JUDGMENT : Bibhu Datta Guru, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28/02/2018 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) in Corruption Special Case No.03/2015, whereby the learned Court below convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- 1. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.03.2015, the complainant Maksudan (PW-6) appeared before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jagdalpur, and lodged a written complaint (Ex. P-27) stating that he owns four acres of agricultural land in village Kewatin Tola where he had installed a tube-well for irrigation. For obtaining subsidy, he had submitted the bill, voucher, work map and khasra documents to the accused Basant Sikheriya, the then Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Kokapur, about a year earlier. It was alleged that on 09.03.2015, the accused visited his field and demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000 for processing and sanctioning the subsidy amount. As the complainant did not wish to pay the bribe, he submitted a written complaint to the office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. He was thereafter instructed in the use of a digital voice recorder, and a pre-trap memorandum (Ex. P-22) was prepared, and on 17.03.2015 he submitted a second complaint (Ex. P-28) along with the recorded conversation of the accused’s demand. Pursuant to the complaint, scripts of the recorded pre-trap conversation (Exs. P-23 and P-24) were prepared and the CD was seized (Ex.P-25). Thereafter, Crime No. 0/2015 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered and investigation commenced. For the trap on 18.03.2015, the complainant produced Rs.10,000 (twenty Rs.500 notes), the trap team was constituted, and the preliminary memorandum (Ex. P-3) was prepared. The trap was executed at the residence/office of the accused at village Kokapur, where the tainted amount of Rs.10,000 along with other currency was recovered under seizure memo (Ex. P-11). Phenolphthalein test was conducted, the solution bottles were sealed and seized (Ex. P-12), and the accused was arrested under arrest memo (Ex. P-13). The transcript of trap-time conversation (Ex.P-14) and the CD (Ex. P-15) were seized, and the Patwari prepared the spot map (Ex. P-32) and site description (Ex. P-33). Proceedings memorandum (Ex. P-10) was also prepared, and relevant departmental documents regarding the duties of the accused (Exs. P-20 and P-21) were collected. P-13). The transcript of trap-time conversation (Ex.P-14) and the CD (Ex. P-15) were seized, and the Patwari prepared the spot map (Ex. P-32) and site description (Ex. P-33). Proceedings memorandum (Ex. P-10) was also prepared, and relevant departmental documents regarding the duties of the accused (Exs. P-20 and P-21) were collected. The seized solutions were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, and were found positive for phenolphthalein. Statements of the complainant Maksudan and independent witnesses Sumeet Agrawal, Virendra Singh, Ghanshyam Sahu, Rajendra Singh Thakur, Parmeshwar Thakur, J.L. Mandavi and Anand Singh Netam were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, the matter was forwarded for sanction; prosecution sanction (Ex. P-36) was obtained and the FSL report (Ex. P- 34) was received. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed. 2. In course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses to bring home the charges. The accused person abjured the guilt; pleaded innocence; and false implication. 3. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned herein- above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant- accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 4. (i) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire prosecution case is vitiated by material contradictions, procedural lapses, and non-compliance with mandatory statutory requirements, going to the root of the matter. It is urged, firstly, that the very foundation of the prosecution story is doubtful because the complainant’s own and PW-10 (Nagesh) statements shows that the tube-well work and related subsidy processes had already been completed prior to 12.03.2015 and 17.03.2015, the dates on which the alleged demand was said to have been made. When the official work itself stood completed, there was no occasion or motive for the appellant to demand any illegal gratification, thereby striking at the essential ingredients of Section 7 of the P.C. Act. (ii) Secondly, it is argued that the transcript of the alleged pre-trap recording was not prepared in presence of the panch witnesses, as is evident from the statements of PW-1 Rajendra Singh, PW-3 Virendra Singh, PW-5 Ghanshyam Sahu, PW-6 Maksudan, PW-10 Nagesh, and PW-12 (I.O. Mr. Dhruw). (ii) Secondly, it is argued that the transcript of the alleged pre-trap recording was not prepared in presence of the panch witnesses, as is evident from the statements of PW-1 Rajendra Singh, PW-3 Virendra Singh, PW-5 Ghanshyam Sahu, PW-6 Maksudan, PW-10 Nagesh, and PW-12 (I.O. Mr. Dhruw). This omission is fatal because the prosecution relies heavily on the electronic conversation, yet the mandatory safeguard of preparing the transcript transparently before independent witnesses was not followed. (iii) Thirdly, the prosecution has failed to comply with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act in respect of the electronic evidence (the recorder, CDs and transcripts). The I.O. (PW-12) himself admits non-production of a valid 65-B certificate and failure to comply with mandatory certification requirements. Hence, the electronic records are wholly inadmissible, and the alleged demand which rests entirely on these recordings cannot legally be read in evidence. (iv) Fourthly, it is urged that Birbal Baghel, the most material independent witness who was shown as present at the time of seizure, was admittedly not present, as confirmed by PW-6, PW-10 and PW-12. This demolishes the prosecution’s claim of a proper, credible, and independent seizure of the tainted money. When the presence of the named witness itself is fabricated, the entire trap proceedings become doubtful and untrustworthy. (v) Fifthly, the defence submits that no “Jaliya ghol” of independent witnesses Birbal Baghel and Sumit Agrawal was prepared, despite their names being used to bolster the credibility of the trap and seizure. The evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5 shows that neither were they called nor were their site notes prepared, which again demonstrates that the trap was not conducted in the manner prescribed under law, raising serious doubts about the prosecution’s fairness and transparency. (vi) Collectively, these defects absence of motive, tampered or improperly handled electronic evidence, non-compliance of Section 65- B, fabrication of witness presence, and failure to follow mandatory trap guidelines create an unbridgeable gap in the prosecution case. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish either demand or acceptance, both of which are indispensable ingredients under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt, and the conviction deserves to be set aside. 5. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish either demand or acceptance, both of which are indispensable ingredients under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt, and the conviction deserves to be set aside. 5. (a) Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, submitting that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt through clear and cogent evidence. It is urged that the present case is a well- established instance of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the PC Act, wherein the appellant, being a public servant, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant for processing his bill. It is contended that the prosecution has duly discharged the burden of proving all essential ingredients of the offence. (b) Learned State counsel further submits that after completion of all pre-trap formalities, including application of phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes, the complainant approached the appellant, and upon the pre-arranged signal being given, the trap team apprehended the appellant red-handed. It is argued that the appellant’s hand-wash tested positive for phenolphthalein, as the sodium carbonate solution turned pink, conclusively demonstrating handling of the tainted currency. It is therefore submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences and that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties perused the pleadings and documents. 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. (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 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. 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 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (1) and (ii) of the Act. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature." 9. In the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra , AIR 1979 SC 1191 the Supreme Court observed as under:- "8. In the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra , AIR 1979 SC 1191 the Supreme Court observed as under:- "8. There could be no doubt that the evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particular. After introduction of Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code making the person who offers bribe guilty of abetment bribery, the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon.… 10. The status of person offering bribe and the caution required while assessing his evidence implicating a Govt. servant was examined by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in the case of M.?. 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 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. 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 o f M.R. Purshotham Vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 3 SCC 247, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when demand of bribe is not proved by the prosecution, mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 13(1) (d) of the Act. 13. State of Karnataka (2015) 3 SCC 247, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when demand of bribe is not proved by the prosecution, mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 13(1) (d) of the Act. 13. In B. Jaiyaraj v. State of Andra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 5 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 of the Act unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily 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 only evidence regarding the alleged demand in the present case is the testimony of the Complainant (PW6), conversation (Ex.P/23). 17. PW-2, Anand Singh Netam stated that he knew the accused, Basant Kumar Sikheria, who was posted as Rural Agricultural Extension Officer at Kokanpur. At the relevant time, in January 2015, PW-2 was posted as Senior Extension Officer. His duties included supervising and guiding the field staff and explaining various agricultural schemes to the Rural Agricultural Extension Officers. PW-2 further deposed that the accused, Basant Kumar Sikheria, had sent the matter relating to the complainant, Maksudan Khadha, to him on or before 16.03.2014. It was revealed to PW-2 during his inquiry that the accused had arranged, on goodwill, a pump for the complainant on loan and on the date of the incident, had recovered the same money from the complainant. It was revealed to PW-2 during his inquiry that the accused had arranged, on goodwill, a pump for the complainant on loan and on the date of the incident, had recovered the same money from the complainant. PW-2 confirmed that this information came to him through his departmental inquiry and that he was aware of the factual position concerning the complainant’s application and subsidy matters handled by the accused. 18. PW-4, J.L. Mandavi deposed that he has been posted as Sub-Divisional Officer (Agriculture) since 2014, overseeing development blocks including Charama, Narharpur, and Kanker. His primary duty is to implement and propagate agricultural schemes issued by the government, including the Borewell Mining Scheme, Shakambhari Scheme, and Agricultural Equipment Scheme. Under the Borewell Mining Scheme, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, and small and marginal farmers are eligible for a grant of Rs.43,000, while general category farmers are eligible for Rs.35,000. Farmers must possess at least 2.5 acres of land; if less, consent from neighboring farmers is required on a stamp paper, and a distance of approximately 300 meters between borewells is mandatory. PW-4 explained that Rural Agricultural Extension Officers encourage farmers to apply under the scheme and collect relevant documents such as maps, land records (Khasra, B-1), and applications. These documents are prepared into a case file by the officer and sent to the Senior Agricultural Officer. After verification and field inspection, correct cases are forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Agriculture) for final processing, which must be completed within one month. Specifically, the grant application of Maksudan Khadha of Kevantintola was received in PW-4’s office on 17.03.2015. After scrutiny, PW-4 forwarded it with recommendation to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Kanker on 18.03.2015. In response to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Jagdalpur letters dated 19.03.2015 regarding Basant Kumar Sikheria, Rural Agricultural Extension Officer, Kokanpur, PW-4 confirmed the posting, service details, duties, and authority for termination of the accused. PW-4 also confirmed that the accused’s duties included providing timely agricultural advice to farmers, preparing grant applications under relevant schemes, and conducting first-level physical verification. PW-4 further stated that Maksudan Khadha’s grant application was received at the office of the Senior Agricultural Officer on 16.03.2015, forwarded to PW-4’s office on 17.03.2015, examined, and recommended to the Deputy Director on 18.03.2015. No discrepancies were found in the application. PW-4 further stated that Maksudan Khadha’s grant application was received at the office of the Senior Agricultural Officer on 16.03.2015, forwarded to PW-4’s office on 17.03.2015, examined, and recommended to the Deputy Director on 18.03.2015. No discrepancies were found in the application. PW-4 clarified that approval of the grant is the authority of the Deputy Director, and once approved, the amount is transferred directly to the farmer’s account. 19. PW-9, Ransingh Suman deposed that he has been posted as Rural Agricultural Extension Officer at the office of the Senior Agricultural Development Officer, Kanker, since 10 May 1999. He stated that he knows the accused, Basant Kumar Sikheria. PW-9 further deposed that on 18.03.2015, the Borewell Mining grant application and related documents of Maksudan Khadha were received from the IAY branch. On the same date, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Jagdalpur, requested these documents, which were submitted by PW-9 and marked as Exhibit P-16, with his signatures on portions B to B. In cross-examination, PW-9 confirmed that the grant application of Maksudan Khadha had initially been submitted to the office of the Senior Agricultural Development Officer on 16.03.2015 and subsequently received at the Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Kanker, on 17.03.2015. On 18.03.2015, the documents were seized by Shri Negi at the office of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Kanker. PW-9 clarified that once the processing of grant applications is completed, the sanctioned amount is directly transferred to the beneficiary’s bank account, and no cash payment is made by the department. PW-9 also confirmed that the seized documents included bills related to borewell materials installed by Lalit Borewell, and that his signature on the seizure memo of Exhibit P-16 (portions B to B) was affixed after Shri Negi conducted the proceedings. PW-9 stated that he did not know what was specifically written on the seized documents by Shri Negi and that no personal statement from him regarding the incident was recorded. 20. Maksudan (PW-6) deposed that he knew the accused Basant Kumar Sikheriya, who was posted as Rural Agricultural Extension Officer. He stated that his agricultural land is situated near Talako Road, where he had a borewell installed. For availing subsidy under a Government scheme, he submitted the requisite application along with land records (map and khasra), borewell excavation bill, pump bill, a coloured photograph of himself with the pump, and a photocopy of his passbook to the accused in the year 2014. For availing subsidy under a Government scheme, he submitted the requisite application along with land records (map and khasra), borewell excavation bill, pump bill, a coloured photograph of himself with the pump, and a photocopy of his passbook to the accused in the year 2014. Thereafter, he used to approach the accused from time to time regarding release of subsidy, and the accused kept assuring him that his work would be done. This witness further deposed that on 09.03.2015, the accused came to his field and demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000/- for sanctioning and releasing the subsidy amount. PW-6 expressed his unwillingness to pay the bribe and decided to take legal action. Accordingly, on 12.03.2015, he approached the ACB office at Jagdalpur and submitted a written complaint (Ex. P-27) before the concerned officer, expressing that he did not wish to pay the bribe and sought legal action. On his complaint, he was provided with a digital voice recorder and instructed to record the conversation relating to the demand of bribe, for which a panchnama was prepared (Ex. P-22). PW-6 recorded the conversation with the accused on 14.03.2015 and again on 16.03.2015, wherein the accused reiterated his demand of Rs.10,000/- and refused to reduce the amount, though he agreed to grant time for payment. PW-6 duly informed the ACB officials about the same. PW-6 stated that on 17.03.2015, he again visited the ACB office and submitted a second complaint (Ex. P-28) along with the recorded conversations. The transcripts of the recorded conversations dated 14.03.2015 and 16.03.2015 were prepared (Ex. P-23 and Ex. P-24), CDs were made, and seizure memos were drawn (Ex. P-25). He arranged Rs.10,000/- consisting of 20 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination for the trap. Necessary pre- trap formalities were conducted on 18.03.2015 in the presence of independent panch witnesses, including demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution, and a pre-trap panchnama was prepared (Ex. P-8). PW-6 was instructed to hand over the bribe money only on specific demand and to give a pre-decided signal after the transaction. PW-6 deposed that on 18.03.2015, he went to the office/residence of the accused at Village Kokhanpur at about 9:35 a.m. The accused took him inside his house, where PW-6 handed over the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- to the accused on his specific demand. PW-6 deposed that on 18.03.2015, he went to the office/residence of the accused at Village Kokhanpur at about 9:35 a.m. The accused took him inside his house, where PW-6 handed over the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- to the accused on his specific demand. The accused accepted the amount with his right hand and kept it in the pocket of his trousers. After the transaction, PW-6 came out and gave the predetermined signal to the trap party. Thereafter, the trap party reached the spot, disclosed their identity, and apprehended the accused. Sodium carbonate solution tests were conducted, which turned pink when the fingers of the accused were washed, as well as when the bribe money and the pocket of the accused’s trousers were washed, thereby confirming handling of phenolphthalein-coated currency notes. The bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- (20 notes of Rs.500/- each) was recovered from the right pocket of the accused’s trousers. Additional cash and other articles were also recovered and seized. All wash solutions, seized articles, and relevant documents were taken into custody under proper panchnamas. PW-6 further stated that the recorded conversation of the bribe transaction was replayed, its transcript was prepared (Ex. P-14), CDs were seized (Ex. P- 15), and all post-trap formalities were completed at the spot. He proved various panchnamas, seizure memos, spot map, and complaint documents bearing his signatures, including Ex. P-10, Ex. P-17, Ex. P-26, Ex. P-29, and other related exhibits. In his cross-examination, PW-6 admitted that he had initially applied for borewell excavation on 27.05.2014 and that the certificate relating to successful borewell excavation was also dated 27.05.2014. He conceded that when he submitted the subsidy application form on 13.12.2014 before the office of the Senior Agriculture Officer, Kanker, the electricity connection receipt was not enclosed with the form. He further admitted that after verification of his applications, the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Kanker, sanctioned an amount of Rs.43,000/- on 20.03.2015. PW-6 acknowledged that there was no provision for cash payment of the subsidy amount and that the sanctioned amount was to be directly transferred into the farmer’s bank account. PW-6 further admitted that prior to approaching the ACB, he had not made any complaint to higher officers of the Agriculture Department or to any authority at Kanker regarding the alleged demand of bribe. PW-6 further admitted that prior to approaching the ACB, he had not made any complaint to higher officers of the Agriculture Department or to any authority at Kanker regarding the alleged demand of bribe. He stated that the accused had forwarded all his documents for further action to the Senior Agriculture Officer, Kanker, on 12.03.2014, and he was unable to specify the exact date on which the accused forwarded the application to higher authorities. He also admitted that all documents relating to borewell excavation dated 27.05.2014 were already available with the ACB during investigation. PW-6 admitted that the subsidy amount relating to his borewell was sanctioned by the competent authority, namely the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Kanker, and that the authority to sanction the subsidy vested with the said officer and not with the accused. He categorically admitted that prior to filing the complaint, no work relating to his application was pending with the accused and that all documents submitted by him had already been forwarded to higher authorities. He further stated that after 16.03.2015, he had received the subsidy amount. PW-6 stated that he had personally reached the ACB office at Jagdalpur on 12.03.2015 at about noon after making inquiries on his own. He admitted that the written complaint (Ex. P-27) was drafted as per the directions of the ACB officer, who asked him to write the complaint in the manner he wished to complain. He also admitted that the digital voice recorder provided by the ACB remained in his possession from 12.03.2015 to 17.03.2015. PW-6 admitted that on 13.03.2015, he did not have any conversation with the accused regarding demand of bribe. He stated that he visited the accused on 14.03.2015, when some other persons were present in the office, and conversations of unknown persons were also recorded in the voice recorder. He further admitted that on 16.03.2015, other persons were present during his conversation with the accused and that their voices were also recorded, though he could not identify them. PW-6 admitted that the borewell and casing pipes in his field were installed by Lalit Borewell and that payment for the borewell work as well as for a motor pump worth Rs.10,000/- had already been made by him. He conceded that he did not submit any receipt relating to the payment of Rs.10,000/- for the motor pump either during investigation or with his subsidy application. He conceded that he did not submit any receipt relating to the payment of Rs.10,000/- for the motor pump either during investigation or with his subsidy application. PW-6 further admitted that in his second complaint dated 17.03.2015, he had not mentioned the place where the accused allegedly asked him to bring the bribe amount. He admitted that before arrival of the panch witnesses at the ACB office on 17.03.2015, the CDs of the recorded conversation had already been seized and the transcripts had already been prepared. He also admitted that no proceedings were conducted in his presence after the arrival of the panch witnesses on that date. PW-6 admitted that during the trap, apart from the alleged bribe amount of Rs.10,000/-, other amounts were recovered from the accused, and the total cash recovered was Rs.32,700/-. He admitted that no separate panchnama regarding the amount of Rs.5,000/- recovered from the accused was prepared in his presence and that he could not say whether any panchnama was prepared with respect to the recovery of Rs.17,700/-. He further admitted that he could not state the denomination of the recovered notes and that the purpose for which the accused possessed the additional amount of Rs.5,000/- was not within his knowledge. He also admitted that certain wash procedures relating to the additional amount were conducted through a person who was not a member of the trap party. 21. PW-1 Rajendra Singh Thakur, then posted as a Constable at the ACB Office, Jagdalpur (2011–2015), deposed that he knew the accused Basant Kumar Sikheriya. He stated that on 17.03.2015, he, along with two panch witnesses Sumit Agrawal and Virendra Singh left the ACB office around 18:30 hours for Makdi, Kanker, for trap proceedings and stayed overnight at the Lakh Vistar Kendra. On 18.03.2015, Inspector C.S. Dhruw arrived and introduced the complainant to the panch witnesses, who read the complaint and expressed satisfaction regarding its contents. PW-1 stated that the complainant produced Rs.10,000 (twenty Rs.500 notes), the numbers of which were noted, and he applied phenolphthalein powder to the notes and kept them in the complainant’s pant pocket. He described the demonstration of the sodium carbonate test and preparation of sample packets. PW-1 stated that the complainant produced Rs.10,000 (twenty Rs.500 notes), the numbers of which were noted, and he applied phenolphthalein powder to the notes and kept them in the complainant’s pant pocket. He described the demonstration of the sodium carbonate test and preparation of sample packets. He further stated that the trap team was constituted, though he was not part of the team at the time of the actual trap; a digital voice recorder was given to the complainant after being trained in its use. PW-1 also stated that post-trap, he later participated in producing the accused before the Court and that he transported the sealed hand-wash samples to FSL, Raipur, depositing them on 23.03.2015 and registering the numbered crime thereafter. In cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that the complainant first submitted a written complaint to the ACB on 17.03.2015 and that he had no knowledge of any earlier complaint. He acknowledged that the complaint did not mention the exact date or place of the alleged demand. He admitted that no writing work regarding the incident was done in his presence at the ACB office on 17.03.2015 and that Inspector Dhruw did not travel with them on that date, arriving only the next morning at Makdi. He further admitted that the panch witnesses did not question the complainant in his presence on 17.03.2015 and that he himself had not read the complaint. He stated that the paper used for applying phenolphthalein to the notes was neither seized nor burnt in his presence and that he did not sign any memorandum relating to the digital recorder. He also admitted that he could not say whether the recorder was empty or contained any prior recording. PW-1 further stated that although he received the sealed samples for FSL examination on 20.03.2015, no receipt was issued for keeping them in safe custody at the ACB office between 20.03.2015 and 22.03.2015. He confirmed that his first statement in the case was recorded later, on 13.04.2015. 22. PW-1 further stated that although he received the sealed samples for FSL examination on 20.03.2015, no receipt was issued for keeping them in safe custody at the ACB office between 20.03.2015 and 22.03.2015. He confirmed that his first statement in the case was recorded later, on 13.04.2015. 22. PW-5 Ghanshyam Sahu retired Constable, formerly posted in the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jagdalpur from 1995 till July, 2016, deposed that on 12.03.2015 the complainant Maksudan Kadhha submitted a written complaint before DSP Shri Negi at the ACB, Jagdalpur, alleging demand of Rs.10,000/- as bribe by the accused Basant Kumar Sikheriya, Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Kokhanpur, whereupon Inspector Chandrashekhar Dhruv was directed to conduct preliminary verification and, for that purpose, a digital voice recorder was handed over to the complainant under a panchnama (Ex. P-22) prepared in his presence. He further stated that on 17.03.2015 the complainant submitted a second complaint along with the digital voice recorder containing recorded conversations dated 14.03.2015 and 16.03.2015, and also produced Rs.10,000/- consisting of twenty currency notes of Rs.500/- each for trap proceedings; that the transcripts of the said recordings were prepared in his presence solely on the complainant identifying the voice, the transcript dated 14.03.2015 comprising 15 pages (Ex. P-23) and that dated 16.03.2015 comprising 7 pages (Ex. P-24), both bearing his signatures, and that two CDs were prepared from the recordings and seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P-25). He deposed that the said amount of Rs.10,000/- was returned to the complainant with instructions to produce it on 18.03.2015 at the time of trap formation at the Kanker Lac Extension and Training Centre, pursuant to which a panchnama (Ex. P-26) was prepared. He further stated that on 17.03.2015 two gazetted officers, namely Birendra Singh and Sumit Agrawal, Deputy Collectors, were nominated as panch witnesses, who reached the ACB office in the evening, and that the trap party thereafter proceeded to Kanker and stayed overnight. On 18.03.2015, the complainant was introduced to the panch witnesses, the currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder by Constable Rajendra Singh Thakur, demonstration of sodium carbonate solution was given, samples were sealed, and instructions were issued to the complainant regarding delivery of the bribe and the pre- arranged signal. He stated that Constable Rajendra Singh Thakur (PW1), who applied the phenolphthalein powder, was not included as a member of the trap team. He stated that Constable Rajendra Singh Thakur (PW1), who applied the phenolphthalein powder, was not included as a member of the trap team. He further deposed regarding the movement of the trap party to Kokhanpur, the positioning of members at different places, the complainant proceeding alone to the accused’s residence, and upon receipt of the pre-arranged signal, the trap party reaching the spot where the accused was apprehended. In cross-examination, PW-5 admitted that he did not know who prepared the first complaint or the exact time when the complainant reached the ACB office. He admitted that the digital voice recorder remained in the custody of the complainant from 12.03.2015 till its submission on 17.03.2015. He further admitted that when the second complaint was filed on 17.03.2015 the Investigating Officer was not present in the ACB office and no separate panchnama was prepared prior to directing the complainant to again record the conversation on 16.03.2015. He admitted that he did not clearly recollect the contents of the transcripts regarding the specific demand or amount of bribe. He admitted that the driver Birbal Baghel was not a member of the trap team, and that nevertheless during the wash proceedings the additional amount of Rs.5,000/- recovered from the accused’s pant pocket was washed through Birbal Baghel in the presence of the trap party. He further admitted that from the position where he was standing neither the conversation between the complainant and the accused was audible nor the transaction visible. 23. PW-12 Chandrashekhar Dhruv deposed that he was posted as Inspector in the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jagdalpur since November, 2014. He stated that on 12.03.2015, while he was present in the ACB office, Jagdalpur, the complainant Maksudan, resident of Kevantintola, Korar, District Kanker, submitted a written complaint before DSP M.L. Negi alleging that the accused Basant Kumar Sikheriya, Rural Agricultural Extension Officer, Kokanpur, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- for sanction of tube-well subsidy. The said complaint was endorsed by DSP Negi and handed over to him for taking legal action. Thereafter, he registered a preliminary enquiry and arranged verification of the demand by providing a digital voice recorder to the complainant after preparing the necessary panchnama. He further deposed that as per the instructions of DSP Negi, a trap was organized on 18.03.2015 at Lakha Extension Centre, Makdi, in the presence of two gazetted panch witnesses. Thereafter, he registered a preliminary enquiry and arranged verification of the demand by providing a digital voice recorder to the complainant after preparing the necessary panchnama. He further deposed that as per the instructions of DSP Negi, a trap was organized on 18.03.2015 at Lakha Extension Centre, Makdi, in the presence of two gazetted panch witnesses. During the pre-trap proceedings, phenolphthalein powder was applied to twenty currency notes of Rs.500/- each amounting to Rs.10,000/-, their numbers were noted, a demonstration was conducted by preparing sodium carbonate solution, and the complainant was instructed to hand over the tainted amount to the accused only on demand and to give a predetermined signal thereafter. The trap party then proceeded to the accused’s office-cum-residence at Kokanpur, Korar, where the complainant met the accused and allegedly handed over the tainted amount. Upon receipt of the signal, the trap party reached the spot, disclosed their identity, apprehended the accused, and conducted phenolphthalein tests, during which the wash of the accused’s hands, the tainted currency notes, and the right pocket of the accused’s pant turned pink. The tainted amount of Rs.10,000/- was recovered from the right pocket of the accused’s pant along with other cash and articles, and the same were seized under seizure memos. Various wash solutions were sealed, marked, and seized, detailed panchnamas were prepared at the spot, and the accused was arrested in accordance with law. He further stated that relevant documents pertaining to the tube-well subsidy case were subsequently seized from departmental offices, the recorded conversation was transcribed, the digital recorder and CDs were seized, prosecution sanction was obtained from the competent authority, and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent court. In his cross-examination, PW-12 admitted that the initial complaint dated 12.03.2015 and the second complaint dated 17.03.2015 were not submitted by the complainant before him personally and that several pre- trap proceedings were conducted by DSP Negi during his absence. He admitted that no document relating to land ownership, eligibility, or subsidy approval was annexed with either complaint. He further admitted that though the conversation was recorded, no forensic examination of the CD was conducted. He conceded that ordinarily, after recording of demand, a second recording is not required and that he could not specify special circumstances necessitating the same in the present case. He further admitted that though the conversation was recorded, no forensic examination of the CD was conducted. He conceded that ordinarily, after recording of demand, a second recording is not required and that he could not specify special circumstances necessitating the same in the present case. He admitted that the subsidy file was not seized from the possession of the accused but from higher departmental offices, as the accused had already forwarded the papers. He further admitted that certain persons present at the spot, including the vehicle driver, were not shown as members of the trap party and that their hand-wash was not taken. He also admitted that the denomination numbers of the additional cash amount of Rs.17,700/- recovered from the accused were not noted in the panchnama. He conceded that after washing the pant pocket of the accused, the hand- wash of the panch witness who handled the pant was not taken. He further admitted that no certificate under the Evidence Act in respect of electronic evidence was filed along with the charge-sheet. He denied the suggestion that the accused was falsely implicated and stated that the investigation was conducted as per procedure. 24. PW-10, M. L. Negi deposed that he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jagdalpur since 23.06.2010. On 12.03.2015, while he was present in the ACB office at Jagdalpur, the complainant Maksudan Khadha, resident of Kevantintola, Korar, District Kanker, appeared before him and submitted a written complaint alleging that the accused Basant Kumar Sikheriya, Rural Agricultural Extension Officer, Kokanpur, had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- for sanction of tube-well subsidy. He endorsed the complaint and handed it over to Inspector Chandrashekhar Dhruv for taking legal action. Accordingly, a preliminary enquiry was registered and, for verification of demand, a digital voice recorder was provided to the complainant after preparing the requisite panchnama. PW-10 further stated that on 14.03.2015, the complainant informed him telephonically that the accused had reiterated the demand of Rs.10,000/- and refused to accept any lesser amount. He instructed the complainant to seek some more time. Thereafter, on 17.03.2015, the complainant again appeared in the ACB office and submitted a second complaint along with recorded conversations. Upon perusal of the same, prima facie offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was found and an FIR (Crime No. 0/2015) was registered against the accused. He instructed the complainant to seek some more time. Thereafter, on 17.03.2015, the complainant again appeared in the ACB office and submitted a second complaint along with recorded conversations. Upon perusal of the same, prima facie offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was found and an FIR (Crime No. 0/2015) was registered against the accused. For conducting trap proceedings, two gazetted officers were requisitioned and appointed as panch witnesses. He deposed that on 18.03.2015, trap proceedings were conducted at Lakha Extension Centre, Makdi. During pre-trap proceedings, twenty currency notes of Rs.500/- each amounting to Rs.10,000/- were treated with phenolphthalein powder, their numbers were noted, and a demonstration with sodium carbonate solution was given. The complainant was instructed to hand over the tainted amount to the accused only on demand and to give a predetermined signal thereafter. A trap team was constituted and proceeded to the accused’s office-cum- residence at Kokanpur. After the complainant met the accused and gave the predetermined signal, the trap party reached the spot, disclosed their identity, apprehended the accused, and conducted phenolphthalein tests. The washes of the accused’s hands, the tainted currency notes, and the right pocket of the accused’s pant turned pink. The tainted amount of Rs.10,000/- was recovered from the right pocket of the accused’s pant along with other cash and articles. Various wash solutions were sealed, marked (Mark B to H), seized, and detailed panchnamas were prepared. After completion of trap proceedings, the seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL, and the reports were received and handed over to the Investigating Officer. In his cross-examination, PW-10 admitted that the complainant had not annexed any document relating to land ownership, eligibility, or subsidy sanction with either the first or second complaint. He further admitted that the date of submission of subsidy application before the accused was not mentioned in the complaints. He conceded that the conversation recordings were not clear at several places, and that in the transcript of the recorded conversation, there was no clear and specific mention of demand of Rs.10,000/- at the beginning of the conversation, the discussion having initially related to electricity bills. He admitted that after information of recording of demand on 14.03.2015, trap proceedings were not initiated immediately, and that no separate panchnama was prepared regarding instructions given to the complainant to negotiate reduction of the amount. He admitted that after information of recording of demand on 14.03.2015, trap proceedings were not initiated immediately, and that no separate panchnama was prepared regarding instructions given to the complainant to negotiate reduction of the amount. He further admitted that the place where the accused allegedly asked the complainant to bring the money was not mentioned in the second complaint. He also admitted that additional amounts of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.17,700/- were recovered from the accused, and that the driver Birbal Baghel was not a member of the trap party and his hand-wash was not taken prior to the trap. He denied the suggestion that the accused was falsely implicated and stated that the proceedings were conducted as per procedure. 25. For sustaining a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is a settled proposition of law that the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, a clear and unequivocal demand of illegal gratification by the accused. The Supreme Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 5 and Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1724 has consistently held that demand is the sine qua non of the offence and that mere recovery of money, divorced from proof of demand, is insufficient to bring home guilt. Therefore, the first and foremost question for consideration is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the alleged demand through reliable and legally admissible evidence. 26. In the present case, the prosecution relies primarily upon the testimony of PW-6, the complainant, and the alleged recorded conversations marked as Exhibits P-23 and P-24 to establish demand. However, PW-6, in his cross-examination, has admitted that prior to the alleged demand, all formalities relating to the borewell subsidy including submission of application, bills and supporting documents had already been completed. He further admitted that the sanctioned amount was credited directly into his bank account by the competent Deputy Director of Agriculture and not by the accused. PW-2, Anand Singh Netam, has categorically stated that the accused had forwarded the complainant’s application for processing well before the alleged dates of demand. PW-4, J.L. Mandavi, has corroborated this version by stating that the application had already been received, scrutinised and recommended for approval prior to the alleged demand. PW-2, Anand Singh Netam, has categorically stated that the accused had forwarded the complainant’s application for processing well before the alleged dates of demand. PW-4, J.L. Mandavi, has corroborated this version by stating that the application had already been received, scrutinised and recommended for approval prior to the alleged demand. These admissions clearly demonstrate that the subsidy process was already underway and was within the domain of higher authorities, thereby creating a serious doubt as to whether the accused had any occasion, authority or motive to demand illegal gratification. 27. The prosecution version regarding demand is further weakened by the manner in which the alleged electronic recording was handled. PW-6 has admitted that the digital voice recorder, on which the alleged demand was recorded, remained in his custody for a considerable period prior to the trap. He further admitted that during this period, the recorder was neither sealed nor deposited with any official authority. The Investigating Officer has also failed to produce any contemporaneous record to show that the device was taken into custody immediately after the alleged recording or that any safeguards were adopted to prevent tampering. In absence of any independent corroboration, contemporaneous documentation or secure chain of custody, the alleged recording does not inspire confidence. When the demand itself is sought to be proved through such a recording, which remained exclusively with the complainant without supervision, the possibility of manipulation or interpolation cannot be ruled out. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational fact of demand beyond reasonable doubt. 28. Apart from the absence of credible proof of demand, the prosecution has also failed to produce any contemporaneous documentary record or independent witness testimony to corroborate the complainant’s version. PW-6 stands as the sole witness to the alleged demand, and no neutral or independent person has been examined to support his claim. It is well settled that in bribery prosecutions, the allegation of demand cannot be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant. 29. The inconsistencies in the prosecution timeline further weaken the allegation of demand. As already noticed, the official record and testimony of PW-2 and PW-4 establish that the complainant’s subsidy application had already been processed and forwarded well before the alleged demand. When these circumstances are examined alongside the absence of independent corroboration, the version put forth by PW-6 cannot be accepted as reliable. As already noticed, the official record and testimony of PW-2 and PW-4 establish that the complainant’s subsidy application had already been processed and forwarded well before the alleged demand. When these circumstances are examined alongside the absence of independent corroboration, the version put forth by PW-6 cannot be accepted as reliable. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand beyond reasonable doubt. 30. A substantial part of the prosecution case is sought to be built upon electronic evidence, namely voice recordings, CDs and transcripts, allegedly demonstrating demand and acceptance. The admissibility of such evidence is governed by Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which mandates the production of a certificate certifying the manner of creation, authenticity and integrity of the electronic record. This requirement is substantive and not merely procedural. In the present case, the Investigating Officer has admitted that no Section 65-B certificate was obtained or produced in respect of the electronic records relied upon by the prosecution. In the absence of compliance with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, the electronic evidence relied upon by the prosecution is rendered wholly inadmissible. The law laid down in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer , (2014) 10 SCC 473 is categorical that electronic records not supported by a valid certificate under Section 65-B cannot be looked into for any purpose. Once this evidence is excluded from consideration, the prosecution is left without any legally admissible material to substantiate either the alleged demand or acceptance of bribe. 31. Even otherwise, for the sake of argument, even if it is asssumed that a demand had been made, the prosecution was further required to establish that the accused voluntarily accepted the alleged bribe. Acceptance is an independent and indispensable ingredient of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1191 , the Supreme Court has held that when the prosecution relies upon the testimony of a bribe- giver, such evidence must be corroborated in material particulars. In the present case, the allegation of acceptance rests principally upon PW-6, the complainant. Significantly, PW-6 has categorically stated that at the time of the alleged acceptance on 18.03.2015, he alone was present inside the house of the accused and that no other person was present during the transaction. 32. In the present case, the allegation of acceptance rests principally upon PW-6, the complainant. Significantly, PW-6 has categorically stated that at the time of the alleged acceptance on 18.03.2015, he alone was present inside the house of the accused and that no other person was present during the transaction. 32. This version of PW-6 stands in direct contradiction to the electronic transcripts (Ex. P-23 and Ex. P-24) relied upon by the prosecution. In his cross-examination, PW-6 has admitted that during the recordings dated 14.03.2015 and 16.03.2015, voices of other persons were also captured and that he was unable to identify those persons. PW-5 has further admitted that the transcripts were prepared solely on the basis of identification by the complainant, without any scientific verification. PW-10 and PW-12 have conceded that no forensic examination of the electronic record was conducted and no effort was made to identify or explain the presence of multiple voices. Thus, while the oral testimony asserts the presence of only one person inside the house at the time of acceptance, the prosecution’s own electronic material suggests the presence of several persons. This material inconsistency, which remains unexplained, strikes at the root of the prosecution case regarding the place, manner and circumstances of the alleged acceptance. When read along with the absence of independent corroboration and the consistent evidence of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-9 that the accused had already forwarded the subsidy application and had no role in disbursement of funds, the allegation of acceptance becomes wholly unreliable. 33. The prosecution relies heavily on the alleged recovery of Rs.10,000/- as bribe money during the trap operation to establish the accused’s guilt. It contends that the recovery, coupled with the recorded conversation and subsequent trap proceedings, proves the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. However, mere recovery of cash, without independent corroboration of demand and voluntary acceptance, is legally insufficient to sustain a conviction. Examination of the recovery proceedings reveals multiple procedural irregularities. Several individuals present at the time of recovery were not formal members of the constituted trap party; some panchnamas appear to have been prepared retrospectively or are improperly attested; and the denominations of the recovered currency notes are inconsistently recorded across documents. Furthermore, the prosecution has not demonstrated an unbroken chain of custody from the moment of recovery until production before the Court, casting doubt on the integrity of the recovered money. 34. Furthermore, the prosecution has not demonstrated an unbroken chain of custody from the moment of recovery until production before the Court, casting doubt on the integrity of the recovered money. 34. The prosecution contends that the electronic recordings made by the complainant (PW-6) corroborate the demand of Rs.10,000/-. It relies on the transcripts (Ex. P-23 and P-24) and CDs (Ex. P-25) as evidence of the accused’s culpability. However, scrutiny of the handling of the digital recorder exposes serious infirmities. PW-6 admitted that the recorder remained in his personal custody for several days prior to the trap, was neither sealed nor deposited with any official authority, and recorded voices of multiple persons, none of whom were identified scientifically. The Investigating Officer confirmed that no expert examination was conducted to verify the authenticity or uniqueness of the voices. Further, PW-6 stated that he was alone inside the accused’s house at the time of the alleged transaction, creating a direct contradiction between the recorded conversation and oral testimony. These inconsistencies severely undermine the credibility of the electronic evidence and render the trap proceedings unsafe for reliance. 35. The prosecution asserts that the phenolphthalein tests and the wash of recovered currency notes and the accused’s hands substantiate the bribe transaction. However, the handling and dispatch of these critical materials to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) were belated and inadequately documented. Although the trap occurred on 18.03.2015, PW-1 and PW-12 admitted that the sealed wash solutions and other materials remained in the ACB office for an unexplained period before being sent to FSL, Raipur. No contemporaneous record specifies the dates, times, or conditions under which these samples were stored, thereby breaking the chain of custody. This procedural lapse casts serious doubt on the reliability and probative value of the FSL report. 36. A further procedural irregularity relates to the involvement of Birbal Baghel, the driver of the official vehicle, in handling part of the recovery and wash proceedings, particularly with respect to the additional cash allegedly recovered from the accused. PW-5 and PW-12 admitted that no hand-wash of Birbal Baghel was taken, and his role was not mentioned in the panchnamas. Allowing a non-trap individual to handle crucial evidence without procedural safeguards introduces a risk of contamination or manipulation, thereby vitiating the reliability of the wash proceedings. 37. PW-5 and PW-12 admitted that no hand-wash of Birbal Baghel was taken, and his role was not mentioned in the panchnamas. Allowing a non-trap individual to handle crucial evidence without procedural safeguards introduces a risk of contamination or manipulation, thereby vitiating the reliability of the wash proceedings. 37. In conclusion, the prosecution’s case rests on defective recovery and trap proceedings, unreliable electronic recordings, and procedural lapses in handling critical material evidence. In the absence of credible proof of demand and voluntary acceptance by the accused, and given the infirmities in the trap and recovery process, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving the essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. 38. For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act beyond all reasonable doubts. There is no credible, independent, or admissible evidence demonstrating that the accused demanded or accepted any illegal gratification. Procedural lapses in the trap and recovery, coupled with non-compliance with Section 65-B, vitiate the prosecution case. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court cannot be sustained. 39. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under the aforementioned provisions are hereby set aside, and the appellant stands acquitted of all charges. 40. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a further period of six months in terms of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. (481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)). The Registry is directed to transmit the trial Court record forthwith for necessary information and follow-up action.