Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3479 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ramesh Chand

2025-09-19

Sushil Kukreja

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sushil Kukreja, Judge. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment, dated 15.06.2016, passed by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Corruption Case No. 4/1 of 2012, whereby the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted under Section 7 read with Section13(i)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the ‘PC Act’). 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, can be summarized as under: 2(a). On and before 26.05.2011, accused-Ramesh Chand, was posted at Patwar Circle Nakhlehra, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur. The accused, being public servant, was working as Patwari and he demanded Rs.2000/- from the complainant Shri Sukh Ram, who was resident of village Rachhera, for closing encroachment file of his family and the accused also accepted the bribe money from the complainant. The accused by illegal means obtained Rs.2000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification. The complainant, on 26.05.2011, moved written application to the then Dy.S.P. Vigilance Department, Bilaspur, dated 26.05.2011, wherein it was stated that the accused had informed him and told that a complaint was received from ‘E-Samadhan’ qua encroachment over the government land by him and his wife and he had to file report within seven days. The complainant further stated in his complaint that the accused had thereafter informed him that he had prepared encroachment file against his wife Smt. Anita Devi, therefore, the complainant went to the accused and requested not to prepare encroachment file. The accused demanded Rs.2000/- and he said that he had to pass over the said amount upto higher level. On the basis of the written complaint of the complainant, FIR was registered in the Anti Corruption Police Station, Bilaspur and trap party was formed. The complainant produced twenty currency notes of rupees hundred each (Rs.2000/- in total) and the Investigating Officer demonstrated mixing of sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein and had put the mixture in a nip. The complainant and witnesses Prem Singh and Sanjay Kumar were witnesses to the demonstration. The currency notes produced by the complainant were treated with phenolphthalein powder and serial numbers of the notes were also noted down. The treated notes were handed over to the complainant and the independent witness was directed to give signal on acceptance of bribe money by the accused from the complainant. The currency notes produced by the complainant were treated with phenolphthalein powder and serial numbers of the notes were also noted down. The treated notes were handed over to the complainant and the independent witness was directed to give signal on acceptance of bribe money by the accused from the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant went inside the office of the accused and on the demand of the accused, he handed over the treated currency notes to him. The accused was apprehended on the spot by the police party and the Investigating Officer associated Hardial Singh, Lekh Ram, Ram Chand in the investigation and in their presence the hands of the accused were got washed with the solution of sodium carbonate powder. The color of the solution turned pink and said solution was sealed in a pouch sealed with seal having impression ‘H’. Facsimile seal was handed over to witness Prem Singh. Police searched the drawer of the table of the accused and had recovered twenty currency notes in the denomination of rupees hundred each. Police tallied the serial number of the recovered currency notes and found the same, which were handed over to the complainant after treating the same with phenolphthalein powder. The recovered currency notes were sealed in a separate envelope with seal having impression ‘H’ and facsimile seal was handed over to witness Prem Singh. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities, viz., prepared the spot map, collected relevant documents and recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completion of the investigation, police presented the charge-sheet in the learned Trial Court. 3. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused under Sections 7, 13(i)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act. The accused did not plead guilty of the charges framed against him and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, during trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused when examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. In defence, the accused examined two defence witnesses. 5. On the basis of the evidence led on record by the prosecution, the learned trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 15.06.2016, acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(i)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act, hence the instant appeal preferred by the appellant/State. 6. In defence, the accused examined two defence witnesses. 5. On the basis of the evidence led on record by the prosecution, the learned trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 15.06.2016, acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(i)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act, hence the instant appeal preferred by the appellant/State. 6. The learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/accused contended that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts, based upon surmises and conjectures, thus liable to set-aside. He further contended that learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence in a slipshod and perfunctory manner and has failed to appreciate that the accused demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set-aside by allowing the instant appeal and the accused be convicted. 7. Conversely, learned Senior Counsel for the accused/respondent supported the judgment of the learned trial Court and contended that since the charges against the accused have not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted him on the basis of proper appreciation of evidence. He pointed out various contradictions and infirmities in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond the scope of reasonable doubt. 8. I have heard the Deputy Advocate General learned counsel for the appellant/State as well as the learned Senior counsel for the respondent/accused and also gone through the record carefully. 9. The accused stood charged for commission of the offence under Sections 7, 13 (i)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act as being a public servant, he allegedly demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant. To substantiate the said charge and to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses. However, the case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the statements of PW-1 Sukh Ram (complainant), PW-2 Anita Devi (wife of the complainant), PW-3 Sanjay Kumar (independent witness), PW-4 Prem Singh (shadow witness), PW-5 Hardyal Singh (independent witness) and PW-13 Inspector Shiv Pal (Investigating Officer). 10. Complainant Sukh Ram stepped into the witness-box as PW-1 and deposed that he was labourer and his wife Anita Devi (PW-2) was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Dari Bari, w.e.f. January, 2011. 10. Complainant Sukh Ram stepped into the witness-box as PW-1 and deposed that he was labourer and his wife Anita Devi (PW-2) was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Dari Bari, w.e.f. January, 2011. He deposed that during 2011 accused was posted as Patwari, Patwar Circle, Nakhlera and he informed him through Chowkidar that a complaint from ‘E.Samadhan’ has been received against his wife that she had encroached upon the government land and the accused wanted to discuss the matter. He further deposed that he told the accused that the complaint was false, as his wife was residing with him and no encroachment had been done by them. The accused demanded Rs.2000/- for closing the encroachment file, as bribe, which amount, as per the accused, had to be shared upto higher officers. As per this witness, since he was poor person, he approached the Vigilance Department at Bilaspur on 26.05.2011 and moved a written complaint (Ex. PW- 1/A), whereupon FIR was registered. He also deposed that the vigilance officials demonstrated use of two different powders/chemicals. Firstly, in a glass, powder was added to plain water and the color did not change and when another powder was added to it, the color turned pink. Thereafter, the pink solution was bottled and sealed with seal having impression ‘H’. Nip, Ex. P1, was taken into possession by the police, vide memo, Ex. PW-1/B and he produced twenty currency notes in the denomination of Rs.100/- each. As per this witness, the vigilance team noted the serial numbers of the said currency notes and treated the same with powder and those notes were put in his pocket. He was instructed not to touch the currency notes and shake hands with the accused. He further deposed that during this entire process, Sanjay Kumar (PW-3) and Prem Singh (PW-4) were also there. Thereafter, he went to Patwarkhana at Nakhlena and he was followed by vigilance team and Prem Singh (PW-4). He went inside the Patwarkhana and the vigilance team concealed itself in the nearby places. The accused was sitting on his chair and he asked him whether he had brought the money, on this he handed over the currency treated notes to him, which he put in his table drawer. He deposed that Prem Singh (PW-4), shadow witness, signaled the vigilance team and the team entered the room and caught hold of the accused from his wrist. He deposed that Prem Singh (PW-4), shadow witness, signaled the vigilance team and the team entered the room and caught hold of the accused from his wrist. The hands of the accused were got washed in a dish and the color did not change, but when other chemical was mixed, it turned pink. The hand washed mixture was bottled and sealed on the spot. As per this witness, the vigilance team also called Pradhan Hardayal (PW-5) and Principal from Government Senior Secondary School Nakhlera and in their presence money was recovered from the table drawer of the accused. The serial numbers of the currency notes were tallied and the notes were found to be same. Thereafter, the currency notes were put in an envelope and sealed at the spot. He further deposed that on 03.04.2011 in Gram Sabha, on a complaint of the residents that the accused used to demand money from all persons, for official works, a resolution was passed against the accused and qua this the accused had enmity with him and his family. 11. PW-1, in his cross-examination, deposed that Pradhan Hardyal Singh (PW-5) and Principal came at Patwarkhana around 11 a.m. and both these witnesses were called after hand wash of the accused. He also admitted that during the year 2002 two encroachment proceedings were initiated against him. He further admitted that his wife (PW-2) was elected as Pradhan of the Panchayat and her election was declared void on the ground that he had occupied the government land. In the year 2011 his wife was again elected as Pradhan of the Panchayat. PW-1 admitted that prior to 03.04.2011 he had no enmity with the accused and due to enmity the accused had started encroachment proceedings against him. He also admitted that the complaint to the vigilance department was made after the encroachment proceedings were initiated against his wife (PW-2). 12. Smt. Anita Devi, wife of the complainant, appeared in the witness-box as PW-2 and she deposed that since January, 2011, she was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Dari Bari and accused was posted as Patwari in Patwar Circle Nekhlera. 12. Smt. Anita Devi, wife of the complainant, appeared in the witness-box as PW-2 and she deposed that since January, 2011, she was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Dari Bari and accused was posted as Patwari in Patwar Circle Nekhlera. She further deposed that on 03.04.201 (sic 03.04.2011) in the Gram Sabha, residents raised the issue that the accused often ask them to pay bribe in lieu of their work, therefore, resolution No. 9, dated 03.04.2011 was passed and its copies were sent to Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur and Local M.L.A.. As per this witness, the accused, in order to take revenge, prepared encroachment file against her on false grounds and when her husband (complainant) requested him not to initiate such proceedings, the accused demanded Rs.2000/- for doing so. She also deposed that her husband discussed the matter with her and thereafter reported the same to the Vigilance Department. This witness, in her cross- examination, deposed that just to take revenge, the accused prepared the encroachment file against her, as Resolution No. 9 was passed under her president-ship. She admitted that no written complaint was received against the accused on 03.04.2011. She also admitted that the accused had threatened them that he will initiate encroachment proceedings against them after passing of resolution on 03.04.2011. 13. PW-3 Shri Sanjay Kumar deposed that on 26.05.2011 he remained associated with the vigilance police in the investigation of the case. As per this witness, the Investigating Officer had instructed the complainant to give signal when the bribe money was accepted by the accused. This witness repeated the version, as deposed by the complainant. He categorically deposed that currency notes were recovered from the right side drawer of the table of the accused by the Pradhan. This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that they started from Bilaspur around 01:00 p.m. and only one private person, i.e., Sukh Ram (complainant) was in the vehicle with them. As per this witness at the time of the demonstration only Sukh Ram (PW-1) was present. 14. Shri Prem Singh, shadow witness, appeared in the witness-box as PW-4 and deposed that the complainant had told him that the accused had time and again contacted him on telephone and he was demanding Rs.2000/- for encroachment file. On the request of the complainant, he accompanied the complainant to the office of vigilance at Bilaspur, where the complainant informed the vigilance department. On the request of the complainant, he accompanied the complainant to the office of vigilance at Bilaspur, where the complainant informed the vigilance department. This witness also repeated the version, as deposed by the complainant (PW-1). He deposed that the police proceeded to the spot in official vehicle and he alongwith the complainant proceeded on scooter. As per this witness, he saw the complainant handing over currency notes to the accused and thereafter he immediately signaled the trap party. This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that the complainant did not travel in the vehicle of the police to the spot, but with him on the scooter. This witness deposed that the accused did not accept any bribe from the complainant in his presence. He deposed that till the washing of the hands of the accused, he was not aware as to where the money had been kept. 15. PW-5 Hardial Singh, the then Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Nakhlera deposed that on 26.05.2011 he remained associated in the investigation of the instant case with the vigilance police in Patwarkhana, Nakhlera. As per this witness, when he reached the Patwarkhana, vigilance officials were holding both the hands of the accused. The complainant, Prem Singh, Ram Chand and Lekh Ram Kaul (Principal) were present there. He was informed by the vigilance police that the accused had demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant. This witness also repeated the version qua the recovery of currency notes, washing of hands of the accused etc etc. This witness, in his cross- examination, deposed that on his inquiry from the accused, the accused told him that he had kept the bribe money in the drawer of his table. Thereafter, he took out the currency notes from the drawer of the table. When the hands of the accused were being washed, the currency notes were kept in an envelope. 16. The Investigating Officer Inspector Shivpal appeared in the witness-box as PW-13 and deposed that on 26.05.2011 complainant made a complaint that the accused was demanding bribe from him. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR, Ex. PW-13/A, was registered. As per this witness, complainant produced 20 currency notes of Rs.100/- each. He constituted a trap party comprising of Prem Singh, Sanjay and other officials and thereafter he gave demonstration to the trap party. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR, Ex. PW-13/A, was registered. As per this witness, complainant produced 20 currency notes of Rs.100/- each. He constituted a trap party comprising of Prem Singh, Sanjay and other officials and thereafter he gave demonstration to the trap party. As per this witness, they went in government vehicle, bearing registration No. HP-03-1282, and the complainant and Prem Singh (shadow witness) went by scooter. He deposed that the complainant went inside the Patwarkhana and shadow witness remained outside. After some time, the shadow witness signaled and on his signal the police party immediately entered in the Patwarkhana. The accused was caught from his wrist and he gave his introduction to the accused. On being asked about the acceptance of the bribe money, the accused refused. The hands of the accused were washed with the solution of sodium carbonate in a steel plate and the color of hand wash turned light pink. On being repeatedly asked, the accused divulged that he had kept the bribe money in a drawer of his table, but he refused to produce the same. On search, witness Hardial Singh took out currency notes from first drawer of the table and on counting the currency it was found to be Rs.2000/-. This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that he reached the spot at 01:30 p.m. and remained there upto 05:00 p.m. He conducted the proceedings between 01:30 p.m. to 05:00 p.m.. As per this witness, before reaching Patwarkhana he called Lekh Ram and Hardial Singh. During the course of the investigation it was unearthed that the complainant had encroached over the government land. He had no knowledge that on the ground of encroachment over the government land, the election of the wife of the complainant was set-aside. He admitted that resolution was passed on 03.04.2011 whereby transfer of the accused was sought by the Panchayat under the President-ship of Anita Devi (PW-2). He admitted that entry qua the encroachment was already made in the rapat rojnamcha by the accused. 17. The accused in his defence examined two witnesses, i.e., Dr. S Shard and Shri Dev Raj. DW-1 Dr. S Shard, Junior Resident, Dr. R.P.G. Medical College and Hospital, Tanda, RPG deposed that on 26.05.2011, around 06:35 p.m., he examined the accused, who was brought with the history of trauma due to fall while running away. 17. The accused in his defence examined two witnesses, i.e., Dr. S Shard and Shri Dev Raj. DW-1 Dr. S Shard, Junior Resident, Dr. R.P.G. Medical College and Hospital, Tanda, RPG deposed that on 26.05.2011, around 06:35 p.m., he examined the accused, who was brought with the history of trauma due to fall while running away. This witness found three injuries on the person of the accused and the duration of the injuries was less than six hours. He issued medico legal certificate and due to injury on the left ankle, the accused was limping while walking. As per this witness, the injury could be caused if one was dragged. The prosecution has failed to explain that under what circumstances the accused sustained such injuries. 18. DW-2 Dev Raj, the then reader to SDM deposed that election petition was pending against Smt. Anita Devi (PW-2), which was fixed for 30.05.2011. He deposed that Patwari Halqua Nakhlehra was to appear as a witness, as per summons, Ex. DW- 2/A. 19. Now the first point that arises for determination in this appeal is as to whether the mandatory requirements to bring the accused under the purview of Sections 7 and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, have been followed or not? 20. It is a settled principle of law that mere recovery of the bribe money by itself cannot bring home the charge for the offences punishable under Section 7 or 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove demand of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the bribe money, as has been held in a catena of judgments passed by the Apex Court. It is also a settled principle of law that suspicion, however grave cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that "may be" proved, and something that "will be proved". 21. In B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 8 & 9 of the judgment held that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. Paras 8 & 9 of the judgment reproduced as under:- "8. Paras 8 & 9 of the judgment reproduced as under:- "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. P-11) 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. P-11 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. 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." 22. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another, reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 , it has been held that mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. Paras 23 and 24 of the judgment read as under:- "23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. 24. The sheet anchor of the case of the prosecution is the evidence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, of PW 1 S. Udaya Bhaskar. The substance of his testimony, as has been alluded to hereinabove, would disclose qua the aspect of demand, that when the complainant did hand over to the appellant the renewal application, the latter enquired from the complainant as to whether he had brought the amount which he directed him to bring on the previous day, whereupon the complainant took out Rs 500 from the pocket of his shirt and handed over the same to the appellant. Though, a very spirited endeavour has been made by the Cr.Appeal (SJ). Though, a very spirited endeavour has been made by the Cr.Appeal (SJ). No.302 of 2020 learned counsel for the State to co-relate this statement of PW1 S.Udaya Bhaskar to the attendant facts and circumstances including the recovery of this amount from the possession of the appellant by the trap team, identification of the currency notes used in the trap 12 operation and also the chemical reaction of the sodium carbonate solution qua the appellant, we are left unpersuaded to return a finding that the prosecution in the instant case has been able to prove the factum of demand beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the evidence of PW 1 S. Udaya Bhaskar is accepted on the face value, it falls short of the quality and decisiveness of the proof of demand of illegal gratification as enjoined by law to hold that the offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act has been proved. True it is, that on the demise of the complainant, primary evidence, if any, of the demand is not forthcoming. According to the prosecution, the demand had in fact been made on 3-10-1996 by the appellant to the complainant and on his complaint, the trap was laid on the next date i.e. 4-10- 1996. However, the testimony of PW 1 S. Udaya Bhaskar does not reproduce the demand allegedly made by the appellant to the complainant which can be construed to be one as contemplated in law to enter a finding that the offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act against the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt." 23. In Krishan Chander vs. State of Delhi, (2016) 3 SCC 108 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle of law regarding the ingredients of inter-alia Section 7 of the PC Act that the demand for the bribe money is sine qua non to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Paras 35, 36 and 37 of the judgment read as under:- "35. It is well settled position of law that the demand for the bribe money is sine qua non to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Paras 35, 36 and 37 of the judgment read as under:- "35. It is well settled position of law that the demand for the bribe money is sine qua non to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The same legal principle has been held by this Court in the case of B.Jayaraj (supra), A. Subair (supra) and P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra) upon which reliance is rightly placed by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant. 36. The relevant paragraph 7 from B. Jayaraj case (supra) reads thus "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. and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI." (emphasis supplied) 37. In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), it was held by this Court as under: "21. In State of Kerala and another vs. C.P. Rao, this Court, reiterating its earlier dictum, vis-à-vis the same offences, held that mere recovery by itself, would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained.” 24. In N. Sunkanna vs. State of A.P., (2016) 1 SCC 713 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7, since demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- "5. ..........It is settled law that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7, since demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- "5. ..........It is settled law that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7, since demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Section 13(1)(d) 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. 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. Unless there is proof of demand of illegal gratification proof of acceptance will not follow. Reference may be made to the two decisions of the three-Judge Bench of this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. [ (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] and P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. [ (2015) 10 SCC 152 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 11 : (2015) 9 Scale 724 ]" 25. In Mukhtiar Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2017) 8 SCC 136 , it has been held that in order to prove the charge under the above provisions, the prosecution has to establish by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification and till that is accomplished, the accused should be considered to be innocent. Para-13 of the judgment reads as under:- "13. The indispensability of the proof of demand and illegal gratification in establishing a charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, has by now engaged the attention of this Court on umpteen occasions. In A. Subair v. State of Kerala, this Court propounded that the prosecution in order to prove the charge under the above provisions has to establish by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification and till that is accomplished, the accused should be considered to be innocent. In A. Subair v. State of Kerala, this Court propounded that the prosecution in order to prove the charge under the above provisions has to establish by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification and till that is accomplished, the accused should be considered to be innocent. Carrying this 13 enunciation further, it was exposited in State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao that mere recovery by itself of the amount said to have been paid by way of illegal gratification would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained." 26. Thus, mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not enable the court to convict the accused. 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 proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality for an offence under Sections 7and 13 of the PC Act. Qua Section 20 of the PC Act, which permits a presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that while it is extendable only to an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, could follow only if there was proof of demand. Axiomatically, it is true that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could not be made. 27. Now, it is to be seen as to whether the prosecution has been able to successfully establish the demand of Rs.2,000/- by the accused and recovery of twenty currency notes of Rs.100/- each from his possession. 28. 27. Now, it is to be seen as to whether the prosecution has been able to successfully establish the demand of Rs.2,000/- by the accused and recovery of twenty currency notes of Rs.100/- each from his possession. 28. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-accused contended that in the instant case the complainant (PW-1) and his wife-Anita Devi (PW-2) are interested witnesses, PW-3 Sanjay Kumar, shadow witness, is also interested witness and PW-5 Hardyal Singh, the then Pradhan, so called independent witness, was called to the Patwarkhana by the Investigating Officer (PW- 13), as he (PW-5) categorically stated that he was present in the Panchayat Ghar and was called to Patwarkhana by the vigilance officials and when he reached Patwarkhana, he saw that the vigilance officials were holding both the hands of the accused. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that considering the version of PW-5, who remains to be sole independent witness, and the versions of other interested witnesses, i.e., PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, the entire proceedings against the accused stand vitiated. In Ram Parkash Arora vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 498 , while deprecating the practice of associating interested witnesses, it has been held by the Apex Court that the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- "8………It must be remembered that both Joginder Singh (bribe giver) and Dalbir Singh (shadow witness) P.Ws. were interested and partisan witnesses. They were concerned in the success of the trap and their evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness and in a proper case the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person……." 29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Som Parkash vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1992 SC 665 , has held that witnesses forming part of the raiding party are not independent witnesses. Therefore, their evidence has to be considered like any other witnesses in the light of the other materials and the cumulative circumstances available on record. Para-2 of the judgment reads as under:- “2. The High Court found that the witnesses who were associated in the conduct of the raid for recovery of tainted money from the appellant could not be termed as independent who could be associated with such raids. Para-2 of the judgment reads as under:- “2. The High Court found that the witnesses who were associated in the conduct of the raid for recovery of tainted money from the appellant could not be termed as independent who could be associated with such raids. The High Court further expressed doubt about veracity of the witness who claimed that money was actually handed over in his presence. The High Court, however, drew an adverse inference against the appellant from the circumstance that the, bill which was delayed for unreasonable period had suddenly been passed by the appellant On an overall assessment the High Court entertained some suspicion about the credibility of the prosecution witnesses but at the same time did not find the suspicion to be strong enough to raise doubt about the guilt of the appellant. We agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant that in the face of the finding that the witnesses who formed part of the raiding party were not independent and the evidence regarding handing over money to the appellant being unbelievable, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. The guilt of the appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and as such the benefit must go to him. Considering the above decisions, in the case of absence of independent and reliable corroborative evidence, other evidence not conclusive and found contradictory, benefit of doubt can be given to the accused. In such circumstances, I am of the view, there is no evidence to show that the respondent/accused has demanded illegal gratification, since P.W.2 has given total go by to the complaint. The trial Court has rightly held that the demand has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and as such the benefit must go to him.” 30. In such circumstances, I am of the view, there is no evidence to show that the respondent/accused has demanded illegal gratification, since P.W.2 has given total go by to the complaint. The trial Court has rightly held that the demand has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and as such the benefit must go to him.” 30. In Ganga Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 6 SCC 211 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-20 of the judgment held as under:- “20.We must not forget that in a trap case, the duty of the officer to prove the allegations made against a Government officer for taking bribe is serious, and therefore, the officers functioning in the Vigilance Department must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and respectable witnesses so that the evidence in regard to raid inspires confidence in the mind of the court and the Court is not left in any doubt whether or not any money was paid to the public servant by way of bribe. It is also the duty of the officers in the Vigilance Department to safeguard for the protection of public servants against whom a trap case may have been laid.” 31. It is also a settled position of law that the statement of the complainant cannot be placed on a better footing than that of an accomplice and corroboration on material particulars connecting the accused with the crime must be insisted. In Pannalal Damodar Rathi vs. State of Maharashtra 1979 (4) SCC 526 , it has been held as under: "8. There could be no doubt that the evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particulars. After introduction of Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code making the person who offers bribe guilty of abetment of bribery, the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing that that of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon.” … … 32. Now reverting back to the facts of the case on hand. The perusal of the entire evidence on record shows that the relations between the accused and the complainant party were strained before 26.05.2011 (the date when the accused allegedly demanded and accepted the bribe money from the complainant). Now reverting back to the facts of the case on hand. The perusal of the entire evidence on record shows that the relations between the accused and the complainant party were strained before 26.05.2011 (the date when the accused allegedly demanded and accepted the bribe money from the complainant). Even the complainant Sukh Ram, in his cross-examination, admitted that due to enmity, the accused started encroachment proceedings against his wife. The perusal of the evidence further shows that there was no independent witness qua the demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the accused. PW-1 Sukh Ram is the complainant, therefore, he is an interested witness as obviously he was interested in the success of the case against the accused. PW-2 Anita Devi being the wife of the complainant is also an interested witness. It has come on record that under the President-ship of Smt. Anita Devi (PW-2) Gram Panchayat Dari Bhari passed resolution dated 03.04.2011 against the accused, whereby his transfer was sought. The record reveals that the accused had already entered rapat in rapat rojnamcha bakyati, Ex. P-24, at page No. 55, Sr. No. 363, dated 30.04.2011 qua the encroachment made over the government land by PW-2, the wife of the complainant. Earlier also due to encroachment over the government land, the Panchayat election of PW-2 was set-aside by the concerned SDO (Civil), Ghumarwin. Record further reveals that second election of PW-2 was also challenged and the election petition was pending, wherein for 30.05.2011 the accused was summoned as a witness by petitioner Smt. Meera Devi. Therefore, there is strong possibility of false deposition by both the complainant and his wife against the accused. Apart from this, the manner in which both complainant (PW-1) and his wife (PW-2) deposed in the Court to support the case of the prosecution also shows their interestedness to get success in the case. The testimony of the shadow witness, i.e. PW-3 Sanjay Kumar, who was associated in pre-trap and post-trap proceedings, is also doubtful, as his testimony is in complete contradiction to the testimony of the complainant (PW-1).The only independent witness, i.e., PW-5 Pradhan Hardyal Singh neither witnessed demand nor witnessed acceptance of the bribe money, as he was only called by the Investigating Officer (PW-13) when the accused was already caught hold of after allegedly accepting the bribe money. Therefore, in the wake of the facts that the version of the shadow witness i.e.PW-3 Sanjay Kumar is tainted with contradictions and improvements and the sole independent witness, i.e. PW-5 Hardyal Singh reached the Patwarkhana only when the accused was already caught hold of by the vigilance officials after allegedly accepting the bribe money, it would not be safe to rely upon their testimonies. 33. The recovery of the bribe money from the drawer of the accused is also tainted with doubt, as there are several discrepancies, shortcomings and contradictions in the testimonies of the key prosecution witnesses. PW-3 Sanjay Kumar categorically deposed that when the accused was brought back to the Patwarkhana by the police, only complainant was present there and he disclosed that the accused had kept the money in his drawer. PW-3 did not unequivocally ruled-out the possibility that someone might have planted money after the accused fled away from the Patwarkhana. Therefore, the deposition of the complainant (PW-1) and his wife (PW-2) that the accused demanded money from the complainant and also accepted the same cannot be believed in the absence of any cogent and satisfactory evidence. In fact there is no legally admissible evidence of demand and acceptance. 34. It is a settled law that in the absence of proof of demand, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act will not get attracted. In V. Venkata Subbarao vs. State represented by Inspector of Police reported in (2006) 13 SCC 305, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of the PC Act provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand is proved. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- "24..........In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand is proved. It reads as under: 20. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- "24..........In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand is proved. It reads as under: 20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration - (1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 of clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13, it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other persons, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.” 35. In State of Maharashtra vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 200 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations:- "16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence viz., demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. For the said purpose, indisputably the presumptive evidence, as is laid down in Section 20 of the Act, must also be taken into consideration but then in respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-a-vis the standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ. Before, however, the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. Before, however, the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. Even while invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the Court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt.” 36. In the instant case, as observed earlier, demand by the accused from complainant could not be established by the prosecution, as such, in the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise under Section 20 of the Act. The cardinal principle of the criminal jurisprudence is that prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it has to establish the charge(s) against the accused beyond the scope of reasonable doubt, but, in the instant case, prosecution evidence is not reliable and trustworthy. Firstly, both the complainant (PW-1) and his wife (PW-2) had strained, rather inimical relations with the accused prior to 26.05.2011 (date of the occurrence) as such there existed strong possibility of falsely roping in the accused by both of them. Secondly, there are major contradictions and improvements in the testimonies of the key prosecution witnesses. 37. Therefore, the inconsistencies, contradictions and discrepancies pointed out leads to an inference that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case of demand and acceptance of bribe. From the evidence adduced, nothing has been proved on record that the accused demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant to close file of encroachment over the government land. Neither demand nor acceptance of the bribe money has been proved. In the absence of demand of any illegal gratification and acceptance thereof, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in the light of the emphatic pronouncement of the law in this regard, the necessary conclusion that can be arrived at is that the presumption contemplated under Section 20 of the PC Act does not get attracted to the case on hand. Furthermore, it is not a case where the burden of proof was on the accused in terms of Section 20 of the PC Act. The learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the accused. 38. Furthermore, it is not a case where the burden of proof was on the accused in terms of Section 20 of the PC Act. The learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the accused. 38. Hence, in view of my aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. For all the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment of acquittal, dated 15.06.2016, passed by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, in Corruption Case No. 4/1 of 2012, is upheld. The bail bonds executed shall stand cancelled. 39. In view of the provisions of Section 481 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount, before the trial Court within a period of four weeks, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.