Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3573 (HP)

Ram Nath v. State of H. P.

2025-09-10

Rakesh Kainthla

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 31.3.2012 and order of sentence dated 2.4.2012, passed by learned Special Judge, Kullu & Lahaul Spiti, Districts at Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the appellant (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted and sentenced as under: - Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years, pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- ( Rs.Ten Thousand only), and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). It was asserted that Kewal Ram, the father of the informant, Murat Ram (PW1), had died. He had executed a Will in favour of the informant. An entry of mutation was to be recorded in the informant’s name in the revenue record. Informant’s father has also deposited some amount in the Central Bank of India, Bhuntar, and the informant required a legal heirs certificate from the Revenue Department. The informant went to Patwari (accused) on 21.11.2008 for recording the entry in the revenue record and getting the legal heirs certificate. The accused demanded Rs.200/- for himself, Rs.200/- for Kanungo and Rs.500/- for Naib Tehsildar; however, the informant could only pay Rs.200/- for Patwari and Rs.200/- for Kanungo. He promised to pay the remaining amount after borrowing it from someone. The accused told the informant that his work could not be done without money. The informant repeatedly visited the accused, but the accused put off the matter on one pretext or another. He demanded Rs.600/- and Rs.700/- to complete the work. The informant collected Rs.600/- to pay to the accused, but he did not want to pay any money to the accused. Hence, he visited the Police Station with his friend Rajiv Kumar (PW2) and reported the incident to the police. 3. The police registered the FIR (Ex.PW1/A). Inspector Sushila (PW16) commenced the investigation. The informant collected Rs.600/- to pay to the accused, but he did not want to pay any money to the accused. Hence, he visited the Police Station with his friend Rajiv Kumar (PW2) and reported the incident to the police. 3. The police registered the FIR (Ex.PW1/A). Inspector Sushila (PW16) commenced the investigation. She demonstrated the functioning of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate powder to the informant and his friend, Rajiv Kumar. She prepared a memo (Ex.PW1/B). The informant produced six currency notes, each worth Rs.100/-. Inspector Sushila (PW16) recorded the serial number of the currency notes in the memo (Ex.PW1/C). She smeared currency notes with phenolphthalein powder and handed them over to the informant. She directed the informant to hand over the currency notes to the accused on demand and not to shake hands with anyone. Rajiv Kumar was associated as the shadow witness, and he was directed to give a signal to the police after the accused had accepted the bribe. The police party, the informant and the witness went to the spot in a police vehicle. The police constables were directed to hide themselves near the spot and inform the remaining police party about the signal made by Rajiv Kumar. 4. The informant and Rajiv Kumar went to the Patwarkhana, where the accused was present. The informant told the accused that he had brought the money to enter the mutation and supply the legal heirs’ certificate. He handed over Rs.600/- to the accused. The accused counted the money and kept it in the drawer of his table. The accused assured the informant that his work would be completed within 2-3 days. Rajiv Kumar signalled as agreed. The police party entered the Patwarkhana and caught the accused. Inspector Sushila told the accused that he had accepted the bribe from the informant. She carried out a personal search of the accused. She also searched the drawer and recovered the money from it. She tallied the serial numbers of the currency notes with serial numbers recorded in the memo (Ex.PW1/C). They were found to be the same. Currency notes were seized vide memo (Ex.PW13/A). Rs.850/- were also found in the drawer, which were seized vide memo (Ex.PW2/B). The hands of the accused were washed with the solution of sodium carbonate, and the water turned pink. Inspector Sushila preserved the handwash in a vial (Ex. P2) and sealed it with seal ‘K’. Currency notes were seized vide memo (Ex.PW13/A). Rs.850/- were also found in the drawer, which were seized vide memo (Ex.PW2/B). The hands of the accused were washed with the solution of sodium carbonate, and the water turned pink. Inspector Sushila preserved the handwash in a vial (Ex. P2) and sealed it with seal ‘K’. Sample seals (Ex.PW1/D) and (Ex.PW1/E) were taken on separate pieces of clothes. Memo (Ex.PW2/A) was prepared. The charge of Patwarkhana was handed over to Dine Ram, Patwari vide memo (Ex.PW6/A). Inspector Sushila (PW16) prepared the spot map (Ex.PW16/A). She arrested the accused vide memo (Ex.PW16/D). The copy of Jamabandi (Ex.PW1/H), Will (Ex.PW1/L) and affidavit (Ex.PW1/M), posting and transfer order (Ex.PW5/A), death certificate of Keshav Ram (Ex.PW9/A), appointment order (Ex.PW11/A), posting order (Ex.PW11/B) and bank statement of Keshav Ram (Ex.PW11/D) were taken into possession. The case property was sent to RFSL Gutkar. The result of the analysis (Ex.PA) was issued, stating that traces of sodium carbonate powder and phenolphthalein were detected in the demonstration nip and hand wash. Phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate were detected in their respective samples. The case file was produced before Rattan Singh (PW8) for prosecution sanction, who perused the case file and accorded the prosecution sanction (Ex.PW8/A). The statements of remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court. 5. Learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses to prove its case. Murat Ram (PW1) is the informant. Rajiv Kumar (PW2) is the shadow witness, but he did not support the prosecution’s case. HHC Paras Ram (PW3) carried the case property to RFSL Gutkar. Constable Gagan Kumar (PW4) and SI Tara Singh (PW6) are the official witnesses to the trap. Kishore Chand (PW5) proved the posting order of the accused. Narvinder Singh (PW7) proved the mutation of the Will. Rattan Singh (PW8) issued the prosecution sanction. Jiwan Lata (PW9) proved the entry regarding the death of Keshav Ram. Bal Mukund (PW10) stated that the mutation of inheritance was entered on 24.9.2008 in the informant’s favour. Inspector Balwant Singh (PW11) partly investigated the case. Inspector Prem Singh (PW12) prepared the challan. Narvinder Singh (PW7) proved the mutation of the Will. Rattan Singh (PW8) issued the prosecution sanction. Jiwan Lata (PW9) proved the entry regarding the death of Keshav Ram. Bal Mukund (PW10) stated that the mutation of inheritance was entered on 24.9.2008 in the informant’s favour. Inspector Balwant Singh (PW11) partly investigated the case. Inspector Prem Singh (PW12) prepared the challan. Karam Chand (PW13) was called to the spot, but he did not support the prosecution’s case. Pawan Kumar (PW14) produced the account statement of Keshav Ram. Kulwant Verma (PW15) produced the appointment and posting order of the accused. Inspector Sushila (PW16) laid the trap and investigated the matter. 7. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he was posted as Patwari in Patwar Circle Khokhan. He denied the rest of the prosecution’s case. He stated that Murat Ram came to him, and an entry in the rapat rojnamcha was made on 24.9.2008. He (accused) entered the mutation in favour of the informant. The mutation was compared on 29.9.2008 by Field Kanungo. The mutation was attested on 21.11.2008 in the presence of the accused. The informant asked the accused to enter the mutation of the land owned by Manmohan Malhotra and Nirmla Malhotra in his name on the ground that he and his father were mortgagees for more than 30 years; however, the accused declined to do so without the decree of the competent Court. The informant implicated the accused in a false case. The statements of Bal Mukund (DW1) and Tedhi Singh (DW2) were recorded in defence. 8. Learned Trial Court held that the statements of the witnesses corroborated each other. Statements had some minor contradictions, but these were bound to come with time. Shadow witness Rajiv Kumar (PW2) and independent witness Karam Chand (PW13) turned hostile, but they admitted their signatures on the various memos. The official witnesses proved the prosecution’s case. The plea taken by the accused that he was falsely implicated was not acceptable. The bribe money was recovered from the accused, and the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act would be attracted. The prosecution’s evidence proved that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.600/-. Therefore, the accused was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 9. The plea taken by the accused that he was falsely implicated was not acceptable. The bribe money was recovered from the accused, and the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act would be attracted. The prosecution’s evidence proved that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.600/-. Therefore, the accused was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused has filed the present appeal, asserting that the mutation was entered by the accused on 24.9.2008 and was sanctioned on 21.11.2008. The informant had also signed the mutation and was aware of its attestation. Hence, the whole prosecution case that the accused demanded the money from the informant to enter the mutation becomes doubtful. Pradhan was called subsequently, and nothing had transpired in his presence. The shadow witness did not support the prosecution’s case. The Jamabandi was issued by the accused vide Receipt No.47, dated 5.12.2008. An entry in the Daily Diary No. 199 was recorded to this effect. There was no justification for the demand and acceptance of the bribe. There are serious infirmities in the prosecution’s case. Hence, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 10. I have heard Mr. N.K. Sood, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. N.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 11. Mr. N.K. Sood, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/accused, submitted that the accused is innocent and he was falsely implicated. As per the FIR, the demand was made for attestation of mutation and issuing the legal heir certificate. Mutation was attested much before the date of demand. Jamabandi for obtaining the legal heir certificate was also issued in the informant’s favour. The prosecution sanction is not proper. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 12. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the informant supported the prosecution’s case that the accused had demanded a bribe of Rs.600/-, which was paid to him. Learned Trial Court had rightly held that the minor contradictions are bound to come with time, and they should not be used to discard the prosecution’s case. 12. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the informant supported the prosecution’s case that the accused had demanded a bribe of Rs.600/-, which was paid to him. Learned Trial Court had rightly held that the minor contradictions are bound to come with time, and they should not be used to discard the prosecution’s case. Learned Trial Court had rightly held that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act would arise. The accused has failed to rebut this presumption. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 13. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 14. The police have presented the present challan for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The ingredients of Section 7 were explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab, (2025) 4 SCC 493 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488 at page 498: 11. Thus, in an offence under Section 7 of the 1988 Act, the points requiring proof are: (i) that the accused at the time of the offence was, or expected to be, a public servant; (ii) that he accepted or retained or agreed to accept, or attempted to obtain from some person a gratification; (iii) that such gratification was not a legal remuneration due to him; (iv) that he accepted such gratification as a motive or reward, proof of which is essential for (a) doing or forbearing to do an official act, or (b) showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to someone in the exercise of his official functions, or (c) rendering or attempting to render any service, or disservice to someone, with the legislative or executive government, or with any public servant. 15. The FIR (Ex.PW1/A) specifically mentions that a mutation of inheritance was to be attested in the informant’s favour, and he had to obtain the legal heirs certificate from the Revenue Department, for which he went to the accused on 21.11.2008, but the accused demanded the bribe for entering the mutation and issuing the papers. Informant Murat Ram (PW1) also stated on oath that his father had expired on 17.8.2008. He approached the accused to get the Will entered into the revenue record. Informant Murat Ram (PW1) also stated on oath that his father had expired on 17.8.2008. He approached the accused to get the Will entered into the revenue record. The accused demanded Rs.200/- to make the entry in the revenue record. He paid Rs.200/- to the accused. The accused again demanded the money. The informant requested the accused for a Parcha Jamabandi for the issuance of a legal heir certificate, but the accused did not issue the Jamabandi and demanded Rs.600/-. Hence, he made a complaint to the police. 16. Bal Mukund (PW10) stated that a mutation regarding the inheritance was entered on 24.9.2008 in the name of Murat Ram regarding the land of deceased Keshav Ram. Inspector Sushila (PW16) admitted in her cross-examination that a copy of Jamabandi for the year 1994-95 was issued by the Patwari to the informant on 29.11.2003. She admitted that the legal heir certificate was prepared in the office of the Tehsildar and was issued by the SDM. 17. Tedhi Singh (DW2) proved the copy of the mutation (Ex.DW2/A), wherein the informant had put his signature in Column No. 15. The informant admitted in his cross- examination that mutation of inheritance was attested at Tegubehar and his signatures were taken by Tehsildar at the time of attestation of mutation. He also admitted that he had obtained revenue papers from the accused. Thus, the informant has not disputed the fact that mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in his favour and he had taken the copy of Jamabandi from the accused. 18. The statements of the witnesses and the informant’s admission in the cross-examination proved that the mutation was entered on 24.9.2008 and was attested on 21.11.2008. Similarly, Jamabandi was issued on 5.12.2008. Therefore, there is a force in the submission of Mr. N.K. Sood, learned Senior Counsel for the accused that the accused had no justification for demanding the bribe for entering the mutation and issuing Jamabandi on 11.12.2008 and the informant had no reason to pay him the money for the work, which was already done by the accused. 19. It was laid down in Kanhaiyalal v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 SCC OnLine Raj 342: 1998 Cri LJ 3155, that when no work was pending with the accused, no bribe could have been given to him. 19. It was laid down in Kanhaiyalal v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 SCC OnLine Raj 342: 1998 Cri LJ 3155, that when no work was pending with the accused, no bribe could have been given to him. It was observed at page 3159: “13…It is proved by this negative evidence that no such verification was made by the patwari. Hence form to obtain subsidy for Rukmani could not have been and was not presented to the accused appellant. So no work was pending and the demand of Rs. 100/- could not have been made by the accused appellant. When it is proved beyond doubt from the record that no such application form was submitted, it cannot be held that any work was pending with the accused and any demand could be made by him in relation to sanction to be made with regard to deepening of well. P.W. 1 Radhey Shyam has himself admitted that he did not pay the money for the purpose. According to him instead the amount was paid to the accused appellant for the work which had already been done and for which there is no charge against the accused appellant.” (Emphasis supplied) 20. In Suryabhan v. State of Maharashtra, 1994 SCC OnLine Bom 428: (1996) 1 Bom CR 46: 1995 Cri LJ 107, mutation was already entered by the accused, which was certified and approved before the alleged demand of a bribe. It was held that the essential ingredient that the money was demanded as a motive or reward for doing an official act was missing. It was observed at page 52: “12...The copy of extract of the mutation register (Exh. 67) shows that the mutation has been effected in the mutation register on 2-1-1986 itself. The said mutation was made on 2-1-1986 and it is recorded that the concerned persons were intimated on 2-1-1986. It is further apparent from the said document that the mutation, which was effected in the names of Shankar Ingole (P.W. 11), Dayaram Ingole (P.W. 7) and Bhaiya Ingole (P.W. 9) was certified by the Revenue Inspector on 31-1-1986. Both Shankar Ingole (P.W. 11) as well his brothers Bhaiya Ingole (P.W. 9) and Dayaram (P.W. 7) are shown to be present at the time of verification and certification by the Revenue Inspector. Both Shankar Ingole (P.W. 11) as well his brothers Bhaiya Ingole (P.W. 9) and Dayaram (P.W. 7) are shown to be present at the time of verification and certification by the Revenue Inspector. It is recorded in the said register that the persons named Bhaiya (P.W. 9), Dayaram (P.W. 7) and Shankar (P.W. 11) were present and on verification of the will deed, they admitted that Bhagirathibai has died. On that the mutation which was effected on 2-1-1986 by the accused was certified on 31- 1-1986. When the mutation was effected on 2-1-1986 by the accused - appellant and it was duly certified by the Revenue Inspector on 31-1-1986 in the presence of Shankar Ingole (P.W. 11), Dayaram (P.W. 7) and Bhaiya Ingole (P.W. 9), it becomes unbelievable and in any case highly doubtful that the accused demanded the sum of Rs. 200/- in the month of May, 1986. It will be further seen from the statement of P.W. 7 Dayaram Ingole that agricultural field was partitioned amongst the brothers, namely, Dayaram (P.W. 7), Bhaiya (P.W. 9) and Shankar (P.W. 11) in the month of February, 1986. It is thus clear that after the mutation was effected on 2-1-1986 and duly certified on 31-1-1986, the partition of agricultural land took place between the three brothers and thus it can be inferred that Shankar Ingole (P.W. 11), Bhaiya Ingole (P.W. 9) and Dayaram Ingole (P.W. 7) had knowledge that the mutation was effected on 2-1-1986 and was duly certified on 31-1-1986 by the Revenue Inspector. The statement of these three brothers, namely, P.W. 7 Dayaram, P.W. 9 Bhaiya and P.W. 11 Shankar to the contrary that they were not present on 31-1-1986 before the Revenue Inspector cannot be believed. This is further fortified from the fact that on 5-5-1986 one of the brothers Bhaiya (P.W. 9) has sold his share of agricultural land to Ishwar Raut by the registered sale-deed (Exh. 98). If the mutation had not been effected on 2-1-1986 and certified on 31-1-1986 and was not in the knowledge of these three brothers as alleged, Bhaiya could not have sold his share on 5-5-1986 much before the date of incident on 16-5-1986. From this evidence, it can be inferred that the prosecution case that Rs. 98). If the mutation had not been effected on 2-1-1986 and certified on 31-1-1986 and was not in the knowledge of these three brothers as alleged, Bhaiya could not have sold his share on 5-5-1986 much before the date of incident on 16-5-1986. From this evidence, it can be inferred that the prosecution case that Rs. 200/- was demanded by the accused - appellant from Madhukar Ingole (P.W. 1) as gratification as a motive or reward for effecting the entries in the mutation register in favour of Shankar and his brothers does not inspire confidence and cannot be believed. On the face of the facts that the mutation was already effected by the accused - appellant on 2-1-1986, which was certified by the Revenue Inspector on 31-1-1986 and the post conduct of Shankar Ingole and his brothers of partition of their respective shares in the month of February, 1986 and the sale of share by one of the brothers Bhaiya (P.W. 9), the prosecution story about the demand of Rs. 200/- by the accused - appellant from Madhukar Ingole (P.W. 1) as gratification as a motive or reward for effecting entries in the mutation register in favour of Shankar and his brothers becomes highly improbable and can be said to be suffering from inherent improbabilities. There is no reason to doubt correctness and genuineness of the entries recorded in the mutation register on 2-1-1986 and 31-1-1986 respectively….” (Emphasis supplied) 21. Similar is the judgment in Chandrasen v. State of Maharashtra, 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 277 wherein it was observed: “36. Therefore, ongoing through the entire evidence brought on record and more particularly, the evidence of P.W.1 Laxman complainant, it is clear that the complainant and his two sons were released on bail in the police station and on next day their bail was accepted in Chapter Case in Tahsil Office at Beed. This fact is also corroborated by P.W.2 Vasant who has proved Exh.19/1 to 19/7. These documents would show that in Chapter Case No. 1/91 the complainant and his sons were released on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 500/- on 2.1.1991 and in Chapter Case No. 3/91 they were released on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 2000/- on 4.1.1991 by accepting surety. Therefore, P.W.1 himself has stated that they were released on bail six days prior to date of trap. 500/- on 2.1.1991 and in Chapter Case No. 3/91 they were released on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 2000/- on 4.1.1991 by accepting surety. Therefore, P.W.1 himself has stated that they were released on bail six days prior to date of trap. Therefore, one of the essential ingredients of section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that amount of Rs. 300/- was received by the accused/appellant from Laxman Arey P.W.1 as gratification as a motive or reward for releasing him on bail, has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.” 22. In S.D. Amalraj vs. State Cr.A. no. 490 of 2002, decided on 25.1.2008 (Madras High Court), the order was passed and placed on file for issuing a license. It was held that the demand of bribe for issuing the license was not probable. It was observed: “10. When the accused has already passed an order to issue a licence and sent the file to A.4 clerk even on 24.8.1998, nothing remains to be done by the accused thereafter. It is the duty of A.4 Clerk to wait for three days or one week, whether the applicant (P. W.2) comes and get the licence or otherwise, A.4 Clerk should have sent the licence to the applicant by post. P. W.1 Collector himself has admitted as follows: -... (vernacular matter omitted). 11. Therefore, the payment of bribe after completion of the official favour is a serious lacuna in the prosecution case as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U. P. Vs. Jagdish Singh Malhotra, 2003 SCC(Cri) 1008. In the present case, on facts there is no official favour persisted at all when already the appellant has ordered for an issue of licence. 12. In Ram Smugh Mourya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 2 CurCriR 169, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held as follows:- "17. In the present case, the purpose for which the money was demanded as illegal gratification by the appellant, was already served much prior to the alleged demand of Rs.100/- to the appellant for releasing the complainant and his son Mohan. Complainant Rajaram was also given notice for appearance before the Court for filing the charge sheet, in the circumstances, it would be difficult to believe that the appellant was demanding money for the work which had already been done. Complainant Rajaram was also given notice for appearance before the Court for filing the charge sheet, in the circumstances, it would be difficult to believe that the appellant was demanding money for the work which had already been done. If the money was not paid by the complainant, after his release on surety, Deokaran (PW.5) was never called and asked for the payment of money because as per the prosecution case, on his assurance, complainant Rajaram and his son were released on bail. This fact is also tilting the balance of innocence in favour of the appellant. " 13. In S. Suryanarayana Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, 2000 CrLJ 2377 , the Karnataka High Court has held as follows:- "6. . . . Unless there is corroboration by other materials, it is difficult to hold that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that there was demand and acceptance. Moreover, another hole in the jacket of the prosecution is that the file had left on 22.7.1986 itself to P. W2 to conduct the survey. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, naturally, the doubt arises as to the genuineness of the prosecution story. Hence the benefit of the doubt is extended to the appellant" 14 In M. K. Shanmugasundaram Vs. The Inspector of Police, V and AC, Salem, 2007 1 LW(Cri) 199, this court held that "like every other criminal case, a case of bribery is subject to the rule that the accused is presumed innocent and that the burden to discharge the said innocent is paramountly on the prosecution. However strong the suspicion against the accused if every reasonable possibility of innocence has not been excluded, he is entitled to an acquittal. If therefore the evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe leaves room for doubt and does not displace the presence of innocence wholly, the charge cannot be said to have been established". 23. Similar is the judgment in Basavaraj I. v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 1084 wherein it was observed: “13. According to the case of PW 1, on 23-3-2000, he visited the appellant's office to request her to issue final assessment order. According to his case, at that time, initially, the appellant reiterated her demand of Rs. 3000. But she scaled it down to Rs. 2000. According to the case of PW 1, on 23-3-2000, he visited the appellant's office to request her to issue final assessment order. According to his case, at that time, initially, the appellant reiterated her demand of Rs. 3000. But she scaled it down to Rs. 2000. Admittedly, on 15-3- 2000, the said Society was served with a notice informing the said Society that an exemption has been granted from payment of commercial tax to the said Society. Therefore, the said Society was not liable to pay any tax for the year 1996-1997. The issue of the final assessment order was only a procedural formality. Therefore, the prosecution's case about the demand of bribe made on 23-3-2000 by the appellant appears to be highly doubtful.” 24. In the present case, the accused had entered the mutation and issued the jambandi. He was not required to do anything for which the demand of bribe could have been made and bribe could have been paid to him. Hence, the prosecution case regarding the demand of bribe by the accused and payment of the bribe by the informant is not acceptable. 25. Informant Murat Ram stated that he approached the accused and told that he had brought the money demanded by the accused to enter the mutation. He asked the accused to supply the relevant record for obtaining legal heir certificate. He handed over Rs.600/- to the accused. The accused took the money and put it in the drawer. He was permitted to be cross- examined; however, he has not stated even in the cross- examination by the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused had demanded any money from him. 26. Rajiv Kumar (PW2) who was a shadow witness and was directed to witness the payment and acceptance. He did not support the prosecution case. He was permitted to be cross examined. He admitted that he could see the Patwari sitting in the office from where he was standing. He denied that the informant inquired about his work and the accused demanded money after which the informant paid money to the accused. Thus, the shadow witness has also not supported the prosecution case regarding the demand and acceptance of money. 27. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Banarsi Dass Vs. State 2010 (4) SCC 450 that in the absence of demand and acceptance the accused cannot be held liable. Thus, the shadow witness has also not supported the prosecution case regarding the demand and acceptance of money. 27. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Banarsi Dass Vs. State 2010 (4) SCC 450 that in the absence of demand and acceptance the accused cannot be held liable. It was observed:- “23. To constitute an offence under Section 161 of the IPC it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that there was the demand of money and the same was voluntarily accepted by the accused. Similarly, in terms of Section 5 (1) (d) of the Act, the demand and acceptance of the money for doing a favour in the discharge of its official duties is the sine qua non to the conviction of the accused. 24. In the case of M.K. Harshan v. State of Kerala 1996 (11) SCC 720 , this Court in somewhat similar circumstances, where the tainted money was kept in the drawer of the accused who denied the same and said that it was put in the drawer without his knowledge, held as under : “...It is in this context the courts have cautioned that as a rule of prudence, some corroboration is necessary. In all such type of cases of bribery, two aspects are important. Firstly, there must be a demand and secondly, there must be acceptance in the sense that the accused has obtained the illegal gratification. Mere demand by itself is not sufficient to establish the offence. Therefore, the other aspect, namely, acceptance is very important and when the accused has come forward with a plea that the currency notes were put in the drawer without his knowledge, then there must be clinching evidence to show that it was with the tacit approval of the accused that the money had been put in the drawer as an illegal gratification. Unfortunately, on this aspect in the present case, we have no other evidence except that of PW-1. Since PW-1's evidence suffers from infirmities, we sought to find some corroboration but in vain. There is no other witness or any other circumstance, which supports the evidence of PW-1 that this tainted money as a bribe was put in the drawer, as directed by the accused. Since PW-1's evidence suffers from infirmities, we sought to find some corroboration but in vain. There is no other witness or any other circumstance, which supports the evidence of PW-1 that this tainted money as a bribe was put in the drawer, as directed by the accused. Unless we are satisfied on this aspect, it is difficult to hold that the accused tacitly accepted the illegal gratification or obtained the same within the meaning of Section 5(1) (d) of the Act, particularly when the version of the accused appears to be probable". 25. Reliance on behalf of the appellant was placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of C.M. Girish Babu (supra) wherein the facts of the case the Court took the view that mere recovery of money from the accused by itself is not enough in absence of substantive evidence for demand and acceptance. The Court held that there was no voluntary acceptance of the money knowing it to be a bribe and giving an advantage to the accused of the evidence on record, the Court in Para 18 and 20 of the judgment held as under : "18. In Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.) 1979 (4) SCC 725 this Court took the view that (at SCC p. 727, Para 2) mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. 20. A three-Judge Bench in M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. 2001 (1) SCC 691 while dealing with the contention that it is not enough that some currency notes were handed over to the public servant to make it acceptance of gratification and prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid amounted to gratification, observed: (SCC p. 700, Para 24) "24. ... we think it is not necessary to deal with the matter in detail because in a recent decision rendered by us the said aspect has been dealt with at length. ... we think it is not necessary to deal with the matter in detail because in a recent decision rendered by us the said aspect has been dealt with at length. (Vide Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra 2000 (8) SCC 571 ).The following statement made by us in the said decision would be the answer to the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel: (Madhukar case, SCC p. 577, Para 12) 12. The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted "as a motive or reward" for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Therefore, the word "gratification" need not be stretched to mean reward because the reward is the outcome of the presumption, which the court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like "gratification or any valuable thing". If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word "gratification" must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it." In fact, the above principle is no way derivative but is a reiteration of the principle enunciated by this Court in Suraj Mal case (supra), where the Court had held that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of prosecution against the accused in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money. Reference can also be made to the judgment of this Court in Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan 1975 (2) SCC 227 , where similar view was taken.” 28. Similar is the judgment in B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P. 2014(13) SCC 55 where it was observed as under:- “7. Reference can also be made to the judgment of this Court in Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan 1975 (2) SCC 227 , where similar view was taken.” 28. Similar is the judgment in B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P. 2014(13) SCC 55 where it was observed as under:- “7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. (2010) 15 SCC 1 and C.M. GirishBabu v. CBI (2009) 3 SCC 779 .” 29. This position was reiterated in State through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Dr Anup Kumar Srivastava 2017(15) SCC 560 wherein it was observed:- “7. The essential ingredients of Section 7 are: (i) that the person accepting the gratification should be a public servant; (ii) that he should accept the gratification for himself and the gratification should be as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person. 8. Insofar as Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act is concerned, its essential ingredients are: (i) that he should have been a public servant; (ii) that he should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position as such public servant and (iii) that he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person. 9. In the case of C.K. Damodaran Nair v. Government of India 1997 (9) SCC 477 , this Court had an occasion to consider the word "obtained" used in Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (now Section 13(1)(d) of Act, 1988), and it was held: "12. The position will, however, be different so far as an offence under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act is concerned. The position will, however, be different so far as an offence under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act is concerned. For such an offence prosecution has to prove that the accused "obtained" the valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant and that too without the aid of the statutory presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act as it is available only in respect of offences under Section 5(1)(a) and (b) -- and not under Section 5(1)(c), (d) or (e) of the Act. "Obtain" means to secure or gain (something) as the result of request or effort (Shorter Oxford Dictionary). In case of obtainment the initiative vests in the person who receives and in that context a demand or request from him will be a primary requisite for an offence under Section 5(1) (d) of the Act unlike an offence under Section 161 IPC, which, as noticed above, can be, established by proof of either "acceptance" or "obtainment." 10. The legal position is no more res integra that primary requisite of an offence under Section 13(1) (a) of the Act is proof of a demand or request of a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant. In other words, in the absence of proof of demand or request from the public servant for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, the offence under Section 13(1) (d) cannot be held to be established.” (Emphasis supplied)”. 30. A similar view was taken in Aman Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013 wherein it was observed: 52. It is well-settled that mere recovery of tainted money, by itself, is insufficient to establish the charges against an accused under the PC Act. To sustain a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act respectively, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe. The courts have consistently reiterated that the demand for a bribe is sine qua non for establishing an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. 53. The courts have consistently reiterated that the demand for a bribe is sine qua non for establishing an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. 53. A five-Judge Bench of this Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 , categorically held that an offer by bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. Mere acceptance of illegal gratification without proof of offer by bribe-giver and demand by the public servant would not make an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow: “88.4. (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 Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections 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. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe-giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.” (Emphasis supplied) 54. It was further explained by this Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152 , as follows: “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.” (Emphasis supplied) 55. From the above exposition of law, it may be safely concluded that mere possession and recovery of tainted currency notes from a public servant, in the absence of proof of demand, is not sufficient to establish an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act respectively. Consequently, without evidence of demand for illegal gratification, it cannot be said that the public servant used corrupt or illegal means, or abused his position, to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage in terms of Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. 56. The present case is not one of an “offer to pay by the bribe-giver” where, in the absence of any demand from the public servant, the mere acceptance of illegal gratification would constitute an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. The expression “offer” indicates that there is a conveyance of an intention to give, which must be communicated and understood by the recipient, leading to meeting of minds. Consequently, the offer is accepted. The expression “offer” indicates that there is a conveyance of an intention to give, which must be communicated and understood by the recipient, leading to meeting of minds. Consequently, the offer is accepted. For such an acceptance to constitute an offence under Section 7, there must be clear and cogent evidence establishing that the public servant was aware of the offer and accepted it voluntarily, knowing it to be illegal gratification. In other words, even where there is no express demand, the bribe-giver and the bribe-taker must be shown to have been ad idem as regards the factum of offer of bribe. 31. In the present case, there is no satisfactory evidence of the demand and the essential requirement of Section 7 has not been proved. 32. Constable Gagan Kumar (PW4) is an official witness to the proceedings. He stated in his examination-in-chief that SI Tara Singh brought two Tumblers, one Jug and one Kadahi. The Investigating Officer took out white power and told that it was sodium carbonate powder. He put it in the tumbler full of water. It was stirred and the colour of water did not change. Then the hands of the accused were got washed in the Kadahi and the colour of the water remained the same. Thereafter, the water of Kadahi was mixed with solution of sodium carbonate and the colour changed to pink. This is contrary to the statement of SI Tara Singh (PW6) and Inspector Sudhila (PW16), who stated in their examination-in-chief that when the hands of the accused were washed with solution of sodium carbonate the water turned pink. This is a major contradiction because it casts doubt whether the accused had handled currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder. Further, the Investigating Officer did not state that she had handed over the phenolphthalein powder to anyone before proceeding on the spot and the statement of Constable Gagan Kumar (PW4) would make it suspect whether the hand wash was treated with sodium carbonate or phenolphthalein. 33. Karam Chand (PW13) was called as independent witness but he did not support the prosecution case. He was permitted to be cross-examined. He specifically denied that the hands of the accused were washed and the hand wash turned pink. The informant did not state initailly that hands were washed. 33. Karam Chand (PW13) was called as independent witness but he did not support the prosecution case. He was permitted to be cross-examined. He specifically denied that the hands of the accused were washed and the hand wash turned pink. The informant did not state initailly that hands were washed. When he was permitted to be cross-examined, he stated that hands of Pradhan were washed but the water did not change its order but when the hands of the accused were washed, the water changed to pink. It was not stated by any person that hands of the Pradhan were also washed and the water remained colourless. 34. Therefore, there are various infirmities in the prosecution case, which made the prosecution case suspect. 35. Learned Trial Court held that a presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act would get attracted to the present case and the burden would shift upon the accused to rebut the presumption. This is not correct. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1072 that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act will not be triggered without the evidence of the demand. It was observed: “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 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. 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 ])’ (emphasis supplied)” 36. In the present case, there is no satisfactory evidence of the demand and the learned Trial Court erred in relying upon the presumption contained in Section 20 of the PC Act. 37. No other point was urged. 38. In view of the above, the judgment and order passed by the Learned Trial Court cannot be sustained. Consequently, they are ordered to be set aside, and the appellant/accused is acquitted of the charged offence. The fine, if deposited be refunded to the appellant/accused after the expiry of the period of limitation, in case no appeal is preferred, and in case of appeal, the same be dealt with as per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 39. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], the appellant/accused is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court/learned Trial Court, within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the respondent/accused, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 40. A copy of this judgment, along with the records of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.