Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 270 of 2012 Reserved on: 09.05.2025 Decided on: 23.05.2025 _____________________________________________________ Manoj Kumar …..Appellant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……Respondent. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes. _____________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Swati Sharma and Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ankush Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Manoj Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment of conviction, dated 30.06.2012, and order of sentence, dated 02.07.2012, passed by learned Special Judge(1), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., whereby the accused was convicted under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘the PC Act’). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 2 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, can be summarized as under: 2(a). Shri Rewati Ram (complainant) alongwith Baldev Thakur, made a complaint to Police of Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Mandi, that he was B-Class Contractor of HPPWD and he had taken the construction work of Flood Protection at ITBP Kullu and the same work was being supervised by SDO Manoj Kumar (accused) of Central Public Works Department. The complainant further complained that for the aforesaid work he received part payment of Rs.5,63,000/-, whereupon the then SDO Manoj Kumar of CPWD (accused), for the said work, started demanding a sum of Rs.30,000/-, as bribe. When the complainant refused to pay the amount, the accused threatened him as to how he would do the work in future. The accused time and again exerted pressure on the complainant to make the payment of the bribe and on 24.05.2007 he (accused) telephonically informed the complainant that he was coming to Mandi and directed him to make the payment. Thus, the complainant approached the police. 2(b). The police registered a case against the accused under the apt Sections of the PC Act and the investigation commenced. A team of police personnel was constituted and Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 3 Investigating Officer gave a demonstration qua the use of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate in presence of the complainant. Phenolphthalein power and sodium carbonate were put in empty match boxes and the same were sealed. Thereafter, the complainant produced an amount of Rs.30,000/- in the denomination of 12 currency notes of Rs.1000/- and 36 currency notes of Rs.500/-. The notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and given to the complainant with a direction to keep the same in his pocket. The complainant was also directed to have a handshake with the accused. Shri Baldev Singh was deputed as a shadow witness and he was directed to give a particular signal to the raiding party as and when the accused accepted the bribe. 2(c). After giving the bribe amount to the accused, the shadow witness signaled the raiding party, whereupon the accused was nabbed. As so many persons gathered on the spot, therefore, the accused was taken to Police Station SV & ACB, Mandi, where his hands were got washed in a bowl with fresh water. Thereafter, sodium carbonate powder was mixed in it, then the color of the said water turned into light pink, which was poured in a nip and the nip was sealed. Subsequently, the accused took out currency notes from the pocket of his trousers worn by him and the number of notes were tallied with the memo. Police took into possession Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 4 the trousers worn by the accused and his handkerchief. Thereafter, the police completed other codal formalities. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the learned Trial Court. 3. On 25.06.2012, charges were framed by the learned trial Court against the accused under Sections 7 and 13 1(d)(i) read with Section 13(2)of the PC Act. The accused did not plead guilty of the charges framed against him and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, during trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused when examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. The accused examined one witness in his defence. 5. On the basis of evidence led on record by the prosecution, the learned trial Court held the accused guilty of having committed offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) & 13(2) of the PC Act. Under Section 7 of the PC Act the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 5 for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the accused approached this Court by way of the instant appeal, praying for his acquittal, after setting aside the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/accused contended that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts, based upon surmises and conjectures, thus liable to set- aside. He further contended that learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence in a slipshod and perfunctory manner. He also contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant. There are material contradictions and infirmities in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which in itself are suffice to disbelieve the case of the prosecution, rendering the prosecution story highly doubtful. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set-aside by Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 6 allowing the instant appeal and the accused be acquitted. 8. Conversely, learned Additional Advocate General supported the judgment of the learned trial Court and contended that since the charges against the accused have been duly proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted him on the basis of proper appreciation of evidence. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Advocate General and also gone through the record carefully. 10. The accused stood charged for commission of the offence under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d)(i) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act as being a public servant, he allegedly demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant. To substantiate the said charge and to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as seventeen witnesses. However, the case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the statements of PW-1 Shri Rewati Ram (complainant), PW-2 Shri Bal Krishan Chaudhary, PW-10 Shri Baldev Thakur (shadow witness) and PW-17 Shri Gurdev Sharma (Investigating Officer). These are the most material witnesses of Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 7 the prosecution, who have been examined primarily to prove the guilt of the accused. 11. Shri Rewati Ram (complainant) appeared in the witness-box as PW-1 and deposed that he was B-Class Contractor. In the year 2007, construction work of Flood Protection Crates Wall in ITBP Camp Babeli, District Kullu, was allotted to him and at that time accused (Manoj Kumar) was posted as SDO in CPWD (Central Public Works Department) and he was supervising the work. He further deposed that in 2007 he received a sum of Rs.5,63,000/- for the aforesaid work and subsequently the accused started demanding Rs.30,000/- from him, as bribe. He showed his helplessness to pay the bribe amount, whereupon the accused threatened him that he was supervising the work and how he would do the work in future. PW-1 also deposed that on 24.05.2007 the accused telephoned and demanded from him a sum of Rs.30,000/-, which he directed to hand over to him at Mandi. He further deposed that as he was not ready to pay the amount, he went to Police Station SV&ACB, Mandi alongwith Shri Baldev Thakur (PW-10) and got registered a case, thereafter Naib Tehsildar, Mandi, was summoned. The police officials gave the demonstration, by putting some powder in two glasses of water. He deposed that the color of water did not change, but when water Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 8 of two glasses was mixed with each other, then the color of water turned into pink. As per the version of this witness, the said water was poured in a nip, which was sealed with seal having impression ‘Y’ and the powder was put in two match boxes, which were sealed with seal, having impression ‘Y’. The facsimile of seal ‘Y’ was taken on a piece of cloth. He produced an amount of Rs.30,000/- in the denomination of 12 currency notes of Rs.1000/- and 36 currency notes of Rs.500/- and some powder was applied on the same by the police and number of the currency notes were also noted down. He further deposed that subsequently he had put the same currency notes in the pocket of his shirt and the police directed him to hand over the same currency notes to the accused on his demand and he was also directed to give signal to them while handing over the money. When PW-1 was in the office of SV&ACB, Mandi, accused contacted him and directed him to come to Seri Bazar near Indira Market, Mandi. 12. He further deposed in his testimony that around 1-1/2- 2 p.m. he alongwith Naib Tehsildar, Shri Baldev Thakur (independent witness) and other police officials started from SV&ACB, Mandi, and the police men were in civil dress. As per this witness, Baldev Thakur was with him and Naib Tehsildar also met him. At Seri bazaar he was all alone and the other members Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 9 of the police party, Naib Tehsildar and shadow witness remained here and there. He also deposed that accused met him near Taxi stand, Seri Bazaar, and he handed over to him currency notes of Rs.30,000/- and the accused had put the same in jeans worn by him in the left pocket. Thereafter, he (PW-1) raised his hand and signaled the police party and two policemen overpowered the accused. The accused was brought to Police Station SV&ACB and his hand was got washed with water in a tumbler. Some powder was poured in the said water, whereupon color of said water turned pink. The said water was taken in the nip and the nip was sealed with seal having impression ‘R’, qua which memo, Ex. PW-1/E, was prepared, which was signed by him and by Shri Bal Krishan Chaudhary (PW-2) and the accused. He further deposed that thereafter the accused took out currency notes from his pocket and the same were tallied with memo, Ex. PW-1/D, and the numbers were matched. The currency notes were taken into possession. 13. The complainant (PW-1), in his cross-examination deposed that the trousers, which the accused was wearing at that time, was taken off and washed. The handkerchief found in his pocket was also washed with the water mixed with sodium carbonate and the color of the said water turned pink. Thereafter Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 10 both handkerchief and trousers were put in a cloth parcel and sealed with seal having impression ‘R’ and taken into possession, vide memo, Ex. PW-1/G. This witness also deposed that the accused started demanding the amount fifteen days prior to the incident. As per this witness, Shri Baldev Thakur (PW-10), shadow witness, met him incidentally in the market about 11-12 in the noon. He admitted that he did not know about the names of the powder which were used by the police. He admitted that the work was supervised by J.E. of CPWD on the spot and the bills were forwarded by J.E. to A.E. He also admitted that A.E. thereafter forwarded the said bills to Executive Engineer concerned, who released the amount of the said bills. As per this witness, bill amounting to Rs.5,63,000/- was forwarded by J.E. to the accused on 10.05.2007 and he forwarded the same to Executive Engineer on 11.05.2007. 14. PW-2, Shri Bal Krishan Chaudhary, the then Naib Tehsildar Sadar Mandi, deposed that on 25.05.2007, Dy.S.P. Vigilance called him to Police Station SV&ACB Mandi and when he reached there, complainant, Baldev Thakur and police officials were present there. He further deposed that in his presence, police officials put water into two glasses and some powder was poured in it. One powder was sodium carbonate and subsequently Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 11 the water of said two glasses was mixed with each other and its color turned light pink. The said water was put in a nip, which was sealed with seal ‘Y’, which was Ex. P1 and I.O. separated small quantity of the said powder and put into two empty match boxes, i.e. Ex.P2 and Ex. P3. He also deposed that specimen seal impression of seal ‘Y’ was obtained and seal after its use was handed over to him and memo, Ex. PW-1/C, was also prepared in this regard, which was singed by him, Baldev Thakur, Rewat Ram and Dy.S.P.. Then complainant produced a sum of Rs.30,000/- and currency was in the denomination of 12 notes of Rs.1000/- and 36 notes of Rs.500/-, whereupon phenolphthalein powder was applied and the complainant was directed to put the said notes in his pocket and to handover the same to the accused on his demand. As per this witness, the complainant was also directed not to shake hands with anyone. Thereafter, the complainant had inquired from the accused about his location and the accused told him to come at Seri Manch. There were 3-4 persons in the raiding party and he (PW-2) and Dy.S.P. were following them. He noticed that the complainant handed over a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the accused and thereafter the members of the raiding party overpowered the accused and he was brought to Police station SV&ACB, where the hands of the accused were got washed in a Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 12 bowl. Sodium carbonate was put in the said hand wash and the color of the said wash turned light pink. Thereafter, the same was put in nip, Ex. P4, which was sealed with seal ‘R’ and the said seal was handed over to him. The accused took out notes from his pocket of the pants, which he was wearing at that time, and put the same on the table. The notes were counted and found to be Rs.30,000/- and number of the said notes were also tallied with memo, Ex. PW-1/D and the same tallied with each other. He further deposed that the above notes were put in an envelope and further put in a parcel, which was sealed with seal ‘R’ and seal after its use was handed over to him. Memo, Ex. PW-1/F, was prepared. He deposed that he had seen the currency notes Ex. P- 7 to Ex.P18 of Rs.1000/- each and Ex. P-19 to Ex. P-54 of Rs.500/- each, which were same as given to the complainant after applying phenolphthalein powder and taken out from the pocket of the accused. The pants and handkerchief of the accused were washed with water mixed with sodium carbonate. This witness deposed that the same were washed in a bowl, but again stated that pocket of the pants and handkerchief were washed in a plate and the said water was also put in a nip, which was sealed with seal ‘R’. PW-2, in his cross-examination, deposed that water of two glasses was not mixed by Dy.S.P., but it was mixed in Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 13 presence. He admitted that number of officers used to sit near the office of SV&ACB and at a distance of 20 meters, the offices of SDM Mandi, BRO, Recovery Tehsildar, ADM were located. 15. The shadow witness, Shri Baldev Thakur appeared in the witness-box as PW-10 and deposed that he was a contractor and on 25.05.2007 he came to Mandi for his personal work. In the market, he met the complainant, who disclosed that SDO, CPWD was demanding commission qua his bills. He further deposed that the complainant requested him to accompany him to make a complaint, then both of them went to the office of Vigilance Department, where the complainant narrated the entire story and the proceedings commenced. He also deposed that police summoned Naib Tehsildar, Mandi, and gave a demonstration to them. They mixed the powder into two bowls and color of water did not change and when mixed together its color turned light pink. The said mixture was put in a nip and sealed with seal ‘Y’ and memo qua the same, Ex. PW-1/C, was prepared, which was signed by him as well as by Shri Bal Krishan Chaudhary (PW-2). Subsequently, police separated some portion of powder and put the same into empty match boxes. The complainant produced a sum of Rs.30,000/- before the police and currency was in the denomination of 12 notes of Rs.1000/- and 36 notes of Rs.500/- Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 14 and the said notes were treated with powder and handed over to the complainant. The serial numbers of the said currency notes were noted by the police and the complainant was directed to give those notes to the accused on his demand. As per this witness, he was also directed to witness the transaction of the money between the accused and the complainant. Thereafter, they proceeded towards Seri Manch and the complainant, PW-2 and members of the police party reached there. When they reached near Taxi stand, Seri Manch, the accused met them and at that time the police was at a short distance from them. The accused and the complainant had a word with each other and the complainant handed over Rs.30,000/- to the accused. He deposed that when the complainant handed over money to the accused, he (PW-10) gave a signal by raising his hand and the police caught the accused from both his hands/arms. 16. He further deposed that the accused was brought to the office of Vigilance, as many people gathered at the spot. The hands of the accused were got washed with water and when some powder was mixed in the said water, its color turned light pink. The hand wash water was also put in a nip and the nip was sealed with seal having impression ‘R’. The accused took out currency notes of Rs.30,000/- from his pocket of pants worn by him and the serial Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 15 numbers of the same were tallied with memo, Ex. PW-1/D, which were got tallied. The currency notes were taken into possession, vide memo, Ex. PW-1/F, which was signed by him and by PW-2. The pants of the accused was removed and the left side pocket of the same was got reversed with the help of pen and a handkerchief was found. As per this witness, inner pocket of the pants and the handkerchief were washed with fresh water and thereafter some powder was mixed in it and the color of the said water turned light pink. 17. In his cross-examination he voluntarily stated that PW-2 was already there and the procedure of demonstration was started by the police after about one hour when they reached in the office of vigilance. He deposed that they started from the office of Vigilance at about 2-2½ p.m.. 18. Shri Gurdev Sharma, the then Dy.S.P., SV&ACB, Mandi, appeared In the witness box as PW-17. He deposed that on 25.05.2007 the complainant and Baldev Thakur (PW-10) came to the police station SV&ACB, Mandi, and the complainant got recorded FIR, Ex. PW-1/A. He disclosed that his bill of Rs.5,63,000/- was passed and in lieu of that, SDO CPWD Babeli (accused) was demanding Rs.30,000/-. He further deposed that he called Shri Bal Krishan Chaudhary, the then Naib Tehsildar, Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 16 Sadar Mandi (PW-2) and demonstrated qua the use of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate in presence of the complainant, Baldev Thakur and Bal Krishan Chaudhary. He also deposed that he prepared the mixture of phenolphthalein powder in a glass and mixture of sodium carbonate in another glass. The color of said mixture did not change and when the mixture of two glasses was mixed, then its color turned light pink. This witness further deposed that the complainant produced currency notes of Rs.30,000/-, in the denomination of 12 notes of Rs.1000/- and 36 notes of Rs.500/-. The serial numbers of the above currency notes were noted and all the notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and then handed over to the complainant with a direction to hand-over the same to the accused on his demand. He also deposed that the complainant was directed to give signal by raising hand as and when the accused accepted the bribe money. A raiding party was constituted and they proceeded towards Seri Manch, Mandi. When they reached there, accused was already present there and he (accused) called the complainant towards the parking. On the demand of the accused, the complainant gave bribe money to him and the accused kept the same in his left pocket of trousers worn by him. On the signal of the complainant, constables Rajinder and Lal Singh caught the accused. As per this Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 17 witness, many people gathered on the spot, so the accused was brought to Police Station, SV&ACB, Mandi, where his hands were got washed with fresh water and hand wash water was taken in a bowl. The color of the hand wash water did not change and when sodium carbonate powder was mixed in it, it turned light pink. He further deposed that the said water was poured in a nip and the nip was sealed with seal having impression ‘R’ and after its use it was handed over to Shri Bal Krishan Chaudhary (PW-2). The accused took out currency notes of Rs.30,000/- from the pocket of his trousers and the numbers of the notes were tallied with the numbers already noted in memo, Ex.PW-11/D. The said currency notes were put in a khakhi envelope, which was put in a cloth parcel, which was sealed with 8 seals, having impression ‘R’. 19. As per PW-17, he came to know that the accused came to Mandi in his official vehicle alongwith J.E. Naveen Kumar and driver, therefore the vehicle was brought to the police station and it was searched. During search, a brief case, containing documents Ex. PW-17/B and Ex. PW-17/C, was found, which were taken into possession. Residential premises of the accused was also searched. This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that office of Naib Tehsildar was situated at a distance of about 1 1-1/2 kms from Police Station SV&ACB. He admitted that offices Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 18 of officers of Civil Administration were located at a distance of 15- 20 meters from the police station. As per this witness, he did not obtain prior permission of immediate superior of Naib Tehsildar to associate him in the raiding party and he had not associated him as a witness in any other trap case. He deposed that neither the telephonic conversation between the complainant and the accused was recorded by him nor he had obtained the call details of both the complainant as well as the accused. 20. PW-6 Manish Kumar LDS CPWD, Babeli, produced letter, Ex. PW-6/A, issued to the Contractor Rewati Ram, as per diary dispatch register, Ex. PW-6/B.PW-8 Balbir Singh, proved that the accused had come to Mandi in connection with meeting regarding transfer of school land in the office of Principal Central School, Khalyar. PW-12 Naveen Kumar, Jr. Engineer CPWD, was accompanying the appellant on that day and PW-13 Ashok Kumar was driving the vehicle of the accused on that relevant date. The Investigating Officer deposited the case property with PW-3 ASI Kuldeep MHC. PW-4 Constable Sanjay Kumar deposited the case property at SFSL; & PW-5 V.S. Jamwal, Assistant Director SFSL, proved report, Ex. PW-5/A. 21. I have carefully scanned the entire evidence on record. The first point that arises for determination in this appeal is as to Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 19 whether the mandatory requirements to bring the accused under the purview of Section 7 of the PC Act and under Section 13(1)(d)(i) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, have been followed to warrant a conviction in this case? 22. It is a settled principle of law that mere recovery of the bribe money by itself cannot bring home the charge for the offences punishable under Section 7 or 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove demand of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the bribe money, as has been held in a catena of judgments passed by the Apex Court. It is also a settled principle of law that suspicion, however grave cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that "may be" proved, and something that "will be proved". 23. In B. Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 8 & 9 of the judgment held that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. Paras 8 & 9 of the judgment reproduced as under:- "8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 20 handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext. P-11) before LW 9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW 1 and the contents of Ext. P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. 9. Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent." 24. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another, reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 , it has been held that mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 21 Act. Paras 23 and 24 of the judgment read as under:- "23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. 24. The sheet anchor of the case of the prosecution is the evidence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, of PW 1 S. Udaya Bhaskar. The substance of his testimony, as has been alluded to hereinabove, would disclose qua the aspect of demand, that when the complainant did hand over to the appellant the renewal application, the latter enquired from the complainant as to whether he had brought the amount which he directed him to bring on the previous day, whereupon the complainant took out Rs 500 from the pocket of his shirt and handed over the same to the appellant. Though, a very spirited endeavour has been made by the Cr.Appeal (SJ). No.302 of 2020 learned counsel for the State to co-relate this statement of PW1 S.Udaya Bhaskar to the attendant facts and circumstances including the recovery of this amount from the possession of the appellant by the trap team, identification of the currency notes used in the trap 12 operation and also the chemical reaction of the sodium carbonate solution qua the appellant, we are left unpersuaded to return a finding that the prosecution in the instant case has been able to prove the factum of demand beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the evidence of PW 1 S. Udaya Bhaskar is accepted on the face value, it falls short of the quality and decisiveness of the proof of demand of illegal gratification as enjoined by law to hold that the offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act has been proved. True it is, that on the demise of the complainant, primary evidence, if any, of the demand is not forthcoming. According to the prosecution, the demand had in fact been made on 3-10-1996 by the appellant to the complainant and on his complaint, the trap was laid on the next date i.e. 4-10- 1996. However, the testimony of PW 1 S. Udaya Bhaskar does not reproduce the demand allegedly made by the appellant to the complainant which can be construed to be one as contemplated in law to enter a finding that the offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 22 Act against the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt." 25. In Krishan Chander Versus State of Delhi, (2016) 3 SCC 108, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle of law regarding the ingredients of inter-alia Section 7 of the PC Act that the demand for the bribe money is sine qua non to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Paras 35, 36 and 37 of the judgment read as under:- "35. It is well settled position of law that the demand for the bribe money is sine qua non to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The same legal principle has been held by this Court in the case of B.Jayaraj (supra), A. Subair (supra) and P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra) upon which reliance is rightly placed by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant. 36. The relevant paragraph 7 from B. Jayaraj case (supra) reads thus "7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI." (emphasis supplied) 37. In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), it was held by this Court as under: "21. In State of Kerala and another vs. C.P. Rao, this Court, reiterating its earlier dictum, vis-à-vis the same offences, held that mere recovery by itself, would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained.” Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 23 26. In N. Sunkanna Vs. State of A.P., (2016) 1 SCC 713 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7, since demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- "5. ..........It is settled law that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7, since demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Section 13(1)(d) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. It is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Unless there is proof of demand of illegal gratification proof of acceptance will not follow. Reference may be made to the two decisions of the three-Judge Bench of this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. [(2014) 13 SCC 55: (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] and P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. [(2015) 10 SCC 152 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 11 : (2015) 9 Scale 724] " 27. In Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 8 SCC 136, it has been held that in order to prove the charge under the above provisions, the prosecution has to establish by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification and till that is accomplished, the accused should be considered to be innocent. Para-13 of the judgment reads as under:- Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 24 "13. The indispensability of the proof of demand and illegal gratification in establishing a charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, has by now engaged the attention of this Court on umpteen occasions. In A. Subair v. State of Kerala, this Court propounded that the prosecution in order to prove the charge under the above provisions has to establish by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification and till that is accomplished, the accused should be considered to be innocent. Carrying this 13 enunciation further, it was exposited in State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao that mere recovery by itself of the amount said to have been paid by way of illegal gratification would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained." 28. Thus, mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not enable the court to convict the accused. In the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality for an offence under Sections 7and 13 of the PC Act. Qua Section 20 of the PC Act, which permits a presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that while it is extendable only to an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, could follow only if there was proof of demand. Axiomatically, it is true that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 25 could not be made. 29. Now, it is to be seen as to whether the prosecution has been able to successfully establish the demand of Rs.30,000/- by the appellant-accused and recovery of 12 currency notes of Rs.1000/- and 36 currency notes of Rs.500/- from his possession. 30. The entire case of the prosecution revolves around the fact that complainant was working as contractor with CWPD and was awarded “Strengthening of Flood Protection Work” at ITBP campus Babeli at Kullu. The appellant was posted as Assistant Engineer in CPWD and an amount of Rs.30,000/- was demanded by the appellant after the payment of Rs.5,63,000/- was released in favour of the complainant. 31. If the FIR Ex. PW-1/A is perused, it would reveal that the timings and the place of occurrence, ‘Seri Bazar’ reflected in it, create a serious doubt about the case of the prosecution. As per the admitted case of the prosecution, at the time of lodging of the FIR at 1 p.m., nobody knew about the fact as to where the accused was to meet the complainant for accepting the alleged bribe money. The FIR as per the case of the prosecution was lodged at 01:00 p.m. received by the Ilaqua Magistrate at 01:40 p.m. It is an admitted fact borne out from the evidence on record that the fact of meeting of the appellant at a place known as ‘Seri Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 26 Bazar’ came to the notice of the complainant as well as the police authorities after lodging of the FIR and after completing the pre- trap proceedings, when allegedly the complainant received a call from the appellant Manoj Kumar to meet him at ‘Seri Bazar’ and thereafter as claimed by the prosecution, the police party proceeded towards ‘Seri Bazar’ and apprehended him there at 02:30 p.m. after allegedly having accepted the bribe money. The relevant portion of the statement of the complainant which substantiates this fact is as under: “The police also noted down the number of the said currency notes. Thereafter I put the same in the pocket of the shirt and police directed me to handover the said currency notes to the accused on his demand and also directed me to give signal to us while handing over the money. In this regard, memo was prepared, which is Ex. PW-1/D. When I was in the office of SV&ACB, the accused again contacted me on my mobile phone and directed me to come to ‘Seri Bazar’ near India Market, Mandi. Regarding this fact PW-2 Bal Krishan Chaudhary also stated in his examination in chief as under: “Memo was prepared in this regard which is Ex. PW- 1/D. The same was signed by me as well as Baldev Thakur. Thereafter, Rewat Ram PW-1 inquired from accused regarding his location. Accused told the complainant to come to Seri Munch.” 32. In view of the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that till the pre-trap proceedings were completed, the place of meeting was not known to any other person. Hence, in this scenario, when Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 27 admittedly the place, i.e., Seri bazaar near Indira Market, Mandi, was not known to any person, how the place of occurrence, i.e., Seri bazaar near Indira Market, Mandi, in column No. 5 came to be mentioned in FIR lodged at 01:00 p.m., the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: “5. Place of Occurrence: (a) Direction and distance from P.S. South 200 meters. Beat No…… (b) Address and place Seri Bazar Bus Stand.” 33. Notably, this fact assumes significance in view of the fact that it was the specific case of the appellant that he was apprehended when he alongwith J.E. Naveen Kumar and driver Ashok Kumar came to Punjabi Dhaba for having his lunch after attending the meeting and was apprehended by the police who came in civil dress and forcibly took him to the office of SV&ACB, Mandi, and thereafter the things were manipulated to show his implication in the case. All the witnesses of spot, pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were given suggestion regarding this fact and the appellant even explained the same in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while answering question No. 60. This defence of the accused has also been corroborated by two accompanying officials of the CPWD, i.e., PW-12 and PW-13, namely Naveen Kumar and Ashok Kumar respectively. They have not supported Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 28 the case of prosecution and had turned hostile. Both of them were cross examined at length by the ld. Public Prosecutor but nothing favourable could be elicited by the prosecution from their lengthy cross-examination. 34. Thus, the fact that the offence would be committed at Seri Bazar could not have been incorporated at the time of lodging of the FIR at 01:00 p.m., which was received by the Magistrate at 01:40 p.m., when this fact came to their knowledge only after the pre-trap proceedings. This fact creates a serios doubt upon the prosecution case and supports the defence version. 35. It is settled position of law that the statement of the complainant cannot be placed on a better footing than that of an accomplice and corroboration on material particulars connecting the accused with the crime must be insisted. In Pannalal Damodar Rathi vs. State of Maharashtra 1979 (4) SCC 526, it has been held as under: "8. There could be no doubt that the evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particulars. After introduction of Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code making the person who offers bribe guilty of abetment of bribery, the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing that that of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon.” … … … 36. In the instant case there is no legally admissible Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 29 evidence of demand and acceptance. According to PW-1 complainant, the accused had been making demand from him telephonically and on 24.05.2007, the accused telephonically demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- and in the Police Station also, the call was received by PW-1 to come to Seri Bazaar. The best evidence in this regard could have been the telephonic record i.e. the calls having been exchanged between the appellant and the complainant on 24.05.2007 and 25.05.2007, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the call detail record was not seized. Therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. The Investigating Officer specifically admits this fact in his deposition that neither any recording was done on 25.05.2007, nor the call details were obtained to substantiate the fact of demand on 24.05.2007 on telephone by the appellant. PW-17 Gurdev Sharma, Investigating officer, in his statement, qua this fact, states as under: “The telephonic conversation between the accused and the complainant was not recorded by me on that day, nor I had obtained the call details of both the complainant and the accused prior to the conversations.” 37. The fact of making any demand on telephone even otherwise is improbable, as firstly there was no occasion for Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 30 making the demand as the amount of the bill already stood paid to the complainant and secondly the accused was meeting the complainant almost daily at Kullu, so why would he make any demand on telephone. Further, there is no corroboration to the statement of the complainant qua demand by any other witness. The shadow witness, who was supposed to see and watch all the proceedings, did not utter even a single word that the appellant demanded money in his presence. Similarly, PW-2 also did not utter a single word that the demand was raised by the appellant in his presence. 38. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the bill of PW-1 amounting to Rs.5,63,000/- was forwarded by J.E. to the appellant on 10.05.2007 and the appellant forwarded the same to the Executive Engineer on 11.05.2007 and on 24.05.2007 when the alleged demand was made on telephone, the amount of the bill stood already paid to the complainant, so there was no occasion for the appellant to make any demand and had his intention been so, he would have demanded the same either during the execution of the work or at the time when he forwarded the bill, which admittedly is not the case of the prosecution. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove by leading any cogent and satisfactory evidence that accused had demanded the bribe Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 31 money from the complainant. 39. It is a settled law that in the absence of proof of demand, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act will not get attracted. In V. Venkata Subbarao vs. State represented by Inspector of Police reported in (2006) 13 SCC 305, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of the PC Act provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand is proved. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- "24..........In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand is proved. It reads as under: 20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration - (1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 of clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13, it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other persons, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.” Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 32 40. In State of Maharashtra vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 200, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations:- "16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence viz., demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. For the said purpose, indisputably the presumptive evidence, as is laid down in Section 20 of the Act, must also be taken into consideration but then in respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-a-vis the standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ. Before, however, the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. Even while invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the Court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt.” 41. In the instant case, as observed earlier, demand by the accused-appellant from complainant could not be established by the prosecution, as such, in the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise under Section 20 of the Act. 42. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-accused further contended that no independent witness has been associated by the police, on account of which the entire proceedings against the accused stand vitiated. In Ram Parkash Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 33 Arora vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 498, while deprecating the practice of associating interested witnesses, it has been held by the Apex Court that the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- "8………It must be remembered that both Joginder Singh (bribe giver) and Dalbir Singh (shadow witness) P.Ws. were interested and partisan witnesses. They were concerned in the success of the trap and their evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness and in a proper case the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person……." 43. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Som Parkash vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1992 SC 665, has held that witnesses forming part of the raiding party are not independent witnesses. Therefore, their evidence has to be considered like any other witnesses in the light of the other materials and the cumulative circumstances available on record. Para-2 of the judgment reads as under:- “2. The High Court found that the witnesses who were associated in the conduct of the raid for recovery of tainted money from the appellant could not be termed as independent who could be associated with such raids. The High Court further expressed doubt about veracity of the witness who claimed that money was actually handed over in his presence. The High Court, however, drew an adverse inference against the appellant from the circumstance that the, bill which was delayed for unreasonable period had suddenly been passed by the appellant On an overall assessment the High Court entertained some suspicion about the credibility of the prosecution witnesses but at the same time did not find the suspicion to be strong enough to raise doubt about the guilt of the appellant. We agree with Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 34 the learned Counsel for the appellant that in the face of the finding that the witnesses who formed part of the raiding party were not independent and the evidence regarding handing over money to the appellant being unbelievable, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. The guilt of the appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and as such the benefit must go to him. Considering the above decisions, in the case of absence of independent and reliable corroborative evidence, other evidence not conclusive and found contradictory, benefit of doubt can be given to the accused. In such circumstances, I am of the view, there is no evidence to show that the respondent/accused has demanded illegal gratification, since P.W.2 has given total go by to the complaint. The trial Court has rightly held that the demand has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and as such the benefit must go to him.” 44. In Ganga Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 6 SCC 211, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-20 of the judgment held as under:- “20.We must not forget that in a trap case, the duty of the officer to prove the allegations made against a Government officer for taking bribe is serious, and therefore, the officers functioning in the Vigilance Department must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and respectable witnesses so that the evidence in regard to raid inspires confidence in the mind of the court and the Court is not left in any doubt whether or not any money was paid to the public servant by way of bribe. It is also the duty of the officers in the Vigilance Department to safeguard for the protection of public servants against whom a trap case may have been laid.” 45. In the instant case, PW-1 Rewati Ram is the complainant, therefore, he is an interested witness as obviously he was interested in the success of the case against the accused. The shadow witness, i.e. PW-10 Baldev Thakur who was associated in pre-trap and post-trap proceedings was having Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 35 acquaintance with the complainant since long and he even accompanied the complainant to the Police Station SV&ACB after allegedly meeting him at Mandi Bazar for lodging the FIR as such he is also an interested witness. Apart from this, there is ample evidence on record that PW-10 was the employee of the complainant. The manner in which he improved his statement in the Court to support the case of the prosecution also shows his interestedness to get success in the case. All the improvements so made were duly put to him and he was duly confronted in the opening lines of his cross-examination. The prosecution has not placed on record any plausible explanation for not associating any independent shadow witness despite having opportunity and availability. 46. The statement of DW-1 who is an official witness cannot be ignored, who amply proved this fact. DW-1 Suresh Chaudhary was Assistant Engineer in CPPWD, who joined the said office in place of the appellant. He categorically stated that Rewati Ram was known to him being a Contractor in the CPPWD and work used to be assigned to him which was being supervised by Baldev Thakur. Even in the cross-examination, he has given the details of the fact that how he was aware of this fact that PW-10 Baldev Thakur used to supervise the work of the complainant. His Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 36 statement has not been shattered on these material particulars. This fact also cannot be overlooked that he was not a private individual and was a government employee having no reason to depose against the case of the prosecution. 47. PW-2, Bal Krishan Chaudhary is the only independent witness, who is the Naib-Tehsildar. But he had not deposed as to whether the accused had demanded the bribe money in his presence. It is a settled position in law that the officers of the Anti Corruption Department should secure independent and respectable witnesses of the raid so that the evidence with regard to raid is confidence inspiring in the mind of the Court which is missing in the present case. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, non-association of the independent witnesses during the trap proceedings assumes significance and the testimonies of the complainant and the other witnesses cannot be believed to be true for recording the conviction against the accused and also to draw presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. 48. The trap proceedings are also surrounded by suspicious circumstances and doubts. There are vital and material contradictions which would show that the entire trap operation Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 37 could have been a stage managed show. Different versions were given by PW1, PW-2 and PW 10 in respect of the execution of the trap. 49. As per the case of the prosecution, after registration of the FIR, initial pre-trap proceedings, vide memo, Ex.PW-1/C, were conducted in a tumbler and after treating the notes vide memo, Ex. PW-1/D, shadow witness was asked to give a prefixed signal and thereafter, vide Ex.PW-1/E, the handwash was got conducted in a bowl and vide memo Ex. PW-1/G, the wash of pants and handkerchief was done in a plate. PW-1 in his examination-in-chief stated against the case of the prosecution by stating that the police had directed him to give signal to them while handing over the money, whereas the case of the prosecution was that it was PW- 10, who was to give prefixed signal, vide memo Ex. PW-1/D. The relevant portion of his statement is as under: “The police directed me to hand over the said currency notes to the accused on his demand and also directed me to give signal to us while handing over the money. In this regard memo was prepared, which is Ex. PW- 1/D.” 50. Further PW-1 in his examination-in-chief stated a contradictory fact to the case of the prosecution by stating that the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 38 hand of the appellant was got washed in a tumbler, whereas the case of the prosecution, vide Ex.PW-1/E, was that it was in a bowl. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “Thereafter his hand was got washed with water in a tumbler.” 51. Further PW-1 did not support the case of the prosecution qua the pants and handkerchief wash. The Court observation was also made in this regard. During his cross- examination, even the learned Public Prosecutor asked questions, to which, he admitted that the pants and handkerchief wash proceedings were done in a bowl instead of plate, as mentioned in Ex. PW-1/G. The relevant suggestion is reproduced hereunder: “The said pocket of pants as well as handkerchief was got washed with a water mixed with sodium carbonate. It is correct that the color of the said water was pink. The said two things were got washed in a bowl.” 52. PW-1 in his entire statement has not stated that the all memos in this regard were also signed by PW-10 Baldev Thakur, who admittedly is a signatory to the memos. The name of Baldev Thakur is missing in the statement of PW-1 The relevant portion of his statement is extracted, for ready reference, hereunder: “The said water was put in a nip and the nip was sealed with seal ‘R. The memo in this regard is Ex. PW-1/E, which was signed by me as well as Bal Krishan Chaudhary and the accused.” Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 39 53. Further this witness in the cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor also admitted that Ex. PW-1/G was signed by him as well as Bal Krishan Chaudhary and accused. Again the name of Baldev Thakur is missing. The relevant portion is as under: “It is correct that the handkerchief and pants was put in a cloth parcel which was sealed with seal ‘R’. It is correct that the parcel containing pants and the handkerchief as well as the nip containing the water was taken into possession, vide memo Ex. PW-1/G, which was also signed by me as well as Bal Krishan Chaudhary and accused.” 54. As per the version of PW-1, he met PW-10 at Mandi at 11-12 in the noon on 25.05.2007. In his statement he states as under: “Baldev Thakur came to Mandi on 25.05.2007 in connection with his work. PW-Baldev met me on 25.05.2007 in the market at 11-12 in the noon.” However PW-10 Baldev contradicts this witness by stating as under: “Complainant Rewati Ram met me at about 01:00 noon.” 55. Both PW-1 and PW-10 stated that they reached the office of Vigilance at about 1-1:30 p.m.. The perusal of the statement of PW-10 makes it abundantly clear that no trap was ever laid at 02:30 p.m., as claimed by the prosecution, as the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 40 evidence on record suggests that by that time they were already in the office of Vigilance. The relevant portion of the statement of PW-10 is reproduced as under: “We reached in the office of Vigilance at about 01:30 hours in the noon. No one was called by the police to Vigilance Office. Voluntarily stated that Bal Krishan was already there.The procedure of demonstration was started by the police after about one hour, when we reached in the office of Vigilance.” 56. This means that if they had reached the office of Vigilance at 1-1:30 p.m., the procedure or demonstration was started at 02:30 p.m. It must have taken at least one hour to complete the proceedings of pre-trap demonstration as apart from giving demonstration, the currency notes of Rs.30,000/- were treated with phenolphthalein powder, memos, Ex. PW-1/C, Ex. PW-1/D were prepared, so by any stretch of imagination, the police team could not have been present at 02:30 p.m., as claimed by them at Seri Bazaar. 57. Scene of occurrence was manipulated, whereas evidence on record suggests that the appellant was arrested before 01:00 p.m. when he was coming out of Dhaba as supported by PWs-12 and 13. This fact further gets support from the fact that no proceedings were conducted on the spot without assigning any reason and everything was done in the office of SV&ACB. The Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 41 spot witnesses PWs-1, 2, 10 and 14 did not give any explanation for not conducting any proceedings on the spot and simply deposed that after the apprehension of the appellant, he was taken to the office of Vigilance. PW-17 the Investigating Officer, who was examined in the last, was having ample opportunity to look into the statements of all these witnesses and when confronted with the fact, as to why the proceedings were not conducted on the spot, he gave interested and improved explanation, which was neither the case of the prosecution, nor deposed by any other witness by stating as under: “Since there was rush at the spot and other persons also gathered there. Then I also apprised the persons who were present there regarding the fact that the accused has been caught for accepting the bribe and I also requested them to associate as witness, not one was prepared to be the witness. Then, the accused was taken to Police Station SV & ACB Mandi under my supervision.” 58. Further PW-17 when confronted with the fact of preparation of Ex. PW-1/D regarding as to who was to give the prefixed signal, made statement contrary to the case of the prosecution and other witnesses by stating as under: “I had directed both the complainant as well as the shadow witness to give the signal. At present I do not remember whether any of the witnesses got recorded in their statement that I directed the complainant as well as shadow witness to give Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 42 signal. It is correct that in memo, Ex. PW-1/D, I have mentioned that I have directed the shadow witness to give a particular signal when the accused received the money.” 59. Thus the evidence on record demonstrates that the entire proceedings were stage managed and it was a paper work done in the office of SV&ACB to show the implication of the appellant in this case. 60. The evidence on record further suggests that there was no occasion for the appellant to make any demand as the amount of the bill already stood paid to him which the complainant also admits. The complainant has tried to give explanation that he was threatened that how he would work in future, but there is no evidence on record that the appellant was having any authority to award any work to any contractor, as he was simply an Assistant Engineer. The evidence on record clearly suggests that the complainant was having the animus against the appellant of having been issued a letter, Ex. PW-6/A, showing concern over his working in executing the work which was sent from the office of Assistant Engineer on 05.04.2007, the entry whereof is there in the record produced by the prosecution as Ex.PW-6/B, which has been duly proved during the statement of PW-6 Manish Kumar. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 43 61. The inconsistencies, contradictions and discrepancies pointed out leads to an inference that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case of acceptance of bribe. From the evidence adduced, nothing has been proved on record that the appellant demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant for doing his work. Neither demand nor acceptance of the bribe money has been proved. In the absence of demand of any illegal gratification and acceptance thereof, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in the light of the emphatic pronouncement of the law in this regard, the necessary conclusion that can be arrived at is that the presumption contemplated under Section 20 of the PC Act does not get attracted to the case on hand. Furthermore, it is not a case where the burden of proof was on the accused in terms of Section 20 of the PC Act. The learned trial court misread the evidence while recording the finding of guilt and has misled itself in reaching to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence charged, as a result of which, the entire proceedings against the accused stand vitiated. 62. Hence, in view of my aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There has been a total wrong Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15456 ) 44 appreciation of evidence on record by the learned trial Court, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. For all the reasons stated, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction, dated 30.06.2012, and order of sentence, dated 02.07.2012, passed by learned Special Judge(1), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No.21 of 2011/2010 are set aside and the appellant-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Fine amount collected, if any, shall be refunded to him. The bail bonds executed shall stand cancelled. 63. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount, before the trial Court within a period of four weeks, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 23rd May, 2025 (virender)