1 2026:CGHC:23095 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 22.04.2026 15.05.2026. -- 15.05.2026 CRA No. 1043 of 2019 Dr. Narayan Prasad Pandey S/o Late Shri Ramlripal Pandey, aged about 51 years, Deputy Director Veterinary, Services Bijapur District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh, Permanet Adress House No. 34 Virndavan Colony Beside Kalibadi School Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through A.C.B. Unit Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C.A.V. Judgement 1. This appeal has arisen out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.06.2019 passed by the learned Special Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Judge (Anti Corruption) South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Special Case No. 01/2015. The trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. R.I. for 03 years and fine amount of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 06 months. Under Section 13(1) (D) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. R.I. for 05 years and fine amount of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 06 months. (All the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.) 2. Brief facts of the case as unfolded from the impugned judgment is that the complainant Ganesh Ram Pradhan, aged 38 years, son of late Shri Beniram Pradhan, is posted as an Assistant Veterinary Area Officer at the Bhairamgarh hospital, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh submitted an application on 20.05.2014 seeking a GPF advance of Rs. 1,50,000/- for his marriage, and was verbally informed that Rs. 1,32,000/- was approved. Upon receiving the sanctioned amount from Dr. Narayan Prasad Pandey, Deputy Director of Veterinary Services on 12.06.2014, the accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000, refusing to pay voluntarily, on 16.06.2014, the complainant lodged a written complaint vide Ex. P/14 with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Jagdalpur, and subsequently he recorded the accused demanding Rs. 5,000/- as the first installment of the bribe on a digital voice recorder on 18.06.2014, and presented the remaining Rs. 5,000/- along with the recording Exs. P/01–P03 to the ACB, which formed a trap team. With authorization from the District Magistrate vide Ex. P/21 and in the presence of 3 witnesses, the trap was executed using 10 notes of Rs. 500/- i.e., Rs. 5,000/- coated with phenolphthalein powder vide Ex. P/04 to confirm the bribe transaction in which the complainant handed Rs. 5,000/- to the accused at his official residence, after which the trap team intervened and seized the bribe notes. The accused’s hands tested positive for residual bribe money using sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink, confirming the transaction. 3. During the subsequent course of investigation, relevant evidence, including the bribe money, digital voice recorder, washcloths, mobile phone, and BTR, was seized (Exhibits P5–P13), spot maps and forensic reports were obtained (Exhibits P17, P25), and prosecution sanction was granted (Exhibit P19). 4. After completion of the usual investigation, on the basis of the material contained in the charge sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 7A, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, establishing that the accused, in his official capacity, demanded and accepted a bribe. 5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. In his defence, the appellant adduced 05 witnesses. 6. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary on 4 record, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellant. 7. Assailing the correctness and validity of the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment and findings are based on shaky and unreliable evidence, contrary to the material on record, and are therefore liable to be set aside. The learned trial Court has completely ignored the defence version while appreciating the evidence, and its conclusions are based on conjectures and surmises, which have no value in the eyes of law. The trial Court has overlooked the prosecution case, as the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the essential ingredients of the charges framed against the appellant. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction cannot be sustained. Further, the trial Court has disregarded the discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. These uncorroborated testimonies raise serious doubts regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case. The prosecution sanction order has not been duly proved in accordance with the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it cannot be considered a valid sanction issued with due application of mind. In a bribery case, the pendency of official work is an essential ingredient to establish the motive for offering or accepting a bribe. In the present case, the appellant had already completed the official work regarding the complainant’s application. Any delay occurred due to objections raised by the Treasury, which were beyond the appellant’s control. Despite cogent evidence on this point, the learned trial Court has 5 concluded otherwise. In a trap case, the prosecution is required to prove three essential ingredients of the offence, namely, demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification. The trial Court has wrongly concluded that the prosecution proved the demand by the appellant solely based on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant, P.W. 02 Ganesh Ram Pradhan, despite numerous discrepancies, omissions, and contradictions in his testimony that cast doubt on its reliability. No voice identification was conducted, the recorded conversation was not sent to the F.S.L. for verification, and no certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act was produced. P.W. 02 Ganesh Ram Pradhan did not switch on the tape recorder at the time of giving the tainted money, raising further doubts regarding the conversation as alleged by the complainant. It is admitted by the independent panch witnesses of the trap party, namely P.W. 01 Awanindra Trigunayat and P.W. 07 Amar Singh Bariha, that they neither heard the conversation nor witnessed the transaction between the complainant and the appellant. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant’s statement recorded immediately after the incident clearly states that he never demanded or expected any illegal gratification. Moreover, the tainted money was not recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant but was found in the newspaper Hari Bhoomi, which was seized during the investigation. Such recovery cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant. In view of the foregoing, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside, and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all charges. 6 8. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of P. Somaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 2025 Supreme Court 5313, State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere [State By Lokayuktha Police] v. C B Nagaraj reported in 2025 LawSuit(SC) 772 and in this Court’s decisions in the matters of Arun Kumar Vishwakarma v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in CRA No. 89 of 2008 and Lavan Singh Churendra v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in CRA No. 52 of 2018. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment submits that learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. So, learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant. Hence, this appeal is well merited and no interference is called for. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 11. It is clear from record of learned trial Court that it framed charges against the accused/appellant Dr. Narayan Prasad Pandey under Sections 7A, 13(1)(D) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the learned trial Court convicted the accused/appellant under Sections 7A and 13(1)(D) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 12. It is an admitted position before the learned trial Court that the accused/appellant was posted as Deputy Director in Veterinary 7 Services, Bijapur and working as a public servant. 13. PW-02 Ganesh Ram Pradhan the complainant has stated that he was posted as an Assistant Veterinary Area Officer at the Bhairamgarh hospital, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh and at that time, the accused/appellant N.P. Pandey was in-charge Deputy Director of Veterinary Medical Services, Bijapur. He further stated that he filed application on 20.05.2014 for advance of GPF of Rs. 1,50,000/- and on 12.06.2014, he received information that his advance payment was sanctioned, but the accused/appellant demanded Rs. 10,000/- as a bribe amount, so the complainant filed written complaint on 16.06.2014 before Anti Corruption Bureau, Jagdalpur vide Ex. P/14. The Anti- Corruption Bureau office provided him with a voice recorder so that the authenticity of the complainant’s complaint could be verified and further necessary action could be ensured. Necessary documentation in this regard was prepared, and its panchnama is Ex. P/15, bearing the signature of the complainant on A to A part. On 18.06.2014, at about 9:30 a.m., the complainant went to the residence of the accused/appellant situated in Vrindavan Colony, Jagdalpur, carrying Rs. 5,000/- as the first installment. The conversation that took place there was recorded in the voice recorder provided by the ACB office. The accused/appellant demanded and accepted the amount of Rs. 5,000/-, and then the complainant promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 5,000/- by evening at the Bijapur office. Thereafter, on 18.06.2014 at about 12:30 pm the recorded voice recorder was produced to the A.C.B. Office. The proceedings, verification of recording is Ex. P/02 and the complainant admitted his signature on B to B part. Thereafter, they 8 came to Bijapur with the trap party from Jagdalpur. After reaching Bijapur along with the trap team, the complainant went to the office chamber of Dr. N.P. Pandey situated in the Collector Office, Bijapur, where Dr. N.P. Pandey was not present. Thereafter, the complanant went to the accused’s government residence situated at F-03, J.D. Colony, Bijapur, and paid the second installment of the demanded bribe amount, i.e., Rs. 5,000/-, to the accused, which he accepted. In para 11 of his examination-in-chief he has stated that by giving the pre- arranged signal as instructed by the trap team, he conveyed the information. At about 7:10 p.m., the complainant handed over the said amount to the accused. At that very moment, all the officials of the ACB office entered the room of the accused and found the bribe amount of Rs. 5,000/- in his hands. The complainant admitted his signature on application vide Ex. P/01, dehati nalishi vide Ex. P/16, transcription of tape recorder vide Ex. P/12, seizure memo vide Ex. P/03, preliminary memo vide Ex. P/04, memo Ex. P/05, proceeding memo vide Ex. P/10 and P/11 and spot map vide Ex. P/17. In para 51 of his cross- examination he admitted that on 12.06.2014, the treasury raised an objection on his bill by noting that the temporary advance should be drawn as per the instructions of the Chhattisgarh Government letter dated 05.12.2009 (the maximum limit of the temporary advance should be ten times the grade pay). He also admitted that on the date of submitting the application, his grade pay was Rs. 12,450/-. In para 54 of his cross-examination he admitted that where the accused used to sit, is located in a room within the Collectorate. He also admitted that between 12.06.2014 and 16.06.2014, he did not provide any information to the Collector or any other officer regarding the demand 9 for a bribe from him. He further admitted in paras 58, 59, 61 and 62 of his cross-examination which are reproduced herein for ready reference as under:- “58. यह कहना सही है किक मैने आवेदन देते समय उसमें यह नहीं लिखा था किक मैं दूसरा किववाह करना चाहता हूं इसलिये मुझे अकि म धनराशि# ्ቚदान की जाये। 59. यह कहना सही है किक किकसी भी #ासकीय कम)चारी के लिये दूसरा किववाह करना अपराध की ्ቦेणी में आता है। यह कहना सही है किक इसी कारण मैने अपने आवेदन में दूसरे किववाह का उ्ቤेख नहीं किकया है। 61. यह कहना सही है किक उ्ሹ किवषय पर मेरे किवरू्ቍ किवभागीय जाँच संቝኌ5थत की गह थी। यह कहना सही है किक मैने किवभागीय जाँच में आरोपो को 5वीकार किकया था। 62. यह कहना सही है किक मेरे किवरू्ቍ शि#कायत केक्टर को अशिभयु्ሹ एन.पी. पांडे के ्ቛारा की गयी थी जिजस आधार पर किवभागीय जाँच संቝኌ5थत की ” गयी थी। He also admitted in para 63 of his cross-examination that during January-February 2014 in Mohali, Punjab, the accused sent him to National Agricultural Fair, where five or six beneficiaries were with the complainant. He further admits that the accused had asked him for bill vouchers several times regarding the expenses, and the complainant did not produce the bill of the same. He further admitted in paras 64 & 65 of his cross-examination which reads as thus:- “ 64. यह कहना सही है किक मोहाी से आने के बाद मैने अशिभयु्ሹ से खच) किकये गये राशि# वापस मांगा था जिजसमें अशिभयु्ሹ ने कहा था किक किब वाउचर ्ቚ5तुत करने पर ही अशिभयु्ሹ के ्ቛारा मुझे पैसे किदये जायेगे। 65. यह कहना सही है किक मैं हमे#ा अशिभयु्ሹ से उ्ሹ राशि# की मांग करता रहा जो उन्होने ्ቚप्ቔो के अभाव में नहीं किदया।" The complainant stated in para 12 of his examination-in-chief which reads as thus:- 10 “12. एसीबी. को देखकर डा. पांडे के ्ቛारा रिर्ቫत की राशि# सामने रखे समाचार प्ቔ के उपर रख किदया। जिजस पर उपቝኌ5थत एसीबी के कम)चारी ्ቛारा राशि# को पुनः हाथ में ेने को कहा गया जैसा किक उन्होने रिर्ቫत राशि# को उनके हाथ में रखे हुये देखा था" 14. PW-01 Dr. Avanindra Trigunayat is the panch witness. He admitted his signature on the written complain vide Ex. P/01 on A to A part, he is the witness of preliminary proceeding and he has stated that he went with the trap party and they caught the accused/appellant red handed. He also stated that he prepared transcription of tape vide Ex. P/02 and he admitted his signature on A to A part and B to B part and he also admitted his signature on seizure memo vide Ex. P/03, preliminary proceeding memo vide Ex. P/04, memo vide Ex. P/05, search memo vide Ex. P/06, seizure memo vide Ex. P0/7 and P/08, mobile display memo vide Ex. P/09, proceeding memo vide Ex. P/10, transcription vide Ex. P/11, arrest memo vide Ex. P/12 and seizure memo vide Ex. P/13. In para 25 of his cross-examination he stated that he was waiting outside and the complainant went inside the house of the accused/appellant and after getting the signal from the complainant, he along with the trap team went inside the house of the accused/appellant. In para 26 of his cross-examination, he stated that:- “26. यह कहना गत है किक जब मैं अशिभयु्ሹ के कमरे में गया तब कमरे में टेब पर पैसा रखा हुआ था, सा्ቌी का कहना है किक पैसा कु सD पर रखा था और उस कु सD के बग की कु सD पर अशिभयु्ሹ बैठा था। यह कहना सही है किक पुलिस वाों ने बरिरहा साहब से वहां पर रखे हुए नोटों को उठाने के लिये कहा था सा्ቌी का यह भी कहना है किक बरिरहा साहब से नोटो के नंम्बरों की किमान करने के लिये कहा था।" 15. PW-07 Amar Singh Bariha, another member of the trap party, also admitted his signatures on the transcription memo (Ex. P/02), seizure memo (Ex. P/03), and other related documents. He categorically stated that he had accompanied the trap party and that, upon receiving the 11 signal from the complainant, they apprehended the accused/appellant red-handed. In paras 52 and 53 of his cross-examination he admitted that:- “52. यह कहना सही है किक एसीबी काया)य में मेरे सम्ቌ कोई 5्ቅीप्ट ट्रांसቝኌप्क्ट नहीं बना था। 53. यह कहना सही है किक मेरे सम्ቌ कोई 5्ቅीप्ट नहीं बनायी गयी थी।" In para 72 of his cross-examination he admitted that he has no knowledge of the transaction that took place between the accused and the complainant in paragraph 76 of his cross-examination, he admitted that upon their entry, the accused was found seated at the spot, and the currency notes were placed on a *Haribhoomi* newspaper lying on the table in front of him. In para 82 of his cross-examination he admitted that he had picked up the notes, counted them, matched their numbers, and got them seized. 16. The main objection of the appellant/accused is that there is no proof of any demand and voice sample and the transcription is not made according to the procedure prescribed by Hon’ble Apex Court and no certificate of 65-B was attached, even voices which got recorded in the digital voice recorder are unclear. 17. PW-10 M.L. Negi, the Investigating Officer admitted in paras 88, 90, 91, 92, 93 ka Q & A, 94, 95, 97 & 98 of his cross-examination which are reproduced herein for ready reference as under:- “88. यह कहना सही है किक 5्ቅीप्ट में इस बात का उ्ቤेख नहीं है किक किकतना किमनट और किकतना सेंकड की बातचीत है एवं 5्ቅीप्ट किकतने समय ्ቚारंभ कर उसे किकतने बजे पूण) हुआ इसका भी उ्ቤेख नहीं है। सा्ቌी 5वतः का कहना है किक वाईस रिरकाड)र में टाईम का 12 सेिሡटग नहीं होने के कारण उ्ቤेख नहीं किकया गया है। 90. यह कहना सही है किक ्ቚाथD एवं आरोपी के मध्य बातचीत का मू वाता)ाप डिडजिजट वाईस रिरकाड)र में थी। 91. यह कहना गत है किक मैने डिडजिजट वाईस रिरकाड)र से पहे सीडी तैयार किकया उसके प्ቐात ही 5्ቅीप्ट तैयार किकया है। 92. यह कहना सही है किक मैने अशिभयोग प्ቔ के साथ डिडजिजट वाईस रिरकाड)र ्ቚ5तुत नहीं किकया है। सा्ቌी 5वतः कहता है किक वाईस रिरकाड)र से 5्ቅीप्ट बनाकर एवं उसका सीडी बनाकर पे# किकया है। 93. ्ቚ्቞- आपने वाईस रिरकाड)र का चीप ्ቚ5तुत नही किकया है? उ्ቈर- मैने जिजस वाईस रिरकाड)र से वाईस रिरकाड) किकया है उसमें चीप नहीं होता है। 94. यह कहना सही है किक मैने ्ቚाथD और आरोपी के वाईस सेम्प नहीं लिया है। 95. यह कहना सही है किक मैने इस सीडी का एवं वाईस रिरकाड)र का अग से एफएसए जाँच नहीं कराया है। 97. यह कहना सही है किक मैं आरोपी के आवाज को नहीं पहचानता था। 98. यह कहना सही है किक मैने धारा-65 बी का ्ቚमाण प्ቔ इस ्ቚकरण में ्ቚ5तुत नहीं किकया।" 18. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere [State By Lokayuktha Police] (supra) held in paras 22, 23 and 24 as under:- “22. From the aforesaid, as per the version of the Complainant, the demand was made for the first time on 07.02.2007 at about 12:30 PM by the Respondent and later on as per the deposition of the witnesses, the Respondent is said to have informed the Complainant that he had already forwarded the file and after that also asked for the money, which was paid and recovered from the 13 Respondent. 23. In such background, it is clear that, basically, it is only the version of the Complainant himself which can be said to have some basis with regard to the demand of the amount of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred) as bribe, allegedly made by the Respondent. The reference in PW2's deposition being not very coherent and slightly self-contradictory, the benefit thereof has to flow to the Respondent, in the absence of PW2's testimony being clear on this point. 24. Coming to the deposition of the Complainant himself read with his complaint for it to be taken as fully reliable and made the sole basis to convict the Respondent, the same would require greater scrutiny apropos its veracity and reliability. A glaring pointer in this regard is the fact that the Complainant categorically stated in his deposition that he was not aware of any spot inspection report by the accused on 05.02.2007, however the moment he was confronted with the document viz. Exhibit D8, he, without demur, accepted the same. Not stopping at acceptance, the Complainant also admitted to have signed on the document and identified both his and his father's signature as also of the witness.” 19. This Court in the matter of Lavan Singh Churendra (supra) held in paras 27, 28 and 29 which reads as under:- 14 “27. While convicting the appellant, the trial Court has not considered the aforesaid evidence and deficiency in the prosecution witnesses, thereby committed illegality. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the offence against the appellant. 28. Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant for offence of bribery. In order to prove guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. The proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence. 29. In order to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, it has to be borne in mind that: (1) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) if the public servant makes a demand and the 15 bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This constitutes offence under Section 13 (1)(d) (1) and (II). (iii) In both cases, 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.” 20. This Court held in the matter of Arun Kumar Vishwakarma (supra) held in 16 and 17 which reads as under:- 16. Reiterating the judgment of B. Jayaraj case (supra) and P. Satyanarayana Murthy case (supra), again, in (2016) 3 SCC 108 (Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi), it was held by the Supreme Court thus: "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 B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55. A. Subair v. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587 and P Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152 upon which reliance is rightly placed by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant." paragraph 39, it was further held by the Supreme Court thus: "39. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the approach of both the trial court and the High Court in the case is erroneous as both the courts have relied upon the 16 evidence of the prosecution on the aspect of demand of illegal gratification from the complainant Jai Bhagwan (PW2) by the appellant though there is no substantive evidence in this regard and the appellant was erroneously convicted for the charges framed against him. The prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand of bribe money made by the appellant from the complainant Jai Bhagwan (PW2), which is the sine qua non for convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Thus, the impugned judgment and order [Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2312] of the High Court is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law and therefore, liable to be set aside." 17. Recently, in (2021) 3 SCC 687 (N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu), reiterating the judgment of C.M. Girish Babu case (supra) and B. Jayaraj case (supra), it was held by the Supreme Court as follows: “26. It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in C.M Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779 and in B. Jayaraj v State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55. In the aforesaid judgments of this Court while considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused 17 voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court. 27. The relevant paras 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 read as under: (SCC pp. 58-59) “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 18 decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P., (2010) 15 SCC 1 and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779. 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 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 LW9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW1 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. 19 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." 20 The aforesaid view taken by this Court fully supports the case of the appellant. In view of the contradictions noticed by us above in the depositions of key witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, we are of the view that the demand for and acceptance of bribe amount and cellphone by the appellant, is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Having regard to such evidence on record the acquittal recorded by the trial court is a "possible view" as such the judgment [State of T.N. v. N Vijayakumar, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 7098] of the High Court is fit to be set aside. Before recording conviction under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the courts have to take utmost care in scanning the evidence. Once conviction is recorded under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it casts a social stigma on the person in the society apart from serious consequences on the service rendered. At the same time it is also to be noted that whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view or not, there cannot be any definite proposition and each case has to be judged on its own merits, having regard to evidence on record." 21. In light of the above-cited judgments, it is evident that, in the present case as well, the complainant alleged that the accused first demanded 21 a bribe on 12.06.2014. However, there is no evidence to substantiate this alleged demand. On the subsequent date, 18.06.2014, the complainant recorded the conversation, which, according to the prosecution, is marked as Ex. P/02. Upon examining the transcription of this recording, it is noted that several portions are marked as “unclear” (“ ” अ5प्ቖ ). Further, Ex. P/02 indicates that the transcription was prepared on 18.06.2014 at 11:30 a.m., whereas PW-02 Ganesh Ram Pradhan stated that he submitted the tape recorder to the A.C.B. office at 12:30 p.m. on the same day, after which the transcription was prepared. 22. PW-10, M.L. Negi, the Investigating Officer has clearly admitted that he did not file the disputed voice recorder and he prepared a script and prepared a C.D. and filed it with the charge-sheet and he also admitted that he did not examine the C.D. and voice recorder from the F.S.L. He also admitted that he failed to identify the voice of the accused/appellant. Both the panch witnesses have also admitted that they were unable to recognize the voice of the accused/appellant. So, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove any demand by the accused/appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. For recovery also the complainant himself has stated in para 12 of his examination-in-chief that: “12. एसीबी. को देखकर डा. पांडे के ्ቛारा रिर्ቫत की राशि# सामने रखे समाचार प्ቔ के उपर रख किदया। जिजस पर उपቝኌ5थत एसीबी के कम)चारी ्ቛारा राशि# को पुनः हाथ में ेने को कहा गया जैसा किक उन्होने रिर्ቫत राशि# को उनके हाथ में रखे हुये देखा था" 23. It is also admitted by the complainant that the accused/appellant started notesheet for departmental enquiry and departmental enquiry was conducted against the complainant. The accused in his statement 22 under Section 313 of Cr.PC has answered to question no. 246 which reads as thus:- “iz'u 246%& D;k vkidks vkSj dqN dguk gS \ mRrj %& esjs }kjk fj'or dh ekax ugh dh xbZ A izkFkhZ ds ,Mokal gsrq vkosnu izLrqr djus ij eSaus vkosnu izLrqrh fnukad dks gh mldk vkosnu Lohd`r fd;k FkkA Vsªtjh }kjk izkFkhZ dks vkosnu ij vkifRr yxk;s tkus ij ,oa ml laca/k esa izkFkhZ ds }kjk tkudkjh izkIr fd;k tkus ds i'pkr "kM;a= iwoZd eq>s Qalk;k x;k gSA D;ksfd esjs }kjk iwoZ esa fnukad 18&03&2014 izkFkhZ dh f'kdk;r dysDVj chtkiqj dks dh xbZ FkhA ftldh tkap py jgh FkhA ftl dkj.k mlus eq>ls oSj j[krs gqbZ eq>s >wBs ekeys esa Qalk;k gSA 24. It is admitted by the complainant himself, as well as by the defence witnesses, that objections had been raised by the A.G. officer regarding the complainant’s G.P.F. advance. The defence witnesses further stated that a departmental enquiry was conducted against the complainant. It is therefore evident that the complainant’s statement is not wholly reliable. Both panch witnesses were reportedly waiting outside during the trap proceedings and did not witness the recovery. According to the complainant, the notes were returned to him by the trap party. In light of these facts, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery beyond a reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court, in my 23 view, did not properly appreciate these inconsistencies and rendered perverse findings. On the totality of the evidence, the alleged demand of illegal gratification by the appellant and its subsequent recovery cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court are not sustainable, and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. 25. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 28.06.2019 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. 26. The appellant is reported to be on bail. However, keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the like amount before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 27. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE U.K. Raju