribe money, accused replied that it was kept in his pocket. After conducting body search, they dipped their hands in a solution taken in a glass. There was no colour change to the solution. MO3 bottle contains the solution which remained colourless when they dipped their hands. When the Dy.S.P asked whether the accused had demanded money earlier from PW4, accused answered that he had demanded money earlier but he never thought that PW4 would cheat him. When the Dy.S.P asked the accused by which hand he had received bribe, accused replied that he had received money with right hand. When the right hand of the accused was dipped in the solution taken in another glass, the solution and 24 the hand turned to pink. The pink coloured solution was collected in a bottle and taken into custody after sealing and labelling. MO4 was the bottle containing pink coloured solution. The Dy.S.P arrested the accused by preparing Ext.P13 arrest memo. 21. The pink coloured solution was collected in a bottle and taken into custody after sealing and labelling. MO4 was the bottle containing pink coloured solution. The Dy.S.P arrested the accused by preparing Ext.P13 arrest memo. 21. PW7 testified further that when Jose George(CW2) checked accused's pocket as sought by the Dy.S.P, MO1 and MO1(a) currency notes were seen in the pocket. On verification, they got convinced that the currency notes found in the pocket were the currency notes handed over to PW4 from the Vigilance Office. When MO1 series currency notes were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, sunken portion of the notes and the solution turned pink. The solution was collected in a bottle, which was sealed and labelled. MO5 was the said bottle. Ext.P14 was the white paper which contains specimen impressions of the seal used for sealing the bottles containing sodium carbonate solution. The Dy.S.P seized Exts.P10 and P10(a) applications and Ext.P15 attendance register of Pandikkad Village Office preparing Ext.P17 seizure mahazar. The Dy.S.P prepared Ext.P16 recovery mahazar narrating the events that happened in the Village Office. They left village office along with the accused by 4.00 25 P.M and searched the house of the accused. Ext.P18 was the search list prepared by the vigilance police when conducted search in the house of the accused. They returned to vigilance office around 5.00P.M. After giving another shirt to the accused, Dy.S.P took the shirt worn by the accused by preparing Ext.P19 Seizure Mahazar. MO6 was the shirt which worn by the accused at the time of trap. When Sodium Carbonate Solution was sprayed on the pocket of MO6 shirt, there was slight colour change. At about 5.30 P.M, PW4 Shibu handed over Exts.P7 and P8 possession certificates to the Dy.S.P. Ext.P6 was the entrustment mahazar. The Dy.S.P recorded his statement on that day itself. 22. PW11 the Dy.S.P also supported the pre as well as the post trap proceedings in tune with the statement of PW7. 23. Since it is settled law as discussed herein above and in the two decisions Asokan V.P v. State of Kerala (supra) and Abdul Rasheed K.A v. State of Kerala (supra) following the ratio in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (supra) that demand and acceptance are the twin ingredients to prove commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C Act, 1988. In the instant case, no convincing evidence forthcoming to find demand of bribe by the accused as PW4 did not support demand during his examination. If the attending circumstances altogether are considered, then also it could not be found beyond reasonable doubt that there was demand by the accused while accepting MO1 series of currency notes as deposed by PW4, though the same were recovered from the accused. Since the demand of bribe by the accused is failed to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the only conclusion to be arrived at is that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of demand in this case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused deserves acquittal by enlarging benefit of doubt. In such view of the matter, the Special Court went wrong in finding that the appellant committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C Act, 1988. Therefore, the verdict require interference. 24. In the result, this appeal succeeds. Accordingly the Appeal is allowed and the verdict under challenge is set aside. The appellant is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and he is set at liberty forthwith. His bail bond stands cancelled. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, for information and compliance.