1 CRA No.274 of 2016 2025:CGHC:40197 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 274 of 2016 Anjani Kumar Tiwari S/o Lakhan Aged About 43 Years Occupation Head Constable No. 518, P.S. Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Permanent Resident Village Birra District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through A.C.B. Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, PL Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 11/08/2025 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11/02/2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in Special Criminal Case No. 06/2014, whereby the learned Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.08.22 17:19:33 +0530 2 CRA No.274 of 2016 Conviction Sentence Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act R.I. for one year and fine of ₹2,000/-, in default of fine, additional imprisonment for two months Section 13(1)(d) (d-1 & 2) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act R.I. for one year and fine amount of ₹3,000/-, in default, additional imprisonment for three months 1. (a) Facts of the case, in brief, are that at the relevant time, the accused, Anjani Kumar Tiwari, was serving as a Head Constable at Police Station Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, and thereby was a public servant within the meaning of law. On the night of 18.09.2013, the complainant, Firturam Dhiwar, while returning home by rickshaw, was assaulted near a canal by one Ajay Bareth. A report of the incident was lodged by the Complainant at Police Station Champa with the assistance of his elder brother Narayan. During the ensuing investigation, the accused repeatedly summoned the complainant and his brother to the police station and persistently demanded an illicit gratification of Rs. 5,000/-, warning that unless the amount was paid, the counter-complaint filed by Ajay Bareth would be pursued against them. (b) Unwilling to yield to the illegal demand and determined to expose 3 CRA No.274 of 2016 the accused, the complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Bilaspur, on 27.09.2013, and lodged a written complaint (Ex. P/34). In pursuance of instructions, on 28.09.2013 the complainant, accompanied by his brother Narayan, recorded a conversation with the accused, wherein the bribe was negotiated to Rs. 4,500/-, with a specific direction to pay Rs. 3,000/- as the first installment on 01.10.2013. This fact was duly communicated to Inspector Ramakant Sharma. Since 29.09.2013 was a Sunday, a trap was planned on the following working day, and panch witnesses were summoned in accordance with protocol. On 01.10.2013, at the PWD Rest House, Janjgir, the complainant submitted a second complaint together with the electronic recording, leading to registration of an FIR. The recording was preserved, transcribed, and sealed as part of the pre-trap proceedings. (c) The complainant thereafter produced the proposed bribe money comprising ten notes of Rs. 100/- each and four notes of Rs. 500/- each, totaling Rs. 3,000/-. Their serial numbers were meticulously recorded, and phenolphthalein powder was applied to the notes. The tainted currency was placed in the complainant’s left shirt pocket, with strict instructions to hand it over only on demand and to signal the completion of the transaction by raising a red scarf. A digital voice recorder was also provided to capture the incriminating dialogue. (d) In execution of the trap, the complainant and his brother entered Police Station Champa at about 08:55 a.m., where they met the accused 4 CRA No.274 of 2016 in the veranda of the SDOP office. On demand, the complainant delivered the tainted notes, which the accused accepted with his right hand and put the same in the right pocket of his uniform trousers before proceeding towards his government quarters. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the trap team intercepted him. The hand-wash of the accused, when dipped in sodium carbonate solution, turned pink, confirming contact with phenolphthalein; likewise, the complainant’s hand-wash also tested positive. On being confronted, the accused revealed that he had concealed the bribe amount beneath a napkin and a plastic container on a wooden rack in his bedroom. The currency notes so recovered matched the pre-recorded serial numbers. The napkin and the trouser pocket also tested positive for phenolphthalein, thereby corroborating the transaction. The incriminating articles and samples were seized, sealed, and forwarded for chemical analysis. A site plan was prepared, documents concerning the accused’s posting were collected, and statements of material witnesses were recorded. (e) Upon completion of investigation and receipt of sanction from the competent authority, a charge-sheet under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed against the accused on 26.07.2014. Thereafter, on 11.04.2012, formal charges were framed and read over to the accused, who denied the allegations, necessitating a full-fledged trial wherein thirteen prosecution witnesses were examined in support of the case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in 5 CRA No.274 of 2016 the matter. 2. 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. 3. (i) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the essential ingredients of the alleged offence. The case is built on demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification, but the evidence of the prosecution itself completely demolishes these allegations. The complainant Firturam (PW-9), in Para 4 of his deposition, clearly admitted that no demand of bribe was ever made by the Appellant. He further stated in Para 1 that on the second day, when he went to the police station, it was the mother of Ajay Bareth who asked him to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for settlement, and not the Appellant. In cross-examination, PW-9 candidly admitted that some police officers of Champa Police Station advised him to lodge a complaint before the ACB, Bilaspur, assuring that no proceedings would be taken against him if he did so, and further that those very officers escorted him to Bilaspur. Most importantly, in Para 12 of his cross-examination, he stated that the accused never demanded money and even refused to accept it when 6 CRA No.274 of 2016 offered, directing instead that the same be given to Ajay Bareth. 4. The testimony of Narayan Prasad (PW-10), the complainant’s brother, further supports the defence. In Para 5 of his evidence, he categorically stated that the Appellant was not demanding money from them to save them from any case and denied that Rs. 4,500/- was demanded or that Rs. 3,000/- allegedly given was bribe. In Para 2, he stated that the police had informed them that a counter-case was registered by Ajay Bareth and advised them to settle with him for Rs. 5,000/-. He also confirmed in Para 4 that the Appellant never called them repeatedly to the police station and never made any demand. In Para 6, PW-10 confirmed that it was only the mother of Ajay Bareth who asked for settlement, and in Para 7 he disclosed that the Champa police officers themselves advised and facilitated their complaint before the ACB. This consistent testimony shows that the alleged demand was not by the Appellant but only by Ajay Bareth’s family, and the case was artificially created under police pressure. (ii) On the issue of recovery, the law is well settled that mere recovery of tainted currency, in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance, is wholly insufficient to establish guilt. In the present case, not only demand is missing, but even acceptance is disproved by the prosecution witnesses themselves. The recovery is therefore meaningless in law. (iii) The prosecution’s reliance on electronic evidence also deserves outright rejection. No certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act 7 CRA No.274 of 2016 was ever produced, which is mandatory. Further, the prosecution has failed to establish chain of custody, authenticity or forensic verification of the alleged recordings. The electronic evidence is therefore inadmissible and cannot be relied upon. (iv) Learned counsel would submit that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is clear that demand was never made, acceptance never took place, recovery is inconsequential, and the electronic evidence is inadmissible. The complainant and his brother, who are the material prosecution witnesses, have categorically exonerated the Appellant and implicated others. The prosecution case, therefore, stands wholly discredited and unreliable. The Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the prosecution case originated from a complaint before the ACB, pursuant to which a trap was laid and tainted money was recovered from the possession of the Appellant. The recovery corroborates the prosecution version and indicates involvement of the Appellant in the transaction. The complainant did depose about discussions regarding settlement, and though he attempted to dilute his testimony during trial, the recovery and surrounding circumstances lend assurance to the prosecution case. The electronic recording, though questioned, still forms part of the investigative material and cannot be brushed aside entirely. In these circumstances, the learned Trial Court rightly convicted the Appellant, 8 CRA No.274 of 2016 and the judgment deserves to be upheld. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely. 7. For the sake of convenience, it would be appropriate to quote the relevant case laws with regard to demand, acceptance, recovery of illegal gratification, which is quoted below : 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 1724, held as under:- “68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the 9 CRA No.274 of 2016 following aspects have to be borne in mind: (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and 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 10 CRA No.274 of 2016 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 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (1) and (ii) of the Act. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature." 9. In the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1191 the Supreme Court observed as under:- 11 CRA No.274 of 2016 "8. There could be no doubt that the evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particular. After introduction of Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code making the person who offers bribe guilty of abetment bribery, the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon.… 10. The status of person offering bribe and the caution required while assessing his evidence implicating a Govt. servant was examined by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in the case of M.Ο. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala, 1995 SCC (3) 351, wherein, it was held as under: “12. Now confining ourselves to the case of bribery it is generally accepted that the person offering a bribe to a public officer is in the nature of an accomplice in the offence of accepting illegal gratification but the nature of corroboration required in such a case should not be subjected to the same rigorous test which are generally applied to a case of an approver. Though bribe givers are generally treated to be in the nature of accomplices but among them there are various types and gradation. In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act the complainant is the person who gives the bribe in a technical and legal sense because in every trap case wherever the complaint is filed there must be a person who has to give money to the accused which in fact is the bribe money which is demanded and without such a giving die trap cannot succeed. When there is such a demand by the public servant from person who is unwilling and if to do public good approaches the authorities and lodges complaint then in order that the trap 12 CRA No.274 of 2016 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." 11. What therefore, emerges from the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court is that the complainant's evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and the Court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration, if necessary, as a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case, may vary, having regard to the facts and circumstances. 12. In the matter of M.R. Purshotham Vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 3 SCC 247, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when demand of bribe is not proved by the prosecution, mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not 13 CRA No.274 of 2016 bring home the offence under Section 13(1) (d) of the Act. 13. In B. Jaiyaraj v. State of Andra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 5, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 of the Act unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. Presumption against public servant under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only if demand for acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. 14. Similar view has been taken in the matter of A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala, 2010 AIR SCC 1115 and Subhash Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2003 SC 2169. 15. Evidence on record led by the prosecution as also by the defence is required to be scrutinized in order to find out as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the demand, acceptance and recovery. 16. The question arose before this Court, whether the appellant has demanded illegal gratification from the complainant or there was any acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant?. 17. Complainant (PW9) in his examination-in-chief has deposed that about 1½ to 2 years ago, while he was returning to his village Seoni after driving a 14 CRA No.274 of 2016 rickshaw, on the way he was assaulted by a boy named Ajay Bareth. On the same night, he went to Police Station Champa and lodged a report. The police again called him the next day, so he went to the police station once more, where he came to know that a report of assault had also been registered against him. At that time, the mother of Ajay Bareth was present in the police station. She told him that if he wanted to settle the matter, he should pay her ₹5,000/-. He told her that he did not have money at that time and that it would take him a day or two, and thereafter he returned home from the police station. This witness further deposed that two days later, friends of Ajay Bareth came to his house and told him that he was being called to the police station. He then went with his brother Narayan to Police Station Champa. The accused was present there, to whom he said that he had ₹3,000/- and the remaining he would pay later. He then handed over ₹3,000/- to the accused and told him to give it to Ajay Bareth. He had given that money for the purpose of settlement. The said three thousand rupees were in the denomination of hundred and five-hundred rupee notes. After he gave money to the accused, the Anti-Corruption Bureau officials arrived and caught the accused. At the time when he handed over the ₹3,000/- to the accused, besides him and Narayan, some police officers were also present. On the same day, the Anti-Corruption officials took his signatures on certain documents. Thereafter, he and Narayan returned home. At para 4, this witness has stated that the accused had not demanded money from him. He did not give money to the accused in order to escape from the case of 15 CRA No.274 of 2016 Ajay Bareth, but rather he had given money to the accused for the purpose of settlement (rajinama) with Ajay Bareth. He also stated that he is educated only up to 2nd or 3rd standard. It is correct that the investigation of the report lodged by them was being conducted by Ajni Tiwari. It is incorrect to say that a demand of ₹ 5,000/- was made from him to escape from the case. He never went to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bilaspur, in this case. Ex. P-34 is not in his handwriting, but the signature mentioned therein is his own, which he had signed at Police Station Champa. At para 9, this witness further deposed that the ACB officials had not recorded his statement. When his police statement Ex. P-29, portion marked ‘a to a’ was shown to him, he admitted that the photograph on the said portion was his own. He further stated that it is incorrect to say that the accused had demanded a bribe from him for saving him in the case. It is incorrect to say that he had reached any agreement with the accused to pay ₹4,500/- as bribe. It is incorrect to say that he had given ₹3,000/- to the accused as bribe money; he voluntarily clarified that he had given ₹3,000/- for being paid to Ajay Bareth for the purpose of compromise. It is incorrect to say that the accused had demanded ₹5,000/- from him in order to save him from the case. During his cross-examination, this witness admitted that after he had lodged the report, the police of Champa station had called him 2–3 times. At the time when Ajay Bareth’s mother had demanded ₹3,000/- 16 CRA No.274 of 2016 from him for compromise, they had discussed amongst themselves that despite being the assault received by them too, they were being asked to pay for compromise. During this discussion, some of the police officials present in Champa station instructed him to make a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bilaspur. Those police officials told him that if he complained at the ACB office, no action would be taken against him, and instead action would be taken against the accused. He further stated that prior to this incident, he had never gone to the office of the Anti- Corruption Bureau. The same police officials who had advised him to lodge a complaint with the ACB had taken him to the ACB office at Bilaspur. There, those police officials themselves explained to him that if he lodged a complaint at that office, his matter would be resolved. 18. C. Narayan Prasad (PW10), who is brother of the Complainant has deposed that about 1½ year ago, his brother Firtu was returning home to Seoni after plying a rickshaw. On the way, he stopped his rickshaw near the canal to urinate. At that time, in the darkness, Ajay Bareth was present there and was trying to remove his brother’s pant and shirt. When Firtu objected, Ajay Bareth assaulted him with an iron object he was carrying. On receiving this information, he (Narayan Prasad) accompanied his brother Firtu to lodge a report at Champa police station. After registering the report, the police told them to come the next day. On the following day, he again went to Champa police station with his brother, where the police told them that Ajay had also lodged a case of assault against Firtu. The police advised them to compromise with Ajay. 17 CRA No.274 of 2016 Thereafter, Ajay Bareth agreed to compromise for ₹5,000/-. They were frequently called to the police station. When villagers asked why they were repeatedly going to the police station despite being the ones assaulted, they told the villagers that Ajay Bareth was demanding ₹5,000/- for compromise. Then the villagers advised them not to pay money but to go to Bilaspur. Accordingly, they went to the office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) at Bilaspur. Shiv Prasad, who had accompanied them, wrote the application, which was signed by Firtu and submitted at the ACB office. This witness further stated that the villagers had given them ₹3,000/-, which they took to Champa police station. Ajay Bareth did not come there. They gave the ₹3,000/- to Anjani Tiwari (Appellant) whereupon the ACB officials caught him. The ACB officers made him (Anjani) wash his hands, and the Patwari also came to the spot and prepared the site plan. At this stage, the witness was declared hostile. Leading questions were put to him, to which he responded. He admitted that the investigation of their report was being conducted by the accused. He further stated that the ACB did not record his statement. He acknowledged that the photograph affixed on Ex. P-39 is his. He denied the suggestion that the accused was repeatedly calling them to the police station; instead, he voluntarily clarified that it was the Champa police who were repeatedly calling them for compromise. He also denied the allegation that the accused demanded ₹5,000/- to save them in the case. The witness further deposed that no conversation was recorded with the 18 CRA No.274 of 2016 accused regarding settlement. He admitted that he had gone to Rest House, Janjgir along with his brother. He affirmed that his brother handed over ₹3,000/- to the ACB officials, and he also confirmed that the said notes were smeared with powder. He accepted that when the person handling those notes washed his hands, the water turned pink. He further acknowledged that the notes were kept in his brother’s pocket and the same notes were handed over by his brother to the accused. He admitted that the accused kept those notes in his pant pocket, and when the hands and pant pocket of the accused were washed, the water turned pink. He also confirmed that when his brother’s hands and shirt pocket were washed, the water likewise turned pink. He further admitted that when they went inside the police station, the ACB officials remained standing outside. However, he expressed his inability to say whether the ACB officials apprehended the accused on the signal of his brother. The witness denied the suggestion that his brother was given a tape recorder at Rest House, Janjgir to record the conversation of the bribe transaction. He reiterated that he never gave any statement to the ACB. He categorically denied that the accused demanded ₹5,000/- or that the settlement was finalised at ₹3,000/-. He further denied that the ₹3,000/- given by his brother to the accused constituted bribe money, and he rejected the allegation that he is deposing falsely in order to protect the accused. During his cross-examination, this witness admitted that after his brother Firtu lodged a report against Ajay Bareth at Champa police 19 CRA No.274 of 2016 station, they were called to the station repeatedly for 8–10 days. At Champa police station, the mother of Ajay Bareth told his brother Firtu in his presence that if they wanted compromise, they should pay ₹5,000/-. When they informed the villagers of this, the villagers advised them to complain so that no action would be taken against them and instead action would be taken against Ajay Bareth. He further stated that their co-villager Shiv Prasad took him and his brother Firtu to Champa police station, where a police officer advised them to complain at the Anti- Corruption Bureau, Bilaspur. Prior to this, they had never been to the ACB office. He, his brother Firtu, Shiv Prasad, and one police officer from Champa station went together to the ACB office at Bilaspur, where they narrated the complaint. He cannot recall the name of the police officer who had accompanied them to Bilaspur. He admitted that the accused had never demanded any money from him or from his brother Firtu. On the date of the incident, when his brother Firtu was handing over the money to the accused, the accused refused to accept it and said that they should themselves give it directly to Ajay Bareth. At that time, his brother Firtu told the accused that since Ajay Bareth was not present, he should keep the money and hand it over to Ajay when he arrived. He voluntarily clarified that as it was raining that day, Ajay Bareth could not come. 19. Dr. Anup Chatterjee (PW6), who is panch witness as well as trap witness has stated that on 30.09.2013, he received oral information from the Protocol Officer, Bilaspur, to appear at the ACB office, Bilaspur, and 20 CRA No.274 of 2016 accordingly attended the same in the evening. He was instructed to remain present on 01.10.2013 at 6:00 a.m. for a confidential work. On 01.10.2013, he attended the ACB office, from where he proceeded with the team to the PWD Rest House, Janjgir. There, the DSP explained the case to them and introduced them to the complainant. The complainant was interrogated, and the recorded chip was played and seized vide Ex. P-17. Demonstration proceedings of phenolphthalein solution were conducted; four notes of ₹500/- and ten notes of ₹100/- (total ₹3,000/-) were noted, and the numbers recorded. In his presence, the ACB staff applied powder on the said notes, which were then kept in the pocket of the complainant. At Champa, they were instructed to observe the transaction while concealing their identity. The complainant was told to give a red scarf signal after handing over the money. On the signal, they entered and saw the accused, who had taken the bribe amount, go inside his residence within the police station premises. His hands were washed in the solution, which turned pink. The accused admitted that he had kept the bribe in his pant pocket and later shifted it to the almirah in the bedroom, from where the notes were recovered. The recovered notes were tallied with the earlier noted numbers and seized vide Ex. P-24. The pant and napkin were also seized. The Patwari prepared the site map Ex. P-7. The CD of recorded conversation was played and seized vide Ex. P- 27. Various documents and articles, including the SIM card of the accused’s mobile, were seized vide Ex. P-28 to Ex. P-30. Custody memos, arrest memo Ex. P-31, and further proceedings panchnama Ex. 21 CRA No.274 of 2016 P-32 were prepared in his presence and bear his signatures. The transcription of the recorded conversation was also made vide Ex. P-32 and 33. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had earlier participated in several trap proceedings and was thus aware of the procedure. He stated that he received information from the Protocol Officer orally, and also through telephone, and later in writing, though he does not recall the exact sequence. He admitted that no proceedings were conducted in the ACB office in his presence and that his first meeting with the complainant was at the Rest House. He admitted that a criminal case was registered against the complainant at Police Station Champa. He inquired a little from the complainant whether the accused was being falsely implicated, but he cannot say whether the complainant might have falsely implicated the accused to save himself in his own case. He does not remember whose voice was recorded in the cassette played to him. He admitted that the ACB brought a laptop and printer, and that the trap was conducted on 01.10.2013, but cannot say if any further written work was done after that date. He denied the suggestion that the transcription Ex. P-32 and 33 was not prepared on the date of incident. He admitted that he did not personally hear what conversation took place between the complainant and the accused at the time of transaction. 20. K.K. Mairal (PW7), who is also a panch witness as well as trap witness has deposed that on 30.09.2013, he received information from the 22 CRA No.274 of 2016 Protocol Officer, Bilaspur, to remain present at the ACB office, Bilaspur. The same evening, he attended the ACB office, where he was directed to be present on 01.10.2013 at 6:00 a.m. for confidential work. Accordingly, on 01.10.2013 at 6:30 a.m., he attended the ACB office. From there, he proceeded with the team to the PWD Rest House, Janjgir. At the Rest House, the DSP explained the case and introduced the complainant. Thereafter, preliminary panchnama proceedings were conducted. The complainant was interrogated, and the recorded chip was played before them. The chip was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P-17. Demonstration proceedings were carried out; four notes of ₹500 and ten notes of ₹100 (total ₹3,000) were recorded. The team then proceeded to Champa by government vehicle. At Champa, they were instructed to conceal their identity and observe the complainant’s work. Panch witness Chatterjee was specifically asked to observe the transaction. A lady inspector was positioned near the house gate. The complainant was instructed to give a signal by lifting a red scarf after handing over the bribe. After the signal was given, Chatterjee, Inspector Sharma and Constable Vedram entered the police station premises first, followed by the rest of the team. The accused, having taken the bribe amount, had gone to his residence situated inside the premises. On washing his hands in the solution, it turned pink. This witness deposed that initially, the accused did not disclose anything about the bribe, but after persuasion admitted that he had kept the money inside his bedroom almirah under a napkin. The money was recovered by Chatterjee. On washing the pant pocket and 23 CRA No.274 of 2016 napkin in the solution, it also turned pink. Search and seizure proceedings were conducted on the spot. Search panchnama Ex. P-22 and recovery panchnama Ex. P-23 bear his signatures. The notes, when dipped, also turned the solution pink. On tallying, the numbers matched with the earlier noted numbers. Seizure memo Ex. P-24 bears his signatures. The pant and napkin were seized vide Ex. P-25. The Patwari was called, who prepared site map Ex. P-7, bearing his signatures. The solution and sample bottles were seized vide Ex. P-26. The CD of conversation between complainant and accused was played and seized vide Ex. P-27. From the police station, documents were seized vide Ex. P-28. Panchnama Ex. P-29 and seizure of accused’s SIM card vide Ex. P- 30 bear his signatures. The seized documents were handed over to the SHO vide supurdnama Ex. P-31. The accused was arrested in his presence, arrest memo Ex. P-31 bears his signature. Further panchnama Ex. P-32 was prepared, and the transcription of recorded conversation was made vide Ex. P-32 and Ex. P-33, both bearing his signatures. In cross examination, this witness admitted that he reached the ACB office at about 5:30 p.m., where another panch witness, Anup Chatterjee, and Inspector Ramakant Sharma were present. DSP Karosia informed them to remain ready for the next morning’s proceedings. He admitted that no proceedings were conducted in the ACB office that day. They left the ACB office the next morning at about 7:30 a.m. and reached Janjgir Rest House, where the complainant was present. He admitted that before the trap, he did not know either the complainant or the accused, 24 CRA No.274 of 2016 nor could he recognize their voices. He admitted that from the complainant’s complaint (Ex. P-16), it was clear that a criminal case was registered against him at Police Station Champa. He cannot say whether it appeared from the complaint that the complainant had falsely implicated the accused in order to escape his own case. He admitted that the complainant handed over a mobile memory card, but he cannot say whether it was empty or loaded, nor when and by whom it was given to the accused. He cannot say what conversation had taken place in the mobile, nor whose voices were in the chip. He admitted that from where he was standing, the complainant and accused were neither visible nor audible to him, and therefore he does not know what conversation took place between them. He admitted that the accused had refused to accept the money, and that the complainant told him it was for compromise settlement with Ajay Bareth. 21. Ramakant Sharma (PW-13), the Investigating Officer, deposed that the complainant had lodged a complaint at the ACB Office, Bilaspur, against accused Anjani Kumar Tiwari, Head Constable, Police Station Champa, for demanding bribe. After verification of the complaint, a trap was arranged. He stated that preliminary panchnama proceedings were conducted at Rest House, Janjgir, and thereafter the complainant was sent to Police Station Champa to deliver the bribe money. According to this witness, the complainant handed over the bribe amount to the accused inside the police station premises in front of the Office of the Town Inspector, Champa. The accused kept the money in the pocket of his pant 25 CRA No.274 of 2016 and then went towards his government quarter. On receiving the pre- arranged signal from the complainant, the trap team entered the quarter of the accused, apprehended him, questioned him regarding the bribe amount, and recovered the tainted money from the bedroom where it was concealed on a rack. He further stated that the hands of the accused, when washed in sodium carbonate solution, turned pink, and the recovered notes were the same as those earlier handed over to the complainant during panchnama proceedings. He also deposed that the hands of the complainant, when washed in solution, similarly turned pink. In cross-examination, he admitted that the complainant was also an accused in another case filed by Ajay Bareth, and that it was possible the complaint was filed to escape from that case. He admitted that he had not verified whether the complaint was true or false. He further admitted that the verification recording was made on the complainant’s personal mobile phone, but the make, IMEI, or number of the mobile was not noted, nor was it verified whether the mobile contained earlier recordings. He admitted that no specimen voice of the complainant or the accused was taken, no FSL examination was done, and he could not identify the voices. He admitted that no 65B certificate was produced for the electronic evidence, that no gazetted officer was present during verification, and that the preservation of the CD between 01.10.2013 and 05.10.2013 was not documented. He admitted that the trap team was outside the boundary wall of the police station and he neither saw nor 26 CRA No.274 of 2016 heard the alleged transaction. He also admitted that the accused had explained at the time that the money was not a bribe but a settlement amount on behalf of Ajay Bareth, who was not present, and that the money was to be given later to Ajay Bareth. He admitted that the wife and family of the accused were present in the quarter. He denied that he deliberately ignored the defence of the accused, though he admitted that some seizure memos and panchnamas were prepared later and not on the spot, and that the computer operator who prepared the documents was not examined. 22. Ex.P/17 is Electronic Chip containing the conversation of demand of bribe and the file containing conversation was copied to a Compact Disck (CD). Ex.P/27 is a Compact Disck (CD) containing voice conversation of between Complainant and the appellant at the time of acceptance of bribe; Ex.P/32 is a transcription of recording of demand of bribe by the appellant; and Ex.P/33 is a transcription of recording at the time of payment of bribe by the appellant. 23. The prima-facie evidence with respect to the demand of bribe allegedly made by the appellant is the transcript of the recording from CD (Ex.P/32). This transcript has been prepared by Investigating Officer (PW13) on instructions of the complainant. On going through the statements of PW9 & PW13, it is revealed that they have not get verified the voice recorded in the tape from the FSL or from an expert body. 24. Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act reads as under:- 27 CRA No.274 of 2016 65B. Admissibility of Electronic records- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. (2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:-- (a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer; (b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities; (c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and (d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the 28 CRA No.274 of 2016 computer in the ordinary course of the said activities. (3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether-- (a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or (b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or (c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or (d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly. (4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say, -- (a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer; (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 29 CRA No.274 of 2016 appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it. (5) For the purposes of this section,- (a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment; -- (b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities; (c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment. 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. In a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, proof of 30 CRA No.274 of 2016 demand of illegal gratification by the accused is a sine qua non for conviction. In the present case, the complainant himself did not support the case of the prosecution on the aspect of demand. On the contrary, he specifically denied that the accused ever demanded any bribe from him and clarified that it was at the instance of local police officials that he was persuaded to approach the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The shadow witness also did not depose to any conversation or demand made by the accused. No independent witness corroborated the prosecution story on this crucial point. As to the electronic material, Ex. P/17 is an electronic chip containing the alleged conversation of demand, which was later copied to Ex. P/27, a Compact Disc. Ex. P/32 and Ex. P/33 are the transcriptions of the alleged demand and acceptance conversations respectively. However, the prosecution has not placed on record the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act to establish the admissibility of these electronic records. In absence of such certification, the alleged chip, CDs, and transcriptions cannot be treated as legally admissible evidence. 27. Thus, both on oral and documentary fronts, the prosecution has failed to establish the demand of bribe. The direct witnesses to the transaction have retracted from the version of demand, and the electronic recordings, which could have otherwise been relied upon, stand excluded for want of compliance with statutory requirements. Neither the application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 was moved nor the certificate as 31 CRA No.274 of 2016 required under Section 65-B was accompanied by the prosecution to prove its case and as such, the said evidence is inadmissible. Thus, this piece of evidence cannot be taken in consideration against appellant as the transcript is also not supported by any Certificate u/s 65B of the Evidence Act. 28. Therefore, from the above evidence adduced by the prosecution, demand is not proved. 29. So far as the question of acceptance & seizure of illegal gratification is concerned, the statements of PW13, PW6 and PW7, PW9 & PW10 are crucial. 30. On the aspect of acceptance and seizure of the alleged bribe amount, the statements of the complainant (PW9) and the supporting witnesses are of primary relevance. The complainant (PW9) admitted that a sum of ₹3,000/- was handed over to the accused, but he clarified that the payment was towards a compromise as insisted by the mother of Ajay Bareth and not by way of any bribe demanded by the accused. He further stated that the money was given to the accused with the understanding that it would be passed on to Ajay Bareth, and not for any official favour. 31. PW13, one of the trap witnesses, deposed about the recovery of tainted notes and the phenolphthalein test turning positive. However, he did not support the prosecution case with respect to the voluntary acceptance of the money by the accused pursuant to a demand. He was declared hostile, and on being confronted, he reiterated that no demand of bribe was made 32 CRA No.274 of 2016 in his presence and that he could only speak to the fact of recovery. 32. PW6 and PW7, both members of the trap party, corroborated the formal aspect of seizure and recovery. They confirmed that the tainted notes were recovered from the pocket of the accused and that the hand-wash and pocket-wash turned pink. Nevertheless, their evidence is confined to the recovery proceedings, and neither of them deposed that they witnessed the accused demanding or consciously accepting the bribe. PW10, another prosecution witness, similarly spoke only of the recovery process and the preparation of seizure memos. His testimony, too, does not advance the prosecution case in relation to demand or voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification. 33. On the issue of recovery, the prosecution case is that the tainted notes were ultimately recovered from the rack of the house of the appellant. The complainant (PW9) stated that the money was handed over to the accused, but he immediately explained that it was not towards any bribe but as part of a compromise with Ajay Bareth’s family. He did not support the case that the accused consciously accepted the money for himself. 34. It is significant that the recovery was not from the person of the appellant but from a common place (rack) in his house, which reduces the evidentiary value of the seizure. The mere presence of tainted notes in the rack cannot, in the absence of clear and cogent evidence of conscious receipt and retention of the bribe amount by the appellant, establish the 33 CRA No.274 of 2016 offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 35. Thus, while the factum of recovery stands proved formally, its evidentiary worth is weakened in view of the absence of proof of demand and the doubtful circumstances surrounding acceptance. Consequently, the recovery from the rack cannot, by itself, sustain the conviction. 36. 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 34 CRA No.274 of 2016 payment and recovery can be held to have been proved, the chain would not be complete. A penal law has to be strictly construed [Md. Rahim Ali v State of Assam, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695 @ Paragraph 45 and Jay Kishan v State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 296 @ Paragraph 24]. While we will advert to the presumption under Section 20 of the Act hereinafter, there is no cavil that while a reverse onus under specific statute can be placed on an accused, even then, there cannot be a presumption which casts an uncalled for onus on the accused. Chandrasha (supra) would not apply as demand has not been proven. In Paritala Sudhakar v State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1072, it was stated thus: '21. As far as the submission of the State is that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, as it then was, would operate against the Appellant is concerned, our analysis supra would indicate that the factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of animus between the Appellant and complainant, is not proved. In such circumstances, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act would not militate against the Appellant, in terms of the pronouncement in Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 250: 22. In view of the aforementioned discrepancies in the prosecution case, we are of the opinion that the defence story set up by the appellant cannot be said to be wholly improbable. Furthermore, it is not a case where the burden of proof was on the accused in terms of Section 20 of the Act. Even otherwise, where demand has not been proved, Section 20 will also have no application. (Union of India v. Purnandu Biswas [(2005) 12 SCC 576: (2005) 8 Scale 246] and T. 35 CRA No.274 of 2016 Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401: (2006) 1 Scale 116])." 37. 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. 38. While convicting the appellant, the trial Court has not considered the aforesaid evidence and deficiency in the prosecution witnesses, thereby committed illegality. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the offence against the appellant. 39. 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 36 CRA No.274 of 2016 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. 40. In light of the foregoing analysis, it is manifest that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving the demand, acceptance, or recovery of illegal gratification by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence adduced, whether oral, documentary, or circumstantial, falls short of establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offence of bribery. Consequently, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is unsustainable in law and is hereby set aside, and the appellant stands acquitted of all charges. 41. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under the aforementioned sections are hereby set-aside and he is acquitted of the charges. 37 CRA No.274 of 2016 42. 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)}. 43. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri