1 CRA No.161 of 2016 2025:CGHC:46585 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 161 of 2016 Dr. Rajendra Prasad Nayak S/o Late Mrityunjay Nayak Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Sankra, Police Station Basna, At Present Assistant Veterinary Surgeon, Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 11/09/2025 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30-01-2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Mahasamund, C.G. in Special Criminal Case No.3/2010, whereby the learned Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.09.18 14:51:23 +0530 2 CRA No.161 of 2016 Conviction Sentence Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act R.I. for 1 year and fine of ₹2,000/- with default stipulation Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act R.I. for 1 year and fine amount of ₹2,000/-, with default stipulation Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 1. (a) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.08.2006 the complainant, Shri Heeralal Yadav PW-7, resident of village Kasheebahara, District Mahasamund, lodged a written report at Anti-Corruption Bureau office, Raipur before the Superintendent of Police stating that on 03.08.2006, two of his cattle had died due to electric current from an electric wire. He had earlier lodged a complaint regarding this incident at Pithora Police Station. The postmortem of the cattle was conducted by Dr. R.P. Nayak/appellant. Dr. Nayak demanded a bribe of Rs. 500/- from the complainant in exchange for providing the postmortem report. The complainant immediately paid Rs. 250/- as part payment of the bribe. Dr. Nayak assured that the postmortem report would be sent to the police station only after the remaining Rs. 250/- was paid. The complainant was unwilling to pay the bribe and intended to catch the appellant red-handed. Therefore, he submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur. To proceed with action on the complaint, Inspector Shri A.K. Pathak PW-12 was directed to investigate the 3 CRA No.161 of 2016 matter. Inspector Pathak provided the complainant with a micro tape recorder for recording the bribe conversation, and a panchnama was prepared. On 05.08.2006, the complainant informed via telephone that he had recorded the bribery conversation. For further action, the matter was entrusted to Inspector Shri Sahdev Thakur PW-10. Under the lead of Deputy Superintendent of Police Hemant Kumar PW-6, a trap operation was organized. Upon writing a letter to the Collector of Raipur, two official witnesses namely; Shri C.L. Thakur, Assistant Registrar, and Shri S.L. Dhruv PW-2, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur, appeared at the ACB office on 05.08.2006. (b) The trap team completed all formalities before reaching the spot. Thereafter, the complainant and Constable Ekka proceeded ahead on a motorcycle, while the remaining members of the trap team traveled by Sumo vehicle towards the site of the incident. The complainant, Heeralal, went to the house of appellant and found that the appellant was not at home. After sometime, when the appellant arrived, the complainant entered the house of appellant. Later, the complainant stepped outside and gave the prearranged signal to offer the bribe. Upon receiving the signal, the members of the trap team reached the spot. The accused was seated on a sofa inside a room. The members of the trap team introduced themselves, and upon inquiry, the accused identified 4 CRA No.161 of 2016 himself as Dr. R.P. Nayak, Assistant Veterinary Surgeon, Pithora. He was holding the bribe money in his left hand, which he then dropped on the floor. Inspector Sain grabbed the accused’s left wrist, while Constable Ekka held his right wrist. Constable Alexander Ekka then prepared a solution of sodium carbonate powder in a clean glass. The solution was colorless. Except for the accused and the complainant, the trap team members dipped the fingers of both their hands into the solution and washed them; there was no change in the color of the solution. This solution was poured into a clean glass bottle and properly sealed. Constable Ekka prepared a solution of sodium carbonate powder in a clean glass. When the fingers of the appellant were dipped into this solution and washed, the solution turned pink in color. This solution was poured into a clean glass bottle and properly sealed. The complainant, presented a micro cassette tape recorder, the transcription of which was done in the presence of the complainant’s assistance and witnesses, and the cassette was seized. The accused had accepted a bribe and handed over the postmortem report of the dead cattle to the complainant, which the complainant produced. A seizure memo of the postmortem report was prepared. The sketch map of the crime scene was prepared by Patwari Rajkumar Sahu. (C) After completing the investigation, the appellant was arrested vide Ex.P.-24. Chemical testing of the seized solutions was 5 CRA No.161 of 2016 conducted, and the report was found to be positive. 2. In course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses to bring home the charges. The accused person abjured the guilt; pleaded innocence; and false implication. 3. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 4. (i) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the very foundation for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is the demand of illegal gratification. The law is well settled that mere recovery of tainted money, without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, cannot result in conviction. Unless it is proved that the accused had voluntarily received the money as illegal gratification, the charge under the Act cannot stand. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has consistently reiterated that in the absence of proof of demand, the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act is unsustainable and the accused is entitled to acquittal. (ii) He would submit that in the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the essential element of demand. The 6 CRA No.161 of 2016 complainant, Heera Lal Yadav (PW-7), has categorically denied the demand of bribe by the appellant and has specifically stated that the amount of Rs. 250/- was given to some other person and not to the appellant. The Complainant further admitted that he had not read Ex.P.17 before signing it. This admission is further corroborated by PW-9 Jairam Patel, who deposed that Ex.P.17 was written by him on the dictation of a constable and that the complainant had neither read the document nor was it read over or explained to him. The complainant has also stated that the demand was raised by some other persons who were with the doctor and when he attempted to hand over the amount to the doctor to be passed on to them, the doctor expressly refused to accept it. (iii) Learned counsel would further submit that the testimonies of official witnesses also demolish the prosecution case. PW-6 Hemant Kumar (Addl. S.P.) admitted in para 3 that he did not read over the application to the complainant. PW-2 S.L. Dhruv admitted that he was only orally informed to attend the ACB office and that no written order is available before the Court. He further admitted that the tape recording played before them was unclear at several places, and that the voices of the complainant and accused were not distinctly audible. He also expressed his inability to remember who exactly kept the tainted money in the complainant’s pocket. In his later deposition, he stated that when the complainant first returned from the accused’s residence, no 7 CRA No.161 of 2016 search was conducted to verify whether the bribe money had been left there in the absence of the accused, and that he had not personally witnessed the complainant handing over any money to the accused. (iv) He would submit that the testimony of PW-10 Sahdev Thakur, Inspector, further weakens the prosecution case. He admitted in para 25 that in the transcript (Ex.P.2) there is no recording of demand of bribe. He further admitted that he had not heard the voices of either the complainant or the accused earlier and that he was not an expert in voice identification. No expert opinion was obtained to establish the authenticity of the recording or to rule out tampering. He also conceded that he had not seen the complainant giving any money to the accused. Thus, the appellant is entitled for acquittal in absence of cogent and clinching evidence. 5. Conversely, learned counsel for the State would submit that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The complaint made by the complainant was duly acted upon, a trap was organized, and the tainted currency notes were recovered in the presence of independent witnesses. The phenolphthalein test conducted was found positive, which is clear corroborative evidence of acceptance. Minor contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses or the reluctance of the complainant to fully support the 8 CRA No.161 of 2016 prosecution during trial cannot demolish the case when recovery and chemical tests stand proved. In the present case, no plausible explanation has been offered by the accused as to how the tainted currency came into his possession. Therefore, the demand and acceptance stand established from the overall evidence and circumstances, and the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act is fully justified. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely. 7. For the sake of convenience, it would be appropriate to quote the relevant case laws with regard to demand, acceptance, recovery of illegal gratification, which is quoted below : 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 1724, held as under:- “68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarized 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 9 CRA No.161 of 2016 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. (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 10 CRA No.161 of 2016 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 inturn 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) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the 11 CRA No.161 of 2016 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) (1) 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." 9. In the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1191 the Supreme Court observed as under:- "8. There could be no doubt that the evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particular. After introduction of Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code making the person who offers bribe guilty of abetment bribery, the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon.… 10. The status of person offering bribe and the caution required while assessing his evidence implicating a Govt. servant was examined by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in the case of M.Ο. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala, 1995 SCC (3) 351, wherein, it was held as under: 12 CRA No.161 of 2016 “12. Now confining ourselves to the case of bribery it is generally accepted that the person offering a bribe to a public officer is in the nature of an accomplice in the offence of accepting illegal gratification but the nature of corroboration required in such a case should not be subjected to the same rigorous test which are generally applied to a case of an approver. Though bribe givers are generally treated to be in the nature of accomplices but among them there are various types and gradation. In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act the complainant is the person who gives the bribe in a technical and legal sense because in every trap case wherever the complaint is filed there must be a person who has to give money to the accused which in fact is the bribe money which is demanded and without such a giving die trap cannot succeed. When there is such a demand by the public servant from person who is unwilling and if to do public good approaches the authorities and lodges complaint then in order that the trap succeeds he has to give the money. There could be another type of bribe giver who is always willing to give money in order to get his work done and having got the work done he may send a complaint. Here he is a particeps criminis in respect of the crime committed and thus is an accomplice. Thus there are grades and grades of accomplices and therefore a distinction could as well be drawn between cases where a person offers a bribe to achieve his own purpose and where one is forced to offer bribe under a threat of loss or harm that is to say under coercion. A person who falls in this category and who becomes a party for laying a trap stands on a different footing because he is a only a victim of threat or coercion to which he was subjected to. Where such witnesses fall under the category of "accomplices" by 13 CRA No.161 of 2016 reason of their being bribe givers, in the first instance the court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration if necessary as a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case may vary having regard to the facts and circumstances." 11. What therefore, emerges from the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court is that the complainant's evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and the Court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration, if necessary, as a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case, may vary, having regard to the facts and circumstances. 12. In the matter of M.R. Purshotham Vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 3 SCC 247, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when demand of bribe is not proved by the prosecution, mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 13(1) (d) of the Act. 13. In B. Jaiyaraj v. State of Andra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 5, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that 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 of the Act unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily 14 CRA No.161 of 2016 accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. Presumption against public servant under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only if demand for acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. 14. Similar view has been taken in the matter of A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala, 2010 AIR SCC 1115 and Subhash Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2003 SC 2169. 15. Evidence on record led by the prosecution as also by the defence is required to be scrutinized in order to find out as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the demand, acceptance and recovery. 16. The question arose before this Court, whether the appellant has demanded illegal gratification from the complainant or there was any acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant?. 17. Complainant–Hiralal Yadav (PW7) deposed that he earns his livelihood by rearing cattle and selling milk, and also works in the Duha Society. About four to five years prior to his deposition, some of his cattle came in contact with an electric current, as a result of which one buffalo and one ox died. Being illiterate, he could not recall the exact date of the incident. He stated that the postmortem examinations of the dead animals were conducted by the accused/doctor. The complainant further deposed that he had paid a sum of Rs. 250/- to a person accompanying the doctor, though he did not know his name or designation. According to 15 CRA No.161 of 2016 him, this person had demanded money and told him that Rs. 250/- would not be sufficient and that he should pay more. On his expressing inability due to poverty, the said person asked him to pay whatever he could. At that time, another individual advised him to go to Raipur, assuring him that the work could be managed without payment. He admitted his signatures on Exhibits P-17, P- 23, P-24, and others, but clarified that he had not read their contents before signing, being illiterate. He also deposed that during the proceedings at Mudhipar, officials of the Anti- Corruption Bureau demanded money from him, whereupon he handed over Rs. 250/- consisting of fifty-rupee note (one) and hundred-rupee notes (two). He was informed that the notes would be treated with powder. He clarified that this money was given to the person accompanying the doctor, not to the doctor himself. He further narrated that when he later attempted to handover the said marked notes to the accused doctor, the doctor pushed his hand back, scolded him, and refused to accept the money, saying that the postmortem report had already been given to the police. In that process, the money fell to the ground. Thereafter the police officers appeared on the spot. The complainant categorically asserted that he never paid any money to the accused doctor, nor did the accused demand any bribe from him. He specifically denied the suggestion that the accused had demanded Rs. 500/- from him for the postmortem report, or that he had paid Rs. 250/- to the accused as part payment. 16 CRA No.161 of 2016 In cross-examination, the complainant denied the suggestion that he had operated a tape-recorder at the instance of ACB officers or that he had handed over any cassette after recording conversation. He reiterated that though his signatures appear on several documents, he did not read them nor were they read over to him. He admitted that the powder-treated notes were placed in his pocket by ACB officials, with instructions that if the doctor refused to accept, he should compel him to take the money. He also admitted that he had no prior acquaintance with the accused and could not identify his voice. He stated that no conversation regarding demand of money took place between him and the accused. He further confirmed that the postmortem report had in fact been given to him on the very day of the incident, and that such reports are normally delivered by the doctor to the police, who then attach them to the case diary. 18. S.L. Dhruv (PW2) deposed that on 05.08.2006 he received information from the District Magistrate to contact the Anti- Corruption Bureau in connection with a secret proceeding. Acting upon this direction, he went to the ACB office, where he was instructed to be present on 07.08.2006 at 6:00 a.m. for trap proceedings. On the said date, he attended the ACB office at Raipur and thereafter, along with ACB officers and other persons, proceeded in a vehicle provided by the Bureau towards village Pitodara, District Mahasamund. The party stopped near the nursery 17 CRA No.161 of 2016 at village Mudhipar, where the complainant was present. At that place, the complainant narrated the facts orally and produced his written application, which was perused by the trap team. The tape recorder containing conversation recorded by the complainant was also played before the members, and the contents of the cassette were reduced into writing as Exhibit P-2, which runs into three pages and bears his signatures. This witness further stated that at about 9:00 a.m. at Mudhipar nursery, the complainant was searched before being entrusted with the bribe money. No objectionable article was found with him. Thereafter, the tainted notes amounting to Rs. 250/- (two notes of Rs. 100/- and one note of Rs. 50/-) were treated with phenolphthalein powder. The solution test was demonstrated and sealed in a bottle. The complainant was then given a micro cassette tape recorder with instructions to record the conversation during the bribe transaction. The handing over memo of the recorder is Exhibit P-5. A detailed memo of the entire proceedings at the nursery was prepared in eight pages, marked as Exhibit P-6, bearing his signatures. The witness further stated that thereafter the trap team proceeded to Pitodara and halted near the house of accused Dr. R.P. Naik. The other panch witness, Shri C.L. Thakur, was also searched. The complainant was instructed that after handing over the bribe amount, he should give a pre-arranged signal to the trap party. The complainant then entered the house of the accused doctor. After some time, upon receiving the signal, the trap team rushed in. This 18 CRA No.161 of 2016 witness further deposed that when he entered the room, he saw one member of the trap team holding the hand of accused Dr. Naik, in which the tainted notes were present. Shortly thereafter, the accused released the notes, which fell to the ground. The trap party picked up the fallen notes, tallied the numbers, and seized them under Exhibit P-8. This witness further stated that the hand wash of the accused was taken in sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink. The wash was preserved, sealed, and seized under Exhibit P-9. He confirmed that the tape recorder given to the complainant was recovered after the trap, and the recorded cassette was transcribed on 08.08.2006 with the help of the complainant. A detailed panchnama of the trap proceedings was prepared at the government residence of the accused at Pitodara, marked Exhibit P-10. He also identified the site map prepared by the Patwari at his instance (Exhibit P-15) and the arrest memo of the accused (Exhibit P-16). He further stated that the application of the complainant was read out to him before the trap (Exhibit P-17). The cassette and its transcription were seized, with seizure memo Exhibit P-18 bearing his signatures. The witness confirmed that all these documents prepared during the trap proceedings bear his During cross-examination, the witness has stated that he does not remember whether the tainted notes were recovered in his presence or not. He has further admitted that he cannot say with certainty whether the complainant had himself placed the notes in 19 CRA No.161 of 2016 the hands of the accused, or whether the police or some other person had done so. The witness has also deposed that it is possible that the notes were simply thrust into the hand of the accused. He further stated that he cannot recollect the exact place where the notes had fallen and is unable to say whether that spot was secured, washed or preserved by the officials at the time of trap. The witness has further admitted that he is not an expert in identifying voices and therefore he cannot say with certainty whether the voices recorded in the cassette belonged to the complainant and the accused. He has also stated that he does not know whether the accused had refused to accept the alleged bribe amount or had pushed the notes away. He candidly admitted that he cannot depose about the actual conversation which took place between the complainant and the accused at the time of alleged transaction. The witness has also stated that although certain documents and memo were prepared in his presence, he did not read them carefully and therefore cannot affirm whether all the legal formalities were duly complied with. 19. Investigating Officer- Sahdev Thakur (PW10) deposed that in the year 2006 he was posted as Inspector in the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur. On 04.08.2006, one Hiralal Yadav submitted a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, ACB, alleging that Dr. R.P. Nayak had demanded a sum of ₹500/- as illegal gratification for giving postmortem report of cattle. Out of 20 CRA No.161 of 2016 this amount the complainant had already paid ₹250/- and he was not willing to pay the balance of ₹250/-. He expressed his desire to get the accused apprehended while accepting the bribe. Said complaint is Exhibit P-23, on which the Superintendent of Police has made a note and put his signatures. The witness has further stated that the Superintendent of Police entrusted the matter to Inspector A.K. Pathak for verification. For this purpose, one micro-cassette tape recorder was handed over to the complainant. The memorandum thereof is Exhibit P-24 which bears the signatures of Inspector Pathak. As Inspector Pathak was required to go out of station, the matter was thereafter marked to this witness for further action, along with a handing over note. The witness has further stated that on 05.08.2006, the complainant telephonically informed that the conversation of demand had been recorded in the cassette and that he was prepared for further proceedings. Accordingly, two panch witnesses were summoned through the Collector. The complainant produced the tape recorder which was played in the presence of panch witnesses and officials. The recorded conversation was transcribed, which is Exhibit P-2. Thereafter, the complainant submitted a second written complaint, which is Exhibit P-17. On the basis of the said complaint, a Dehati Nalishi under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered, which is Exhibit P-29. The witness has further stated that the cassette was seized under seizure memo Exhibit P- 18. The complainant then produced the proposed bribe amount of 21 CRA No.161 of 2016 ₹250/-, consisting of two notes of ₹100/- and one note of ₹50/-. Panch witness C.L. Thakur noted down the serial numbers of the notes. These notes were then treated with phenolphthalein powder by Head Constable Govind Das Sharma, demonstrated to the witnesses, and kept in the left shirt pocket of the complainant. The memorandum to this effect is Exhibit P-3. The witness has further stated that a demonstration of sodium carbonate solution test was conducted and explained to the panch witnesses. The complainant was instructed to hand over the money to the accused only on demand, to observe the place where the accused kept it, and thereafter to give the pre-arranged signal. The preliminary panchnama, Exhibit P-6, was prepared. A trap team was constituted under the leadership of DSP Hemant Kumar consisting of Inspector S.K. Sen, Inspector S.S. Bhagat, this witness, both panch witnesses, Constable Alexander Ekka, the complainant and shadow witness Jairam Patel. The witness has further stated that as per plan, the complainant and shadow witness went to the residence of the accused situated in Veterinary Hospital premises at Pithora. The trap team members took position nearby. After some time, the complainant came out and gave the pre-arranged signal, whereupon the trap team entered the premises. The accused was found sitting in the verandah. On being identified, his left hand was subjected to sodium carbonate wash, which turned pink. The memorandum thereof is Exhibit P-4. The witness has further stated that thereafter panch witness C.L. Thakur recovered the 22 CRA No.161 of 2016 tainted notes from the ground near the accused. The serial numbers tallied with those noted earlier. These notes were seized under proper memorandum. A sodium carbonate wash of the notes was also conducted, which turned pink. The necessary panchnamas were prepared in presence of witnesses. The witness has finally stated that in this manner, accused Dr. R.P. Nayak was caught in possession of the tainted bribe money, which was recovered and seized in presence of independent witnesses, and that all proceedings were conducted lawfully and documents prepared and signed accordingly. During cross-examination, this witness has stated that he cannot say with whom the complainant had first come to the office and mentioned about initiating action against the compounder. The witness has denied the suggestion that Jairam Patel had written Exhibits P-17 and P-23 as dictated by the police. The witness has admitted that some portions of the recorded conversation were unclear, and without the guidance of the complainant, he could not identify which voice belonged to whom. He has admitted that the tape recording is made only for verification of the demand of bribe, but in the transcription (Exhibit P-2), no explicit demand of bribe has been recorded. He has further admitted that some words in the recording were indistinct and therefore could not be transcribed. The witness has admitted that prior to this incident he had not heard the voices of the accused or of the complainant, nor 23 CRA No.161 of 2016 is he an expert in voice identification. He has further admitted that no separate specimen of their voices was taken, nor was any expert opinion obtained in this regard. He has admitted that he did not conduct any inquiry as to whether the tape had been tampered with or not. He has denied the suggestion that he did not send the tape for examination because the voice of the accused was not recorded therein. He has also denied the suggestion that the complainant could not identify the voice of the accused. The witness has admitted that when the complainant went to the house of the accused with the bribe money, the accused was not found at home. He has further admitted that despite being informed by the complainant about having the bribe money with him, he did not conduct any personal search of the complainant. The witness has admitted that he had not himself seen the complainant giving the bribe to the accused. 20. The prima-facie evidence regarding the alleged demand of bribe by the appellant is the transcript of the cassette (Ex.P-2), which was prepared based on the complaint of Hiralal Yadav (PW7). Upon examination of the statements of PW7, PW2, and PW10, it is evident that none of these witnesses identified the voice of the appellant in the cassette, nor was any expert opinion obtained from the Forensic Science Laboratory in respect of the recorded voices. 21. Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act reads as under:- 24 CRA No.161 of 2016 65B. Admissibility of Electronic records- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. (2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:-- (a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer; (b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities; (c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and (d) the information contained in the electronic record 25 CRA No.161 of 2016 reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities. (3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether-- (a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or (b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or (c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or (d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly. (4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say, -- (a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer; 26 CRA No.161 of 2016 (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it. (5) For the purposes of this section,- (a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment; -- (b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities; (c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment. 22. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the matter of Anvar P.V. (supra) held as under:- 22..........An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the 27 CRA No.161 of 2016 requirements under Section 65-B are satisfied. Thus case of CD, VCD, chip etc. the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65-B obtained at the time of taking the documents, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to the electronic record, is inadmissible. 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Anvar P.V. (supra), held that an electronic record, as secondary evidence, cannot be admitted unless the requirements of Section 65-B are satisfied. Therefore, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, or similar electronic media, such records must be accompanied by a certificate obtained at the time of taking the documents; in the absence of such certificate, secondary evidence pertaining to the electronic record is inadmissible. 24. From the statement of the complainant (PW7), it is evident that although the cassette was produced and certain documents bear his signatures, he admitted that he is illiterate, had not read the contents, and could not identify the voice recorded therein. He further admitted that he had no prior acquaintance with the appellant and therefore could not recognize his voice. Similarly, the Investigating Officer (PW10) confirmed that no specimen voice of the appellant was taken, nor was the cassette sent to any expert or the Forensic Science Laboratory for verification. PW10 also admitted that some portions of the recording were indistinct and could not be transcribed, and no inquiry was made to ascertain 28 CRA No.161 of 2016 whether the cassette had been tampered with or manipulated. Therefore, the primary piece of evidence in the form of the cassette remains wholly uncorroborated, and no scientific verification has been undertaken to establish that the recorded voice belongs to the appellant. 25. The prosecution did not move an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872, nor did they accompany the cassette with a certificate as required under Section 65-B to prove its authenticity. In view of this, the said evidence is inadmissible and cannot be relied upon to establish any alleged demand of bribe against the appellant. The transcript itself, in the absence of any certificate under Section 65-B, is incapable of forming the basis for conviction. 26. Even otherwise, the complainant (PW7) himself admitted that being illiterate, he could not identify the voices in the cassette and that no conversation regarding the demand of money had taken place with the appellant. PW10 Sahdev Thakur further admitted that no specimen voice of the appellant was ever taken, nor was the cassette sent for expert verification. He also conceded that certain portions of the recording were indistinct and that no inquiry was conducted to determine whether the cassette had been tampered with. 27. Therefore, taking into account the evidence adduced by the 29 CRA No.161 of 2016 prosecution, it is clear that the alleged demand of bribe by the appellant remains unproved. The prosecution has failed to establish this essential ingredient of the offence by any credible or corroborated evidence 28. So far as the question of acceptance and seizure of illegal gratification is concerned, this Court deems it appropriate to further examine the statements of the witnesses.” 29. Hemant Kumar, PW6, deposed that on 07.08.2006, he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police at the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur. On that date, under the directions of the Superintendent of Police, ACB, Raipur, he led a trap operation. The trap team assembled at Mudhipar Nursery at around 6:15 a.m. On reaching the location, the complainant Hiralal Yadav was present along with Jairam Patel. The complainant submitted a written application regarding the alleged demand of bribe by Dr. R.P. Nayak. This application was inspected by the witness and also by the Collector of Raipur. The said application is marked as Exhibit P-17, bearing the signature of the witness on page B. This witness further stated that in order to initiate proceedings against the accused, he directed Inspector Sahdev Thakur to act on the application, giving him written instructions. The subsequent action on the complaint was carried out by PW10, Sahdev Thakur. The instructions given by the witness are also noted in Exhibit P-17. 30 CRA No.161 of 2016 In cross-examination, PW6 admitted that while receiving the application from the complainant, no conversation was read out to him. He denied the suggestion that Inspector Sahdev Thakur had dictated the application to the complainant for writing. He further stated that he does not recall the exact distance from his office to Mudhipar Nursery or the date when the instructions were recorded in writing by Inspector Sahdev Thakur. He denied the suggestion that he did not lead the trap team. 30. Jai Ram Patel (PW9) deposed during cross-examination, that he accompanied the complainant Hiralal Yadav to the location in Pithora as directed. He deposed that initially he was unaware of the procedures of the Anti-Corruption Bureau or its operations. Upon reaching the location, they were received by a police official who introduced himself and explained the process. This witness further deposed that the inspector instructed them to prepare a written application. The complainant Hiralal Yadav neither read the application nor had it read out to him. This witness stated that he was informed by the official that Hiralal Yadav should simply sign the application and the remaining proceedings would be carried out by the officials. He further clarified that Hiralal Yadav had no knowledge about the contents of the application (Exhibit P-17). 31. The complainant Hiralal Yadav (PW7) deposed that he handed over Rs. 250/- to a person accompanying the accused doctor, following the instructions of the Anti-Corruption Bureau officials, 31 CRA No.161 of 2016 and not directly to the accused. He stated that when he later attempted to hand over the money to the accused, the accused refused to accept it, pushed his hand back, and the notes fell to the ground. PW7 explicitly asserted that he never paid any bribe to the accused and that no demand for money was made by the accused. 32. S.L. Dhruw (PW2) corroborated that during the trap proceedings, the tainted notes were in the possession of the complainant, who was instructed to hand them over only upon demand. He stated that the trap team observed the accused briefly holding the tainted notes, which subsequently fell to the ground and were recovered by the trap party. The serial numbers of the notes were noted and they were seized under proper memorandum (Exhibit P-8). A sodium carbonate hand wash of the accused was conducted, which turned pink, and was also seized under Exhibit P-9. However, this witness admitted during cross-examination that he did not see the complainant actually handing over the bribe to the accused. He only observed the trap team holding the tainted notes briefly, and that the notes fell to the ground, after which they were recovered. This witness also stated that he could not say with certainty whether the complainant himself placed the notes in the accused’s hand or whether it was done by the police or someone else. 33. Sahdev Thakur, (PW10), stated that the tainted notes, totaling Rs. 250/-, were treated with phenolphthalein powder, placed in the complainant’s pocket, and a trap was arranged at the accused’s 32 CRA No.161 of 2016 residence. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the trap party entered the premises, observed the accused holding the notes, which subsequently fell, and the notes were seized in the presence of independent witnesses. PW10 further confirmed that all formalities were documented and the necessary panchnamas were prepared. However, he admitted that he did not personally see the complainant handing over the bribe, nor did he conduct any personal search of the complainant to verify the transaction. 34. From a careful perusal of the statements of PW7 (Hiralal Yadav), PW2 (S.L. Dhruv), and PW10 (Sahdev Thakur), it is evident that the complainant was given powder-treated notes totaling ₹250/- to hand over during the trap. However, PW7 clearly deposed that the money was never voluntarily given to the accused, who refused to accept it, and that the notes fell to the ground in the process. PW2 admitted in cross-examination that he did not witness the complainant handing over the money to the appellant and could not state with certainty whether the notes were placed in the appellant’s hand by the complainant or by some other person. PW10 also confirmed that he did not see the accused accept the bribe. Thus, the evidence regarding any voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant is inconsistent and uncorroborated. 35. PW7 further clarified that he had no prior acquaintance with the accused and could not identify his voice. PW10 admitted that no 33 CRA No.161 of 2016 voice specimen was taken, nor was the cassette sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for expert verification. Both witnesses conceded that no inquiry was made to ensure the authenticity of the cassette or the tamper-proof nature of the notes. Therefore, the primary evidence of the alleged acceptance of bribe lacks any independent verification and remains entirely uncorroborated. 36. In addition, the seizure of the alleged bribe is limited to the recovery of the powder-treated notes after they fell to the ground. PW2 candidly admitted that he could not recollect the exact spot where the notes fell, whether it was secured, or whether the notes were washed or preserved in situ. PW10 also confirmed that he did not personally witness the handover of money and could not assert that the accused voluntarily possessed the tainted notes. The testimony of the complainant and the officers thus fails to establish the essential ingredient of voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant. 37. Moreover, the independent panch witnesses involved in the trap, crucial for corroboration, only observed the recovery of notes after they fell and did not witness any demand or acceptance of money by the appellant. Their statements further reinforce that the core element of the offense, namely demand and voluntary acceptance under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, remains unproved. 34 CRA No.161 of 2016 38. Consequently, both the seizure and alleged acceptance of bribe remain unsubstantiated. The recovery of notes after falling to the ground, combined with the absence of direct observation of handover, lack of voice verification, and non-involvement of expert examination, seriously undermines the prosecution’s case with respect to the acceptance and seizure of the alleged illegal gratification. 39. In the matter of State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v. C.B. Nagaraj, decided on 19.05.2025 in CRA No.1157 of 2015, the Supreme Court Court has observed in para 25 as under: "25. It is pertinent to note that till 05.02.2007, when the Respondent had conducted the physical/spot inspection, there is not even a whisper of there being any demand of bribe. Moreover, when the Complainant went back to the Respondent's office at 5:30 PM with the money, the prosecution case itself as per the deposition of its witnesses makes it clear that the Respondent had informed the Complainant that he had already forwarded the concerned file. Thus, if the same is accepted, there was no occasion for the Complainant to go ahead with paying the amount, which he claims to be in the nature of bribe demanded by the Respondent, after the work for which the bribe was purportedly sought, had already been done. The observation of the High Court to this extent is correct that just because money changed hands, in cases like the present, it cannot be ipso facto presumed that the same was pursuant to a demand, for the law requires that for 35 CRA No.161 of 2016 conviction under the Act, an entire chain beginning from demand, acceptance, and recovery has to be completed. In the case at hand, when the initial demand itself is suspicious, even if the two other components of payment and recovery can be held to have been proved, the chain would not be complete. A penal law has to be strictly construed [Md. Rahim Ali v State of Assam, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695 @ Paragraph 45 and Jay Kishan v State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 296 @ Paragraph 24]. While we will advert to the presumption under Section 20 of the Act hereinafter, there is no cavil that while a reverse onus under specific statute can be placed on an accused, even then, there cannot be a presumption which casts an uncalled for onus on the accused. Chandrasha (supra) would not apply as demand has not been proven. In Paritala Sudhakar v State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1072, it was stated thus: '21. As far as the submission of the State is that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, as it then was, would operate against the Appellant is concerned, our analysis supra would indicate that the factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of animus between the Appellant and complainant, is not proved. In such circumstances, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act would not militate against the Appellant, in terms of the pronouncement in Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 250: 22. In view of the aforementioned discrepancies in the prosecution case, we are of 36 CRA No.161 of 2016 the opinion that the defence story set up by the appellant cannot be said to be wholly improbable. Furthermore, it is not a case where the burden of proof was on the accused in terms of Section 20 of the Act. Even otherwise, where demand has not been proved, Section 20 will also have no application. (Union of India v. Purnandu Biswas [(2005) 12 SCC 576: (2005) 8 Scale 246] and T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401: (2006) 1 Scale 116])." 40. In order to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, it has to be borne in mind that: (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. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) 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 constitutes offence under Section 13 (1)(d) (i) and (ii) (iii) In both case, 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 37 CRA No.161 of 2016 offence. 41. While convicting the appellant, the trial Court has not considered the aforesaid evidence and deficiency in the prosecution witnesses, thereby committed illegality. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the offence against the appellant. 42. 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 for offence of bribery. In order to prove 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. 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. In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove the charge of demand as well as acceptance of bribe by the appellant. Even, the recovery of bribe is also not proved. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 43. Considering the above factual scenario of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact of demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification. 38 CRA No.161 of 2016 As such, the judgment passed by the Trial is set-aside. 44. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under the aforementioned sections are hereby set-aside and he is acquitted of the charges. 45. The appellant is reported to be on bail. However, his bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and shall remain operative for a further period of six months in view of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. (481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)}. 46. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri