Order : GANESH RAM MEENA, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the accused petitioner under section 528 of the BNSS with the prayer to quash the FIR No. 0140/2022 dated 25.04.2022 registered at Police Station CPS, ACB, Jaipur, District ACB O.P. Alwar-I, for the offences punishable under sections 7, 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act of 2018 (for short ‘the amendment Act of 2018’) and 120B IPC, the charge-sheet No.188/2022 dated 15.06.2022 submitted by the ACB before the competent Court and further the criminal Misc. Case No./00000010/2024 pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Alwar (Raj.). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.04.2022 complainant Iqbal Singh, who is Power of Attorney Holder for KCC Buildcon Private Limited (for short ‘the Company’) submitted a complaint before the Addl. Superintendent of Police, ACB, Alwar with the averments that he is looking after the road construction work for the company as regards Delhi-Badodra Expressway Green Field. It has been further stated in the complaint that the District Collector, Alwar, Nannu Mal Pahadia (petitioner) and the Land Settlement Officer Mr. Ashok Sankhla are demanding the bribe on monthly basis for smooth construction work of road. It is also stated that the District Collector, Alwar Mr. Pahadia is demanding Rs.4 lakh per month as a bribe and Mr. Ashok Sankhla is demanding Rs.50,000/- per month as a bribe and have said that the Company has not paid the money for the last four months for the period i.e. November 2021 to February 2022 and they are making pressure upon him to make the payment. It is also stated that now he does not want to give them bribe and want that they be caught red handed. It is also stated that now he does not want to give them bribe and want that they be caught red handed. The contents of the complaint made by the complainant are quoted as under:- ^mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr esjk fuosnu gS fd us'kuy gkbos u- 148 N fnYyh& oMksnjk ,Dlizsl os xzhuQhYM lM+d fuekZ.k dk dk;Z gekjh dEiuh ds lhlh fcYMdkWu izk- fy- }kjk fd;k tk jgk gSA ftlesa eSa bdcky flag dEiuh }kjk dk;Z djus dk ikoj vkWQ vVksuhZ gksYMj gw?A lM+d fuekZ.k ls lEcaf/kr foHkkxksa dk dk;Z ns[k jgk gw?A bl dk;Z dks lqpk# :i ls fuckZ/k pyus nsus dh ,ot esa ftyk dyDVj vyoj Jheku uUuwey igkfM+;k vkSj Hkw&izca/k vf/kdkjh Jheku v'kksd lka[kyk th eq>ls izfrekg dh fj'or ekaxrs gSaA ftyk dyDVj igkfM+;k th 4¼pkj½ yk[k :i;s eUFkyh crkSj fj'or rFkk v'kksd lka[kyk th 50¼ipkl½ gtkj :i;s eUFkyh crkSj fj'or ekaxrs gSaA vkSj vc dg jgs gSa fd vkidks uoEcj 2021 ls Qjojh 2022 rd ds 4 ekg ds vius&vius eUFkyh ds iSls crkSj fj'or ds :i esa ekax jgs gS vkSj esjs Åij eUFkyh nsus dk ncko cuk jgs gSaA blds vykok gekjs fudV xzke ek.kdh rglhy jkex<+ ftyk vyoj esa LFkkfir LVksu ?S'kj dk;Z esa Hkh lg;ksx djus ,oa iz'kklfud vM+pu ugha Mkyus ds cnys esa nksuksa gh vf/kdkjh fj'or ekax jgs gSaA eSa bu nksuksa vf/kdkfj;ksa dks eUFkyh@fj'or ugha nsdj bUgsa esjs ls eUFkyh@fj'or ysrs gq;s jaxs gkFkksa idMokuk pkgrk gw?A esjh buls dksbZ jaft'k ugha gS vkSj uk gh dkbZ m/kkj ;k ysu&nsu ckdh gSA d`i;k dk;Zokgh djkus dk Je iznku djkosA** On the aforesaid complaint, the ACB started the proceedings for making verification of the demand and to trap the accused. The trap proceedings were conducted and some amount as an alleged bribe is said to have been recovered from the Scooty of one Nitin Sharma, alleged to be the aid of the accused petitioner. N 3. On the basis of the complaint and the trap proceedings, the FIR No. 0140/2022 dated 25.04.2022 was registered at Police Station CPS, ACB, Jaipur, District ACB O.P. Alwar-I, for the offences punishable under sections 7, 7A of the Act of 2018 and section 120B IPC. 4. In the said case the accused petitioner was arrested and after completion of investigation the police submitted the Final Report (charge-sheet). 4. In the said case the accused petitioner was arrested and after completion of investigation the police submitted the Final Report (charge-sheet). The accused was enlarged on bail and presently the matter is pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Alwar after filing of the charge-sheet No.188/2022 dated 15.06.2022 for the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act of 2018 read with section 120B IPC. 5. From the contents of the complaint and the investigation report it is revealed that the case of the prosecution is that the complainant Iqbal Singh, Power of Attorney Holder of the Company looking after the construction of road work of the National High Way No.148-N made the complaint that for smooth construction work of the road, the accused petitioner is demanding Rs.4 lakh per month and the other accused Mr. Ashok Sankhla is demanding Rs.50,000/- per month as a bribe. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submitted that on the day when the complaint was made the accused petitioner was not posted as District Collector, Alwar and no work of the complainant party of any nature was pending before him. He further submitted that the road construction work being carried on by the Company of which the complainant is the Power of Attorney Holder, was not under the supervision of the accused petitioner. He further submitted that no money of alleged bribe has been recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner. The alleged bribe was recovered from the driver of the co-accused Mr. Ashok Sankhla. Counsel also submitted that there is no reliable evidence as regards the demand of bribe and the alleged money was said to have been given to Mr. Ashok Sankhla and without there being any cogent evidence, the accused petitioner is being connected with the alleged bribe money saying that Mr. Ashok Sankhla has accepted the money for the accused petitioner. Counsel has also submitted that the complainant is only a Power of Attorney Holder for the Company and as regards the payment of any amount in the earlier period to the petitioner as has been alleged in the complaint, no any statements of any person of the Company has been recorded so as to verify the allegations. Counsel has also submitted that the complainant is only a Power of Attorney Holder for the Company and as regards the payment of any amount in the earlier period to the petitioner as has been alleged in the complaint, no any statements of any person of the Company has been recorded so as to verify the allegations. Counsel also submitted that there is no iota of evidence as regards the payment of bribe reveals from the transcript of conversation between the accused petitioner and the complainant. He further submitted that there is nothing on the record as regards any kind of conversation with the petitioner of co-accused Mr. Ashok Sankhla. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are certain transcripts of the conversation in between the accused petitioner and the complainant which speak of the demand of bribe made by the accused petitioner. He further submitted that the trap proceedings were concluded successfully and certain amount was recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner with the aid of co-accused Ashok Sankhla who is said to have received the bribe for the accused petitioner. He further submitted that the transcripts of the conversation are there on record which will verify the fact of demand of bribe by the accused petitioner. 8. Heard and considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the accused petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the material placed before the Court including the complaint and the charge-sheet. 9. The ACB after completion of the investigation has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused petitioner for the offence punishable under section 7 of the amendment Act of 2018 read with section 120B IPC. Chapter III of the amendment Act of 2018 deals with the offences and penalties. Section 7 of the amendment Act of 2018 reads as under:- “7. 9. The ACB after completion of the investigation has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused petitioner for the offence punishable under section 7 of the amendment Act of 2018 read with section 120B IPC. Chapter III of the amendment Act of 2018 deals with the offences and penalties. Section 7 of the amendment Act of 2018 reads as under:- “7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed.- Any public servant who,— (a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or (b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or (c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation 1.—For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper. Illustration.—A public servant, ‘S’ asks a person, ‘P’ to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card application on time. 'S' is guilty of an offence under this section. Explanation 2.—For the purpose of this section,— (i) the expressions “obtains” or “accepts” or “attempts to obtain” shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or “accepts” or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means; (ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party.” 10. In the present case the complainant has submitted the complaint with the allegations that the accused petitioner is demanding Rs.4 lakh per month as a bribe for proceeding with the smooth construction of the road by the Company. So as to make verification of the demand, the complainant was given a tape recorder to record the conversation. The transcript of conversation on mobile in between the accused petitioner and the complainant has been placed on record. The Court has gone through the said transcripts filed along-with the charge-sheet and finds nothing specific as regards the demand of bribe by the accused petitioner. The transcript of conversation in between the complainant Iqbal Singh and the accused petitioner alleged to be at the residence of co-accused Mr. Ashok Sankhla has also been placed on record and from this transcript also nothing comes out that the accused petitioner had made a specific demand of bribe. 11. During the trap proceedings nothing has been recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner and no trap proceedings have been conducted as regards the accused petitioner. The alleged money as stated in the charge-sheet is said to have been recovered from the Scooty of one Nitin Sharma with the aid of co-accused Mr. Ashok Sankhla. 12. The other material facts need for consideration of this case are that the accused petitioner was transferred as District Collector & District Magistrate, Alwar and he joined on 01.12.2020 and vide order dated 13.04.2022 he was transferred from District Collector, Alwar to the post of the Commissioner of Departmental Inquiry, Government Secretariat, Jaipur and in pursuance to the said transfer order dated 13.04.2022 he was relieved from the post of District Collector, Alwar on 18.04.2022. The petitioner was relieved after 3-4 days of his transfer order because of certain gazette holidays in between. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2025 INSC 340 has observed in paras 16 and 17 as under:- “16. On an examination of the entire evidence, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt, the demand of bribe and its acceptance, in a trap laid by the trap team of the ACB. In that circumstance there is no question of a presumption under Section 20 arising in this case. On an examination of the entire evidence, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt, the demand of bribe and its acceptance, in a trap laid by the trap team of the ACB. In that circumstance there is no question of a presumption under Section 20 arising in this case. The conviction and sentence of the accused as brought out by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, hence, is set aside. The bail bonds, if any executed, by the accused, in these cases, shall stand cancelled. 17. Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed, acquitting the accused or reason of the prosecution having not established and proved the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” 14. After transfer order of the accused petitioner, certain news items were flashed in the daily newspapers as regards his transfer and relieving which has been placed on record by the accused petitioner, meaning-thereby, on the date i.e. on 22.04.2022 when the complainant has made the complaint as regards the alleged demand of bribe, the accused petitioner was not even remained posted as District Collector, Alwar and therefore, neither there was any occasion for the accused petitioner to make any demand nor the complainant was to fulfill that demand because he was already transferred from the post of District Collector, Alwar. In view of the aforesaid facts and on extensive scrutiny of material available on the record, the Court comes to the conclusion as under:- (i) There is no specific demand of bribe made by the accused petitioner; (ii) There is no evidence of acceptance of bribe by the accused petitioner; and (iii) No any kind of work was pending before the accused petitioner for which he could make the demand and accept and the complainant was to satisfy the demand. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 587 has observed as under:- “19. 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. 23. 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. 23. Mere recovery of currency notes (Rs. 20/- and Rs.5/-) denomination, in the facts of the present case, by itself cannot be held to be proper or sufficient proof of the demand and acceptance of bribe. When the evidence produced by the prosecution has neither quality nor credibility, it would be unsafe to rest conviction upon such evidence. It is true that the judgments of the courts below are rendered concurrently but having considered the matter thoughtfully, we find that the High Court as well as the Special Judge committed manifest errors on account of unwarranted inferences. The evidence on record in this case is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the appellant. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.” 16. Relying upon the judgment of A. Subair (supra), the Coordinate Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Rajesh Kumar Meel Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2024 (4) RLW2935 (Raj.) has observed as under:- “10 In A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2009) 6 SCC 507, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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, the prosecution has to establish 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 complainant must be pending as on the date of trap with the accused." 17. In another judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Lal Chand Aswal Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2020 (3)RLW 2295 (Raj.), it has been observed as under:- 24. Keeping in view the above, in Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 406 , the Supreme Court has held as under: "13. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2020 (3)RLW 2295 (Raj.), it has been observed as under:- 24. Keeping in view the above, in Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 406 , the Supreme Court has held as under: "13. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that "may be" proved, and something that "will be proved". In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between "may be" and "must be" is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between "may be" true and "must be" true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between "may be" true and "must be" true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. (Vide: Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of M.P., State v. Mahender Singh Dahiya, and Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P.." 18. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Lal Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.8406/2022)decided on 04.08.2023 has observed as under:- “6. Thus, it is evident that to attract the mischief of Section 7 of the Act, the act of demand etc. must have connection with the discharge of public duty by the public servant. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.8406/2022)decided on 04.08.2023 has observed as under:- “6. Thus, it is evident that to attract the mischief of Section 7 of the Act, the act of demand etc. must have connection with the discharge of public duty by the public servant. If the public servant has not been assigned with the public duty as claimed by the complainant, the offence under Section 7 of the Act would not be attracted. Likewise to attract the offence under Section 7A, there must be allegation of exercise of personal influence for performance/forbearance in improper and dishonest manner of public duty by some other public servant. The expression “public duty” implies that the public servant. The expression “public duty” implies that the public servant must be enjoined with the responsibility/duty to discharge in the matter alleged by the prosecutor.” 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023) 2 SCR 997 has observed as under:- “10. The Constitution Bench was called upon to decide the question which we have quoted earlier. In paragraph 74, the conclusions of the Constitution have been summarised, which read thus: “74. 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. 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. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded 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. 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. (f) In the event the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has died or 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 Criminal Appeal No.1669 of 2009 presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13(1)(d) (i) 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.” (emphasis added) 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dashrath Singh Chauhan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2010) decided on 09.10.2018 has observed as under: “29). The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dashrath Singh Chauhan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2010) decided on 09.10.2018 has observed as under: “29). It is for the reason that in order to prove a case against the appellant, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the twin requirement of “demand and the acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant”. As mentioned above, it was the case of the prosecution in the charge that the appellant did not accept the bribe money but the money was accepted and recovered from the possession of Rajinder Kumar–co accused (A-1). 30) In such circumstances, there is no evidence to prove that the appellant directly accepted the money from the Complainant. Since the plea of conspiracyagainst the appellant and Rajinder Kumar failed, itcannot be held that money (Rs.4000/-) recovered from the possession of Rajinder Kumar was as a fact the bribe money meant for the appellant for holding him guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It is more so when the benefit of such acquittal from the charge of conspiracy was given to Rajinder Kumar but was not given to the appellant. 32) Since in order to attract the rigors of Sections 7, 13(2) read 13(1)(d) of PC Act, the prosecution was under a legal obligation to prove the twin requirements of “demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused”, the proving of one alone but not the other was not sufficient. The appellant is, therefore, entitled for acquittal from the charges framed against him under the PC Act too. (See para 8 of M.K. Harshan vs. State of Kerala, (1996) 11 SCC 720 ).” 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N. Vijayakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Appeal Nos. 100-101 of 2021) [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 4729-4730 of 2020 decided on 03.02.2021 has observed as under:- “12. It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in the case of C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779 and in the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55 . Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in the case of C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779 and in the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55 . In the aforesaid judgments of this Court while considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court. The relevant paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment in the case of B. Jayaraj (supra) read as under : “7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. [ (2010) 15 SCC 1 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 89] and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI [ (2009) 3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1]. 8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext. P11) before LW 9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW 1 and the contents of Ext. P11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. 9. Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.” The above said view taken by this Court, fully supports the case of the appellant. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.” The above said view taken by this Court, fully supports the case of the appellant. In view of the contradictions noticed by us above in the depositions of key witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, we are of the view that the demand for and acceptance of bribe amount and cell phone by the appellant, is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Having regard to such evidence on record the acquittal recorded by the trial court is a “possible view” as such the judgment of the High Court is fit to be set aside. Before recording conviction under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, courts have to take utmost care in scanning the evidence. Once conviction is recorded under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, it casts a social stigma on the person in the society apart from serious consequences on the service rendered. At the same time it is also to be noted that whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view or not, there cannot be any definite proposition and each case has to be judged on its own merits, having regard to evidence on record.” 22. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and the evidence collected during the course of investigation, the prosecution could not come with concrete evidence as regards specific demand of bribe made by the accused petitioner. The complainant has also not come out with the specific evidence that the accused petitioner has ever made any demand of bribe from him nor the transcripts placed on record of the conversation in between the complainant and the accused petitioner disclose the fact of demand of bribe. After complaint the ACB conducted the trap proceedings but the petitioner was in no manner connected with the trap proceedings. As per the alleged trap proceedings the amount is said to have been recovered from the possession of the driver i.e. aid of co-accused Ashok Sankhla against whom there is also allegation of demand of bribe amount. After complaint the ACB conducted the trap proceedings but the petitioner was in no manner connected with the trap proceedings. As per the alleged trap proceedings the amount is said to have been recovered from the possession of the driver i.e. aid of co-accused Ashok Sankhla against whom there is also allegation of demand of bribe amount. Since the prosecution could not come out with any evidence that the accused petitioner and co-accused Ashok Sankhla were having any kind of conversation as regards the demand and acceptance of bribe, it would be a very difficult case or even impossible to convict the petitioner for the alleged offences on the basis of the evidence placed on record. 23. From the other material facts as stated in the above paras, it is very much clear that the accused petitioner in furtherance of his transfer order dated 13.04.2022 was relieved from the post of District Collector, Alwar on 18.04.2022. The complaint has been made against the accused petitioner on 22.04.2022 i.e. after his relieving from the post of District Collector, Alwar. In such circumstances there was no occasion for the complainant to fulfill any kind of demand, if at all made and in such circumstances the complaint against the accused petitioner is wholly misconceived and it seems that the allegations against the accused petitioner have been made so as to create sensibility and media trial being the petitioner a Senior IAS Officer. 24. To attract the provisions of section 7 of the P.C. Act, the prosecution has to come out with the concrete evidence that the accused has made demand or accepted undue advantage (bribe) for improper or dishonest performance of public duty, either himself or for another public servant. 25. The petitioner was transferred from the post of District Collector, Alwar vide order dated 13.04.2022 and was relieved on 18.04.2022. On the day the complaint was made i.e. on 22.04.2022 the petitioner was not holding the post of District Collector, Alwar. Hence, there was no work of the complainant party to be performed by the accused petitioner. 26. At one place the prosecution has stated that the petitioner assured the complainant to get his work done by his successor. But the successor is not made an accused and in such circumstances the petitioner alone cannot be prosecuted. 27. Hence, there was no work of the complainant party to be performed by the accused petitioner. 26. At one place the prosecution has stated that the petitioner assured the complainant to get his work done by his successor. But the successor is not made an accused and in such circumstances the petitioner alone cannot be prosecuted. 27. Even if whole prosecution story is believed to be correct for a moment then also the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for offence under the P.C. Act but at the most it can be a case of cheating. 28. In view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, as has been observed above and taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case including the evidence collected during the course of investigation, the prosecution has not been able to come out with the concrete evidence as regards the demand made by the accused petitioner, the acceptance of money by co-accused Mr. Ashok Sankhla for the petitioner and also that any kind of work was pending before the accused petitioner at the relevant time when the complaint was made for fulfilling such work. Hence, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner for offence under the P.C. Act is not sustainable. 29. The petitioner has also been charge-sheeted under section 120B IPC. The definition of ‘criminal conspiracy’ has been given in Section 120A IPC and punishment for the criminal conspiracy has been given in section 120B IPC. In the present case, the prosecution could not come out with any material to show that there was any prior meeting of mind of the accused petitioner with co-accused Mr. Ashok Sankhla as regards the alleged demand of bribe amount which could led to the prosecution of the accused petitioner for punishing him for the offence under section 120B IPC. When there is no material available on the record so as to prosecute the accused petitioner under section 7 of the amendment Act of 2018 and also no evidence to connect the accused petitioner with any kind of criminal conspiracy, continuing the criminal proceedings would be a futile exercise. 30. Now-a-days the Subordinate Courts are burdened with heavy workload and it is also a fact that the trial of many of the frivolous cases are going on. 30. Now-a-days the Subordinate Courts are burdened with heavy workload and it is also a fact that the trial of many of the frivolous cases are going on. The trial of the frivolous cases are affecting the trial of the genuine cases where there are sufficient evidence to have a prosecution against the accused therein. In the era of heavy workload in the Subordinate Courts, it would be the pious duty of the High Court to eliminate trial of such case which prima facie seems to be lacking the material evidence and not legally sound when the facts come before it by exercising inherent jurisdiction. In the present case after going through the material available on record including the charge-sheet, the Court feels that since there is no substantial evidence as regards the demand of bribe, acceptance of any money or the fact that no any work of the complainant was pending before the accused petitioner and thus in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in various judgments, as have been referred above, the Court feels that it would not be justified to continue the criminal proceedings of the criminal case qua the accused petitioner. 31. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors., reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489 has observed as under:- “In the, exercise of this. whole some power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the; ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to. achieve a salu- tary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the, ends of mere law though justice has got to be. administered according to laws made by the, legislature. The ends of justice are higher than the, ends of mere law though justice has got to be. administered according to laws made by the, legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and pur- pose of the provision which seeks to. save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its. subjects, it would be impossible. to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.” 32. One more fact has also been brought to the notice of the Court that the complainant in the present case has also lodged FIR No.16/2021 on 14.01.2021 and FIR No.17/2021 on 14.01.2021 against other officials also. If the Company is doing its work in a lawful or legal manner, there was no occasion for it to have any kind of connection with the officers until and unless some work is pending before such Officer. In the present case, the complainant has come out with the case that the accused petitioner and the co-accused Mr. Ashok Sankhla are demanding the bribe amount said to be due for the period of last four months. If this version of the complainant is accepted for a while then the complainant must be paying the amount to the accuseds prior to the alleged period. The complainant has not placed on record any statement of the Company which could reflect that the complainant or the company by any means were paying the money to the Officers. The Companies have to maintain their books of accounts of each penny of income and expenditure. Looking to the evidence and material available on the record and so also the fact that the complainant has also made complaints against other Officers with similar allegations, the possibility of foul play by complainant cannot be ruled out. The Officers cannot be made subjected such like prosecution without concrete evidence otherwise the persons like the complainant may put into the pressure the public servant/s to gain certain undue benefits. The evidence collected during investigation does not satisfy the basic ingredients to prosecute the petitioner for the alleged offences. 33. The Officers cannot be made subjected such like prosecution without concrete evidence otherwise the persons like the complainant may put into the pressure the public servant/s to gain certain undue benefits. The evidence collected during investigation does not satisfy the basic ingredients to prosecute the petitioner for the alleged offences. 33. In view of the discussion made above, the Court deems just and proper to exercise the inherent jurisdiction so as to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused petitioner which is lacking the cogent evidence, as has been discussed in the foregoing paras. 34. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings in Criminal Misc. Case No./00000010/2024 pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Alwar (Raj.) arising out of FIR No. 0140/2022 dated 25.04.2022 registered at Police Station CPS, ACB, Jaipur, District ACB O.P. Alwar-I, for the offences punishable under sections 7, 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act of 2018 and 120B IPC and criminal proceedings qua the accused petitioner are quashed and set aside. 35. Consequences to follow. 36. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of.