JUDGMENT : 1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 01.12.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases No.1, Udaipur, in Special Sessions Case No.05/2011 (CIS No.55/2014) by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo one year SI along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Baleshwar lodged a report before the Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB Banswara stating inter-alia that he applied for sanction of personal loan before the Bank of Baroda, Branch Paloda, Banswara in the month of August, 2009, where Shri B.L. Meena was posted as Manager and for sanction of Rs.1 lac personal loan, he demanded Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification. The complainant also talked to the Bank clerk Ramniwas (present appellant), who also demanded the same amount. Upon this complaint, verification of demand was got done on 10.09.2009 from the appellant and on 11.09.2009 from Babu Lal Meena, co-accused. Thereafter, on 14.09.2009, a trap was arranged and the graft money of Rs.3,000/- was recovered from the drawer of the table of co- accused B.L. Meena. The co-accused explained to the trap officers that the said amount was given by the complainant towards processnig fee. However, no recovery was made from the present appellant during the trap and he was implicated in this case on the basis of alleged demand. 3. After thorough investigation, challan was filed against the appellant as well as co-accused Babulal. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13(2) of PC Act and Section 120B IPC. The accused persons including the appellant denied the same and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons including the appellant were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no witness was examined, but certain documents were exhibited by the accused persons. 5. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons including the appellant were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no witness was examined, but certain documents were exhibited by the accused persons. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 01.12.2023 convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 7 of PC Act and co-accused Babu Lal for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)/13(2) of PC Act. Hence, this criminal appeal on behalf of the appellant against his conviction. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case, the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 7 of PC Act and not for offence under Section 13 of the Act. Counsel submits that the only basis of conviction of the appellant is the alleged transcription report (Ex-P/2). From the bare perusal of the fard transcription, it is apparent that no work was pending with the appellant and no specific demand was raised by the appellant for any work. Counsel submits that even the alleged recovery of Rs.3,000/- was made from co-accused Babulal and not from the present appellant. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that any offence was committed by the appellant under Section 7 of the Act, more particularly when neither the appellant was authorized to sanction the loan, nor any work was pending with him, nor any demand was raised by him, nor any amount was accepted by him. But all these aspects of the matter were not taken into consideration by the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment and wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 7 of the Act. Counsel further submits that the criminal appeal i.e. SB Cr. Appeal No.2556/2023, filed by the main accused Babu Lal, from whom recovery of Rs.3,000/- was made, has already been allowed by this Court vide order dated 16.08.2024 while setting aside his conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal of the appellant may kindly be allowed. 7. Learned AAG appearing for the State submits that the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentence the appellant under Section 7 of the Act as there is ample evidence against him for commission of the offence. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal of the appellant may kindly be allowed. 7. Learned AAG appearing for the State submits that the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentence the appellant under Section 7 of the Act as there is ample evidence against him for commission of the offence. The impugned judgment is just and proper and does not warrant any interference from this Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as evidence on record including the judgment dated 16.08.2024 passed by this Court in SB Cr. Appeal No.2556/2023 filed by co-accused Babulal. 8. In the first instance, it is deemed appropriate to reproduce Section 7 of the Act for easy reference: “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. 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. (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.” 9. The twin conditions i.e. 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 section 7 of the Act. In order to bring the accused to book, the prosecution has to prove the demand of ‘illegal gratification’ and its ‘subsequent acceptance’either by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. In the case at hand, the demand of illegal gratification was not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. 10. It is not disputed that upon complaint made by the complainant, a trap was conducted and during the trap, the trap money was recovered from the drawer of co-accused Babu Lal. It is also not disputed that present appellant Ramniwas was a clerk in the Bank who had neither any authority to sanction the loan nor the work of loan sanction was pending before him. 11. In the case of Imamsab Moulasab Toragal Vs. The State of Karnataka in (Criminal Appeal No. 2553/2013), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the earlier judgment in A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 507, wherein it was observed and held that in order to secure order of conviction of offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(D)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:- 1. Demand and acceptance of bribe money. 2. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 507, wherein it was observed and held that in order to secure order of conviction of offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(D)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:- 1. Demand and acceptance of bribe money. 2. Handling of tainted money by the accused on the day of trap (colour test). 3. Work of the complainant must be pending as on the date of trap with the accused. 12. In Chandresha Vs. State of Karnataka Lokayukt Police Kalburgi in Criminal Appeal No. 200105/2015 decided on 16.2.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the work of complainant is not pending before accused as on the date of trap the important ingredient to attract and complete the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be sustained. Identical view was expressed in Karnataka Vs. Narayanswamy in Criminal Appeal No. 2506/2012. 13. In the case of A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 507, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated in para 28 as follows :- "28. It needs no emphasis that the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt like any other criminal offence and the accused should be considered innocent till it is established otherwise by proper proof of demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification, the vital ingredient, necessary to be established to procure a conviction for the offences under consideration." 14. In Soundarajan Vs. State Rep. By the Inspector of Police Vigilance Anti Corruption Dindigul, AIR 2023 SC 2136 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated the law as follows:- "11..................To attract Section 7 of the PC Act, the demand for gratification has to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The word used in Section 7, as it existed before 26th July 2018, is 'gratification'. There has to be a demand for gratification. It is not a simple demand for money, but it has to be a demand for gratification. If the factum of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof is proved, then the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked, and the Court can presume that the demand must be as a motive or reward for doing any official act. This presumption can be rebutted by the accused." 15. If the factum of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof is proved, then the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked, and the Court can presume that the demand must be as a motive or reward for doing any official act. This presumption can be rebutted by the accused." 15. Evidently, the record reveals that no work of the complainant was pending with the present appellant, neither on the date of making of the complaint or on the date of managing trap, therefore, important ingredient of the offence is missing to the extent that any work was pending with the public servant. Recovery of each and every money on trap would not satisfy the requirement of gratification unless the money was being paid for discharge of official duty pending with the accused. 16. Besides the aforesaid, the main accused Babu Lal Meena, who was the Manager, before whom work was pending has already been acquitted by this Court. It was observed by the co-ordinate Bench that the complainant had, in a pre-planned manner, staged the trap to falsely implicate the appellant because the record reveals that entire Rs.80,000/- was already transferred to the bank account of the complainant as such no cash of huge amount of Rs.40,000/- was required to be paid to the complainant. The complainant was carrying a grudge and he had planted a case which has not been supported by any other prosecution witnesses especially the ACB Authorities that the complainant paid Rs.3000/- at the time of trap to the appellant and appellant handed over Rs.40,000/- of the loan amount, therefore, testimony of the complainant on question on demand cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstance narrated above. 17. In the present case, since the prosecution failed to produce any material to prove the demand of bribe, its acceptance on the part of appellant so also pendency of work on the date of trap, therefore, as a consequential corollary, the prosecution has failed to show that the appellant, with dishonest intention, committed any acts and obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. 18. Moving on to the concept of standard of legal proof, the well entrenched principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is required to be considered here. 19. 18. Moving on to the concept of standard of legal proof, the well entrenched principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is required to be considered here. 19. In Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: "The reiteration of the golden principle runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases has been done. It has further been held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of "may be" true but has to upgrade it in the domain of "must be" true in order to steer clear of any possible surmises or conjectures. Thus, on the material on record when judged on the touch stone of legal principles adumbrated hereinabove, leave no manner of doubt that the prosecution, in the instant case, has failed to prove unequivocally, the demand of illegal gratification." 20. The sum and substance of the above reasonings go to show that there is no acceptable or clinching evidence proving that appellant, with dishonest intention, committed any acts and obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. 21. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 01.12.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases No.1, Udaipur, in Special Sessions Case No.05/2011 (CIS No.55/2014) is set aside and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the offences by extending benefit of doubt. Appellant is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds are discharged. 22. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. the accused appellant is directed to forthwith furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court within a period of one month, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon’ble Supreme Court.