1 CRA No.900 of 2016 2025:CGHC:33339 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 900 of 2016 Pappu Singh Rajput S/o Late Trilok Singh Rajput Aged About 35 Years Occupation Assistant Grade III, Tahsil Office Sahas Lohara, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh R/o Village Ghogha, P.S. Gandai, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Anti Corruption Bureau, Unit Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy.A.G. with Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 16.07.2025 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12-07-2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Kabirdham, C.G. in Special Sessions Case No.01/2014, whereby the learned Court below convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.22 11:48:41 +0530 2 CRA No.900 of 2016 Conviction Sentence Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of fine, additional R.I. for five months Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act R.I. for three years and fine amount of Rs.50,000/-, in default, additional R.I. for five months. 1. (a) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant herein was working on the post of AG-III and posted at Tahsil Ofifce, Sahaspur, Lohara, Kabirdham. Complainant namely has 6.42 acres of agricultural land in village Navghata in the name of his father, which he had applied for in the Tehsil office Sahaspur Lohara for transfer in the name of his mother, himself and his younger brother after the death of his father, but as no action was taken on the said application, he met the appellant at the Tahsil office and in lieu of transfer, the appellant demanded a bribe of about Rs. 25000/- at the rate of Rs 4000/- per acre, about which the complainant made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Raipur on 11.12.2012. Thereafter, a digital voice recorder given to the complainant at Raipur itself for recording the conversation with the present Appellant. (b) On 13-12-2012, the complainant met with the present appellant and had recorded the conversation between them regarding demand of money. On 05-02-2013, when the 3 CRA No.900 of 2016 complainant met with the appellant at bus stand, he called the complainant on 7-02-2013 with the money at Tahsil Office. Then, the complainant had informed to B. S. Rathore (Inspector). On the basis of information given by the complainant, the investigation was proceeded which led to trap on 07/02/2013 and Rs.12000/- tainted currency notes stated to have recovered from the possession of the appellant. Subsequently, an FIR under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed, where the charges under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the Act, 1988 was framed against the appellant. 2. In course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses to bring home the charges. The accused person abjured the guilt; pleaded innocence; and false implication. 3. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 4. (i) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the complainant - Shyam Sundar Baghel died prior to his examination in the Court and this fact has been observed at para 2 4 CRA No.900 of 2016 of the judgment of trial Court. Since the complainant could not have been examined by the prosecution due to his death, then in that situation, the direct evidence of demand of money from the complainant is not available. According to the learned counsel, because the complainant in the present case has expired prior to the evidence and could not have been examined therefore, the factum of demand could have been proved by other testimony either by direct or circumstantial evidence, which the prosecution miserably failed. To buttress his contention, he placed reliance in the matter of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 1724 {para 68 (f)}. (ii) Learned counsel would further submit that PW-7 B.S. Paikra has admitted at para 14 and 17 of his cross-examination that he had not produced the tape recorder by which the conversation between accused and the complainant was recorded and he further admits that he had not produced the voice recorder by which the CD was prepared. He would also submit that PW-9 Bhagwan Singh Rathore has admitted in his cross examination at para 64 that he had not seized the micro tape by which the CD was prepared nor it was produced in the Court. The seizure of CD which prepared through voice recorder are evident from the documents Ex-P/2 & were Ex-P/12. In view of such statement, it is proved that the CD which was seized was not primary evidence since the voice recorder by which the CD was prepared was 5 CRA No.900 of 2016 produced and, as such, to proof the same the application under Section 65-B of Evidence Act 1872 is essential. The law in this regard has been settled in the matter of "Anvar P.V. Vs. P. K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473. (iii) Learned counsel would submit that otherwise also the said conversation is not admissible in evidence. Neither voice identification of the accused is there nor spectrograph was carried out. The authenticity of the recorder was also not proved through examination. He would place reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State of Maharastra reported in (2011) 4 SCC 143 and Sanjay Singh Rama Rao Chavan v Dattatray Gulab Rao Phalke and Others (2015) 3 SCC 123. Also, the judgment passed by this Court in CRA No.52/2018 (Lavan Singh Churendra Vs. State of C.G.) and CRA No.469/2017 (Pradeep Kumar Dewangan Vs. State of C.G.). (iv) So far as alleged acceptance of the money is concerned, learned counsel would submit that no direct evidence is available due to death of the complainant. The conversation as was allegedly recorded in voice tape recorder during the alleged acceptance of money is not admissible in evidence. He would submit that the prosecution witnesses themselves said that they have not seen the appellant by receiving or accepting the money from the complainant. PW-1 D. S. Dhruv has admitted in para 24 of his 6 CRA No.900 of 2016 cross examination that he has not seen the accused by keeping the money or throwing it. The other prosecution witness PW-4 Prem Lal Patel, PW-5 Ghanshyam Thakur and PW-9 Bhagwan Singh Rathore also deposed that they had not seen the accused by taking the money. According to the appellant, none of the prosecution witnesses have seen the accused by taking the stated alleged bribe and, as such, no evidence is available to substantiate the facts of the alleged acceptance of money. (v) With regard to recovery of money is concerned, learned counsel would submit that the prosecution witnesses categorically stated that the alleged currency notes recovered from the room of Nazir. He would submit that even in this regard there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 5. (A) Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. According to the learned State counsel the present matter is a well-proven case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, wherein the accused/appellant, a public servant posted as Assistant Grade-III at Tehsil Office, Sahaspur Lohara, District-Kabirdham has demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.12,000 from the complainant to facilitate mutation of agricultural land in the complainant's name after the death of his father and the appellant was caught red handed by the trap team of 7 CRA No.900 of 2016 Anti Corruption Bureau while accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 12,000 from the complainant. He would submit that the prosecution has successfully discharged its burden of proof under all the essential ingredients of the offence. (B) Learned counsel would submit that during the verification, a digital voice recorder was provided to the complainant. Complainant again contacted the appellant on 13/12/2012 and recorded the conversation, which contained discussion regarding the bribe amount. Transcript of the tape recorder before setting the trap is at Ex.P/1. Learned counsel would also submit that the audio recording was transcribed and converted into a CD, which was played in the presence of trap witnesses and police officers. Several witnesses confirmed the presence of bribe-related dialogue in the recording, though they admitted the voices were identified based on the complainant's input. (C) Learned counsel would submit that after completing all pre- trap formalities including chemical marking of notes (phenolphthalein powder), the complainant met the appellant and upon receiving the pre-arranged signal (hand on head) by the complainant, the trap team entered the Tehsil office. Learned counsel would submit that the appellant was found in the office premises, and his hands tested positive for phenolphthalein when dipped in sodium carbonate solution (the solution turned pink). According to the learned counsel, the pants worn by the appellant 8 CRA No.900 of 2016 was also tested with the sodium carbonate solution in which the pockets of the pants also tested positive for phenolphthalein, confirming the bribe was accepted and kept in the possession of the appellant. (D) Learned counsel would also submit that the trap team searched the Nazir Room as indicated by the appellant himself and then the trap team recovered Rs.12,000/- in marked currency notes (500 x 24) from the location as indicated by the appellant. The serial numbers of the currency notes seized from the appellant matched with those of the currency notes used by the trap team whose serial numbers were recorded earlier. He would submit that witnesses corroborated the seizure, and the entire process was documented through trap and seizure panchnamas. According to the learned counsel, post-seizure, the notes were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, and again the solution turned pink, confirming that the seized notes were the same marked currency used in the trap. Learned counsel would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties perused the pleadings and documents. 7. Before analyzing the evidence, led by the prosecution as well as by the appellant and various circumstances, it would be essential to 9 CRA No.900 of 2016 take it to consideration the principles which have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of appreciation of evidence of complainant in a bribery case and the need for corroboration. 8. At the first instance it would be necessary to consider the fact that the complainant has passed away prior to the evidence and could not have been examined, but the allegation of demand of money made by the appellant, could have been proved by other direct or circumstantial evidence, which the prosecution has failed to prove. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the matter of Neeraj Dutta (supra), held as under:- “68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved 10 CRA No.900 of 2016 by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind: (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by 11 CRA No.900 of 2016 the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and inturn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. (f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal, Section 20 12 CRA No.900 of 2016 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (1) and (ii) of the Act. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature." (emphasis added) 9. In the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1191 the Supreme Court observed as under:- "8. There could be no doubt that the evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particulars. After introduction of Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code making the person who offers bribe guilty of abetment bribery, the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon."… The status of person offering bribe and the caution required while assessing his evidence implicating a Govt. servant was examined by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in the case of M.Ο. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerla, 1995 SCC (3) 351, wherein, it was held as under: “12. Now confining ourselves to the case of bribery it is generally accepted that the person offering a bribe to a public officer is in the nature of an accomplice in the offence of accepting illegal gratification but the nature of corroboration required in such a case should not be subjected to the same rigorous test which are generally 13 CRA No.900 of 2016 applied to a case of an approver. Though bribe givers are generally treated to be in the nature of accomplices but among them there are various types and gradation. In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act the complainant is the person who gives the bribe in a technical and legal sense because in every trap case wherever the complaint is filed there must be a person who has to give money to the accused which in fact is the bribe money which is demanded and without such a giving die trap cannot succeed. When there is such a demand by the public servant from person who is unwilling and if to do public good approaches the authorities and lodges complaint then in order that the trap succeeds he has to give the money. There could be another type of bribe giver who is always willing to give money in order to get his work done and having got the work done he may send a complaint. Here he is a particeps criminis in respect of the crime committed and thus is an accomplice. Thus there are grades and grades of accomplices and therefore a distinction could as well be drawn between cases where a person offers a bribe to achieve his own purpose and where one is forced to offer bribe under a threat of loss or harm that is to say under coercion. A person who falls in this category and who becomes a party for laying a trap stands on a different footing because he is a only a victim of threat or coercion to which he was subjected to. Where such witnesses fall under the category of "accomplices" by reason of their being bribe givers, in the first instance the court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration if necessary as a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case may vary having regard to the facts and circumstances." 14 CRA No.900 of 2016 What therefore, emerges from the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court is that the complainant's evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and the Court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration, if necessary, as a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case, may vary, having regard to the facts and circumstances. 10. In the matter of M.R. Purshotham Vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 3 SCC 247, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when demand of bribe is not proved by the prosecution, mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 13(1) (d) of the Act. 11. In B. Jaiyaraj v. State of Andra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 5, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 of the Act unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. Presumption against public servant under Section 20 of the Act can be drawnonly if demand for acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. 12. Similar view has been taken in the matter of A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala, 2010 AIR SCC 1115 and Subhash Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2003 SC 2169. 15 CRA No.900 of 2016 13. Evidence on record led by the prosecution, as also by the defence, therefore, is required to be scrutinized in order to find out as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the demand, acceptance and recovery. 14. The first question arose before this Court, whether the appellant has demanded illegal gratification from the complainant or thee was any acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant?. 15. Admittedly, the complainant has expired prior to his examination before the trial Court. 16. Section 33 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides as under:- 33. Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated. Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorised by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead, or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable:Provided that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest; 16 CRA No.900 of 2016 that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine; that the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding. Explanation. - A criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding between the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning of this section. 17. In the matter of Sashi Jena and others v. Khadal Swain and Others, 2004 Cr.L.J 1394 has dealt the issue regarding applicability of Section 33 in elaborately including the affect of proviso appended to the main clause. It has been held by the Supreme Court that in the situation under Section 33 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the evidence recorded earlier in the judicial proceeding can only be considered in the subsequent proceeding or in the later stage of the same proceeding if the person against whom the said evidence is sought to be relied had an opportunity to the cross examine the person whom evidence is sought to be relied subsequently under Section 33 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Para 10 of the said judgment is as under:- “10. Thus, we have no difficulty in holding that as during the course of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, an accused has no right much less opportunity to cross- examine a prosecution witness, statement of such a witness recorded during the course of the inquiry is not admissible in evidence under Section 33 of the Act and, consequently, the same can not form the basis of conviction of an 17 CRA No.900 of 2016 accused”. 18. In this case, the complaint (Ex.P/17) and (Ex.P/25), which are written complaints made by the Complainant remained unproved because the said evidence does not sought to be relied unless an opportunity to the cross examine the person whom evidence is sought to be relied subsequently under Section 33 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 19. As such, the evidence as led by the prosecution is required to be scrutinized regarding proof of ‘Demand’. 20. (PW-7) B.S. Paikra, Deputy Superintendent of Police stated that they reached Sahaspur Lohara at about 11 o'clock and the complainant was sent to the office of the appellant along with shadow witness Dhanshyam Singh Thakur to give the bribe amount. All the members of the trap team stood around the court premises, hiding their presence. After about half an hour, the complainant gave the bribe amount to the accused/appellant and gave signal outside by passing his hand over his head. On receiving the signal, all the members of the trap team reached the Tehsil office. Constable Pawan Pathak and Thakur were holding the palm of the appellant. After reaching the spot, they introduced themselves to the appellant and on asking for the introduction of the appellant told his name i.e. Pappu Singh Rajput and said that he was Assistant Grade-3, Tehsil Office, S. Lohara. When the Investigating Officer-Bhagwan Singh Rathore interrogated the 18 CRA No.900 of 2016 appellant about taking bribe, he denied. Thereafter, constable Rampravesh Mishra prepared a solution of sodium carbonate and the fingers of all the members of the trap team were washed with it. A colorless solution was obtained. That solution was sealed in a clean glass bottle. Once again, constable Rampravesh prepared prepared a solution of sodium carbonate and the fingers of both hands of the appellant were washed with that solution. A pink coloured solution was obtained. The said solution was also filled in a clean glass bottle and sealed. However, in para 14 of his cross-examination, he admitted that he has not produced the voice recorder, in which, conversation of the appellant and complainant was recorded in it. In Para 17, he further admitted that the conversation took place between the appellant and the complainant was recorded in the voice recorded, on the basis of which, he prepared CD, but the said voice recorded was not produced before the Court. 21. B.S. Rathore (PW-9), Inspector has stated that while going for the trap proceedings, he kept the necessary items like trap kit, seal, paper, laptop etc with him and left for Sahaspur Lohara in the government vehicle. On reaching the Tehsil office, Sahaspur Lohara, the shadow witness and the complainant were sent to the Tehsil office and other members parked the vehicle far away and stood nearby hiding their presence. After some time, on receiving the indication of bribe from the complainant, all the members of 19 CRA No.900 of 2016 the trap team entered the office and in front of room No.9, both the hands of the accused were held by the constables and introduced himself to all the members and he was also asked for his introduction who told his name as Pappu Singh Rajput, Assistant Grade-3 Tehsil Office Sahaspur Lohara. When he asked him about the bribe amount given by the complainant, the accused first started denying on which constable Ram Pravesh Mishra was asked to prepare a solution of sodium carbonate on the spot. When all the fingers of both the hands of all the members of the trap team except the complainant and the accused were dipped in the said solution, there was no change in the colour of the solution. The said solution was kept in a bottle and sealed. Again a solution of sodium carbonate was prepared, in which the fingers of both the hands of the accused were dipped and washed, a pink coloured solution was obtained. That too was kept in a bottle and sealed. However, in para 64 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not seized the micro tape. He seized the CD only. He further admitted that he has not seized the laptop from which he prepared the CD. 22. The only other evidence which the prosecution had relied to proof such demand is conversation as stated to have been recorded between the complainant and the appellant. 23. From the statement of PW-7, B.S. Paikra at para 14 and 17 of his cross-examination, in which, he stated that has not produced the 20 CRA No.900 of 2016 tape-recorder of conversation between the complainant and the appellant and he has further admitted the fact that he has not produced the voice recorder, by which, the CD was prepared. Apart from that, PW-9, Bhagwan Singh Rathore has admitted in his cross-examination at para 64 that he has not seized the tape, by which, the CD was prepared and the same was not produced in the Court. Hence, to prove the conversation regarding the money between the complainant and appellant, the CD which was seized was not primary evidence since the voice recorder by which the CD was prepared was not produced before the Court and to prove the same, the application under Section 65-B of Evidence Act 1872 is essential. 24. Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act reads as under:- 65B. Admissibility of Electronic records- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. (2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of 21 CRA No.900 of 2016 a computer output shall be the following, namely:-- (a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer; (b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities; (c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and (d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities. (3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether-- (a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or (b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or (c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or 22 CRA No.900 of 2016 (d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly. (4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say, -- (a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer; (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it. (5) For the purposes of this section,- (a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or 23 CRA No.900 of 2016 without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment; -- (b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities; (c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment. 25. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the matter of Anvar P.V. (supra) held as under:- 22..........An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65-B are satisfied. Thus case of CD, VCD, chip etc. the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65-B obtained at the time of taking the documents, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to the electronic record, is inadmissible. 26. Neither the application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 was moved nor the certificate as required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 was accompanied by the prosecution to prove its case and as such, the said evidence is inadmissible. 27. So far as acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification is 24 CRA No.900 of 2016 concerned, the learned trial Court has relied the statement of D.S. Dhruw (PW1), PW-2, Ram Pravesh Mishra, Constable, A.C.B, PW-5: Ghanshyam Thakur 28. D.S. Dhruv (PW-1) stated in his evidence that he is currently posted as Superintendent at All India Pre-Examination Training Centre Raipur, District Raipur. On 06.02.2013, he was posted as Superintendent at Hostel Superintendent Pension Bara Raipur. On 07.02.2013, he received an order from SDM Raipur that he has to go to Anti Corruption Bureau office for confidential work. On receiving the information, he along with another officer Premlal Patel (Assistant Engineer, PWD) went to Anti Corruption Bureau office, Raipur. From there, they reached the Tehsil office in Lohara at around 11-11.30 am. There were 10-11 people including staff from the Anti Corruption Bureau office. They were stopped outside the office. Police in plain uniform went to the Tehsil office along with the complainant. After receiving the signal, they went inside the Tehsil office. There, two policemen had caught Pappu Singh Rajput and interrogated him about where he had kept the money. People were searching for money there, there was a pile of waste paper etc. but money was lying there. They picked up those notes and checked, they were notes with the same number. After that, the accused's hands were dipped in the chemical solution and checked. The chemical solution turned pink. The pocket of the full pant worn by the accused at that time was also dipped in the 25 CRA No.900 of 2016 chemical solution. That solution also turned pink. However, in para 23 of his cross-examination, he admitted that the police picked up the currency and gave it to him, which he counted and compared its numbers. He admits that even after washing his hands, the colour of the currency had turned pink. He voluntarily said that when his hands were washed first, the water had not turned pink, when they were washed later, the colour of the water had turned pink. It is correct to say that a panchnama was also prepared for washing his hands, which he signed. The hands of the policeman who had given him the currency were also washed, so the colour of the water had turned pink, for which a panchnama was prepared. 29. PW-2, Ram Pravesh Mishra, Constable, A.C.B, stated in his evidence that on 07/02/2013 at about 9 o'clock they left for Sahaspur Lohara from the Office in two government vehicles. We reached Sahaspur Lohara Tehsil Office around 11-11.30. After that, the complainant and constable Dhanshyam Lal Thakur went inside the Tehsil office. After giving signal by the complainant, they went inside the office and then . On going inside the Tehsil office, they introduced the accused and asked him, did he take bribe from the complainant? Then the accused said that he has not taken bribe. When the accused said that he would not take the bribe, Rathore sahab instructed him to prepare a solution of sodium carbonate. He prepared the solution in which the hands of 26 CRA No.900 of 2016 all the team members were washed except the complainant and the accused. The colour of the solution did not change. He kept the solution in a bottle. Again, on the instructions of Rathore sahab, he prepared the solution again in which the hand of the accused Pappu was dipped. The colour of the solution turned pink. The solution was kept in a bottle. However, in his cross-examination, at para 18, he stated that when he along with Rathore reached in the morning, Pappu said that he has not asked for money. It is correct to say that in front of us, the Panch Sakshi picked up the amount (money) and gave it. 30. PW-5, Ghanshyam Thakur, Constable (Shadow witness), stated in his evidence that the team left for Sahaspur Lohara at around 9.30 and reached near S. Lohara Tehsil office at around 11 o'clock. He was sent along with the complainant as a shadow witness, rest of the team members were standing at a distance around him He was on the verandah of the tehsil office, the accused was in the office of the Naib Tehsildar, the complainant went inside and came out after paying the money and gave a bribe, on giving the bribe the accused was coming out, then he caught hold of the left hand of the accused, then, other members of the team had also reached, all the members introduced themselves as being from the ACB office. On asking the accused about the bribe, the accused denied taking the bribe. Constable Rampravesh Mishra prepared a solution of 27 CRA No.900 of 2016 sodium carbonate and the hands of all the members of the team except the accused and the complainant were washed in the solution. The solution remained colourless. The solution was shown to the accused and the said solution was kept in a bottle. Again the solution was prepared by Rampravesh, the the hands of accused were washed in it, the colour of the solution became pink. The accused was questioned where he kept the money. The accused told that the money was in the Nazir branch where it was lying. The money was picked up and seized and the numbers noted down were matched, they were the same as those noted down. The notes were seized. Again a solution was prepared and the notes were dipped in the solution, the colour of the solution turned pink. The said solution was kept in a bottle. However, in his cross-examination, he admits that the money was not recovered from the accused in his presence. The money was found in Nazir's room. 31. At para 13 PW-5: Ghanshyam Thakur stated that when he caught the accused and the officers arrived, the complainant had already left the place. Rampravesh Mishra had prepared the solution in front of him. It is correct to say that the complainant’s hand was not dipped in the solution because the complainant had left. Whereas PW-7: B. S. Paikra, at para 8, stated that once again, constable Rampravesh Mishra prepared a solution of sodium carbonate by taking clean water in a clean glass. The fingers of 28 CRA No.900 of 2016 both the hands of the complainant were washed in that solution. The pink coloured solution obtained was also filled in a clean glass bottle and sealed. 32. In the matter of State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v. C.B. Nagaraj, decided on 19.05.2025 in CRA No.1157 of 2015, the Supreme Court Court has observed in para 25 as under: "25. It is pertinent to note that till 05.02.2007, when the Respondent had conducted the physical/spot inspection, there is not even a whisper of there being any demand of bribe. Moreover, when the Complainant went back to the Respondent's office at 5:30 PM with the money, the prosecution case itself as per the deposition of its witnesses makes it clear that the Respondent had informed the Complainant that he had already forwarded the concerned file. Thus, if the same is accepted, there was no occasion for the Complainant to go ahead with paying the amount, which he claims to be in the nature of bribe demanded by the Respondent, after the work for which the bribe was purportedly sought, had already been done. The observation of the High Court to this extent is correct that just because money changed hands, in cases like the present, it cannot be ipso facto presumed that the same was pursuant to a demand, for the law requires that for conviction under the Act, an entire chain beginning from demand, acceptance, and recovery has to be completed. In the case at hand, when the initial demand itself is suspicious, even if the two other components of payment and recovery can be held to have been proved, the chain 29 CRA No.900 of 2016 would not be complete. A penal law has to be strictly construed [Md. Rahim Ali v State of Assam, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695 @ Paragraph 45 and Jay Kishan v State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 296 @ Paragraph 24]. While we will advert to the presumption under Section 20 of the Act hereinafter, there is no cavil that while a reverse onus under specific statute can be placed on an accused, even then, there cannot be a presumption which casts an uncalled for onus on the accused. Chandrasha (supra) would not apply as demand has not been proven. In Paritala Sudhakar v State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1072, it was stated thus: '21. As far as the submission of the State is that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, as it then was, would operate against the Appellant is concerned, our analysis supra would indicate that the factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of animus between the Appellant and complainant, is not proved. In such circumstances, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act would not militate against the Appellant, in terms of the pronouncement in Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 250: 22. In view of the aforementioned discrepancies in the prosecution case, we are of the opinion that the defence story set up by the appellant cannot be said to be wholly improbable. Furthermore, it is not a case where the burden of proof was on the accused in terms of Section 20 of the Act. Even otherwise, where demand has not been proved, Section 20 will also have no application. (Union of India v. 30 CRA No.900 of 2016 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])." 33. In order to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, it has to be borne in mind that: (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This constitutes offence under Section 13 (1)(d) (i) and (ii) (iii) In both case, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence. 34. While convicting the appellant, the trial Court has not considered the aforesaid evidence and deficiency in the prosecution witnesses, thereby committed illegality. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the offence against the 31 CRA No.900 of 2016 appellant. 35. Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant for offence of bribery. In order to prove guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. The proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence. In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove the charge of demand as well as acceptance of bribe by the appellant. Even, the recovery of bribe is also not proved. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 36. Considering the above factual scenario of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact of demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification. As such, the judgment passed by the Trial is set-aside. 37. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of 32 CRA No.900 of 2016 Prevention of Corruption Act are hereby set-aside and he is acquitted of the charges. 38. The appellant is reported to be on bail. However, his bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and shall remain operative for a further period of six months in view of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. (481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)}. 39. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/Amardeep