1 CGHC010243262017 2026:CGHC:40710 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 218 of 2017 Rajkishor Singh S/o Late Devki Nandan Singh, Aged About 52 Years R/o B R C C Bhatapara, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhatapara, District Raipur Now Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o In Front Of Sai Mandir, Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through State Economic Offences, Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate. For State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board 17/09/2026 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the appellant against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30/01/2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act/First Additional Sessions Judge), Baloda-Bazar (C.G.), in Special Sessions Case No. 11/2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.09.25 12:19:18 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 03 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine 03 months simple imprisonment. Under Section 13(1)(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 03 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine 03 months simple imprisonment. All the sentences will run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant was working as Block Resource Coordinator and was posted at Rajeev Gandhi Siksha Mission, Bhatapara, Dist. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (the then District Raipur). The complainant Khilawan Sahu (PW/3) was running a hotel in the name and style of Sahu Hotel at Bhatapara. Under the Sarva Siksha Mission, Bhatapara, he was awarded a contract for supply of food for 374 persons. An amount of Rs.60,000/- towards the contractual amount was paid to him and an amount of Rs.38,695/- was pending, for which he had already raised the bills. The appellant demanded Rs.10,000/- for payment of the said amount. Though the cheque for the said amount was sanctioned on 28.09.2006, yet he pressurized him to give Rs.10,000/- as bribe. Since the complainant did not want to give him the bribe, he made a written complaint (Ex.P/3) on 28.09.2006 to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur (in short, “ACB, Raipur”). The Superintendent of Police, ACB, Raipur, instructed the Investigating Officer Anil Kumar Pathak (PW/9) to carry out the search and seizure proceedings and thereafter the (PW/9) handed over a tape-recorder and cassette to the complainant Khilawan Sahu (PW/3) for recording the conversation between him and the appellant. 3 3. The complainant recorded the conversation between them on 04.10.2006 and handed over the tape-recorder and cassette to the officers of ACB on 05.10.2006 and also made another complaint (Ex.P/5), stating therein that the appellant was demanding Rs.10,000/-. However, after negotiation, the bribe amount was settled at Rs.5,000/-. Along with the tape-recorder and cassette, the complainant handed over Rs.5,000/- in cash to the officers of ACB for the trap proceedings. Transcript of the conversation (Ex.P/6) was prepared. Two independent witnesses, S.K. Sharma (PW/7) and Roshan Lal Uikey (PW/8), were called, who verified the complaint made by the complainant and witnessed the preparation of the transcript (Ex.P/6). Thereafter, phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes, the pre-trap Panchnama was prepared and the hand-wash solution before the trap proceeding was seized. The tainted currency notes were kept in the pocket of the pant of the complainant and he was instructed not to touch the said notes before handing them over to the appellant and, after completion of the transaction, to make a gesture for the same. The trap party proceeded towards the office room of the appellant. He had a conversation with the appellant and handed over the tainted currency notes to him, which he kept in his purse, and the said purse was kept in the back pocket of his pant. 4. After completion of the transaction, the complainant made a gesture and then the members of the trap party entered into the office room and caught hold of the appellant. The seized notes were washed and the solution turned pink in colour. The purse of the appellant was also washed and its solution also turned pink in colour. The hand-wash of the appellant and the complainant turned pink in colour and all the 4 solutions were separately filled in bottles and separately sealed. The pant, purse and cash amount were seized. Spot map (Ex.P/8) was prepared by the Patwari. The tape-recorder was also seized from the complainant and the transcript of the subsequent conversation was also prepared, which is Ex.P/10. The appellant was arrested. Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/11 was recorded. Various Panchnamas were prepared. Documents were seized and, after obtaining necessary sanction for prosecution from the competent authority, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the learned trial Court. 5. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded, in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. He further submitted that the payment for supply of food had already been made prior to the date of incident and the amount of the cheque had already been realized in his bank account. He had a loan transaction with the complainant. He had no authority to issue the cheque in his favour, but the cheque-issuing authority was the CEO, Bhatapara, who, after due verification of the facts, signed the cheques. He scolded the complainant with respect to the supply of sub-standard food and its quality. The complaint about the quality of food was also made to him by the teachers who came for training. The complainant colluded with the other officers of the department and falsely implicated him. In support of his defence, he 5 examined two defence witnesses, Rajendra Joshi (DW-1) and Smt. Usha Devi (DW-2). 7. After appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The three ingredients of the offence, i.e., (1) demand, (2) acceptance, and (3) recovery, have not been proved by the prosecution and, therefore, no offence is made out against the appellant as alleged. Mere recovery of the amount from the appellant is not sufficient to hold him guilty of the offence in question. It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.09.2006 itself, the cheque was issued in favour of the complainant and was realized in his bank account. In the complaint (Ex.P/3) itself, the complainant made an averment that the amount for the work done by him had already been paid to him. Thus, there was no occasion for the appellant to demand any money as bribe or withhold any payment towards the work done by the complainant and to demand bribe from him. He would also submit that, in his evidence, the complainant (PW/3) stated in his examination-in-chief that he recorded the conversation on 23.09.2006, the tape-recorder was handed over to him on 23.09.2006 and he recorded the conversation with the appellant on 27.09.2006 and, on 28.09.2006, he deposited the said tape-recorder in the office of ACB. Thereafter, he was again called on 05.10.2006 at the ACB office, whereas, as per the 6 evidence of the Investigating Officer and other witnesses, it is the case of the prosecution that the complainant made the first complaint on 28.09.2006 and, on that very day, the tape-recorder and cassette were handed over to the complainant. Thus, the very foundation of recording the conversation with the appellant is doubtful. Further, even if it is assumed that the tape-recorder was handed over to him on 28.09.2006, it remained in the possession of the complainant till 05.10.2006 and the conversation was allegedly recorded on 04.10.2006. There is no voice sample of the appellant recorded and there is no expert report that the voice recorded in the tape-recorder is the same voice as that of the appellant, and there is no frequency test report available in the case. None of the witnesses have stated that the voice recorded in the tape-recorder is the same voice as that of the appellant. 9. He would further submit that there are material discrepancies regarding the preparation of the transcript, either at the place of incident or in the office of ACB. The Investigating Officer, Anil Kumar Pathak (PW/9), has stated that the transcript was prepared at Lajij Dhaba, Bhatapara, whereas the panch witnesses have stated that the transcript was prepared in the office of ACB. PW/9 has also admitted that he had not sent the tape-recorder to any expert for frequency testing of the voice. He would further submit that the primary issue of demand has not been proved by the prosecution as to when the appellant demanded the amount. From the prosecution case, it reveals that on 28.09.2006 itself, the accused met with the complainant and, on the same date, the complainant lodged the report (Ex.P/3). Though he stated in his complaint (Ex.P/3) that the appellant was demanding money from him, 7 there is no date, time or place mentioned. When the payment had already been made and the complainant had already received his payment, there was no question of any demand by the appellant. He would further submit that the conversation recorded in the tape- recorder was not clear and, in the subsequent conversation allegedly recorded on the date of incident, there was no conversation with respect to the subject transaction. Even if the evidence suggests recovery of the amount from the appellant, it cannot be presumed that he demanded the bribe from the complainant and, in pursuance thereof, received the same. The learned trial Court has failed to consider the omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses and, therefore, no offence is made out against the appellant and he is entitled to acquittal. 10.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that, from the evidence produced by the prosecution, the demand as well as acceptance has duly been proved. There is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the appellant had initially demanded Rs.10,000/-, which was subsequently negotiated and settled at Rs.5,000/-. Though the amount was paid to the complainant, it was the understanding between the appellant and the complainant that, after getting it realized in his bank account, the amount of bribe would be payable to the appellant, for which the complainant was not ready to pay him the bribe and made a complaint. The complaint was duly verified by the panch witnesses. In the transcript (Ex.P/6), the demand made by the appellant from the complainant has been recorded. The hand-wash solution of the appellant, his purse and 8 clothes turned pink in colour, which duly supports the prosecution case that he accepted the tainted currency notes towards the bribe demanded by him. But for minor omissions or contradictions, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses duly corroborates each other and supports the prosecution's case. The learned trial Court, after due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, rightly held the appellant guilty of the alleged offence, which is justified and does not require any interference. The appeal filed by the appellant is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 11.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 12.Present is the case of illegal gratification for which three essential ingredients are there to be proved by the prosecution i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery. 13.In a case of illegal gratification, there are three essential ingredients to constitute the offence, they are (i) demand (ii) acceptance and (iii) recovery. In the case of Mukhtiar Singh (Since Deceased) through his legal representatives Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2013) 14 SCC 153 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 14 & 23 as under:- "14. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy, this Court took note of its verdict in B. Jayaraj V. State of A.P2. Underlining the mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accus ed without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Sections 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act. It was recounted as well that 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. Not only the proof of demand thus was held to be an indispensable essentiality and an inflexible statutory mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it was held as well qua Section 20 of the Act, that any presumption 9 thereunder would arise only on such proof of demand. This Court thus in P. Satyanarayana murthy on a survey of its earlier decisions on the prerequisites of Sections 7 and 13 and the proof thereof summed up its conclusions as hereunder: (SCC p. 159, para 23) "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 Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder." 14.In the matter of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731, the constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the scope of proof of Section 7 and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which reads as under:- 88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarized as under: 88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. 88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence. 88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind: (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In 10 such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii), respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe-giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe- giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d) (1) and (ii) of the Act. 88.5. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. 88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns "hostile", or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. 88.7. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise presumption that the illegal gratification was 11 for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Sections 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature. 89. In view of the aforesaid discussion and conclusions, we find that there is no conflict in the three-Judge Bench decisions of this Court in B. Jayaraj and P. Satyanarayana Murthy with the three-Judge Bench decision in M. Narsinga Rao, with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for the offences under Sections 7 or 13(1) (d) (1) and (ii) of the Act, when the direct evidence of the complainant or "primary evidence" of the complainant is unavailable owing to his death or any other reason. The position of law when a complainant or prosecution witness turns "hostile" is also discussed and the observations made above would accordingly apply in light of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that there is no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three cases." 15.In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, when this Court examined the evidence of witnesses, it finds discrepancies which diluted the prosecution’s case. 16.P.W. 3 Khilawan Sahu, who is the complainant, stated in his evidence that he obtained a contract to supply food under the Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission. The total cost of the contract was Rs.1,07,000/-, out of which he had already received Rs.60,000/- and Rs.40,000/- was the balance amount. He met with the appellant for payment of his remaining amount, and then the appellant demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe. When he was fed up with the demand made by the appellant, he made a complaint to the ACB on 28.06.2006, which is Ex.P/3. The officers of the ACB handed over a tape-recorder to him for recording the conversation between him and the appellant. Thereafter, he went to 12 the office of the appellant and then he again demanded Rs.10,000/-. He negotiated with the appellant that, when the amount of the cheque would be realized in his bank account, he would pay him Rs.5,000/-, and it was settled accordingly. The said conversation was recorded in the tape-recorder. He received the tape-recorder on 23.09.2006; thereafter, he recorded the conversation on 27.09.2006 and deposited the tape-recorder with the ACB on 28.09.2006. At the office of the ACB, it was stated that they would go for the trap on 5th and he was called at Bhatapara Chowk. On 5th, when he met with the officers of the ACB and the Investigating Officer, Anil Kumar, they took him to Reva Dhaba, which was at a distance of 1 Km. He handed over Rs.5,000/- to Anil Kumar, which consisted of 9 notes of Rs.500/- denomination and 5 notes of Rs.100/- denomination. He also gave the second complaint (Ex.P/5) there. Powder was applied to the said currency notes and they were kept in the pocket of his shirt. When he returned the tape- recorder to the ACB officer, the transcript was prepared at the Raipur office. At his instance, the transcript (Ex.P/6) was prepared, on which his signature is also there. Before keeping the tainted currency notes in his pocket, he was searched by the ACB officers and nothing incriminating was found. He was instructed not to touch the currency notes before handing them over to the appellant. The pre-trap panchnama was prepared, which is Ex.P/7. After necessary formalities, they proceeded towards the office of the appellant, and the officers of the ACB were waiting at a distance of 200 meters. At about 1:00 P.M., he reached the office of the appellant. At that time, the appellant was not there and he reached there after 15-20 minutes. He had a conversation with him and handed over the currency notes to him. After 13 taking the currency notes from him, the appellant became suspicious and thereafter kept the same in his purse, and the said purse was kept by him in the back pocket of his pant. He came out from the office room and made a gesture to the members of the trap party. Thereafter, the members of the trap party caught hold of the appellant and, on being interrogated, he admitted that he had received the money. The numbers of the currency notes were tallied with the panchnama and were found to be the same. The solution of the wash of the currency notes and other articles turned pink in colour, and the panchnama of the proceedings was prepared. The amount, purse and cash amount of the appellant were seized by the officers of the ACB. He admitted his signature over the transcript (Ex.P/10). 17. When a leading question was asked from the complainant, he stated that he met with the Investigating Officer, Anil Kumar, at Bhatapara on 05.10.2006, where he handed over the second complaint, and his second complaint was verified by the witnesses, Mr. Uike and Mr. Sharma. On the basis of his second complaint, Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P/7) was recorded, on which his signature is also there. The tape-recorder which was given to him for recording the conversation was seized on 05.10.2006 at Bhatapara, and the seizure memo (Ex.P/12) was prepared. Phenolphthalein powder was applied by Constable Mishra. He admitted the change of colour of the hand-wash and other wash in the pre-trap proceedings. He is running Sahu Hotel at Balodabazar also and is a Member of BRCC training. He was awarded a contract for the supply of food, for which he had already submitted four bills, which are Articles 1 to 4. 14 18.In cross-examination, he admitted that cheque No. 8213872 of Dena Bank for Rs.38,695/- had already been received by him on 27.09.2006 and that he had already deposited the said cheque in his bank account for its clearance. He did not know as to whether the said cheque was cleared on 29.09.2006. He admitted that when he had gone to the ACB office for the first time on 28.09.2006, he made a complaint (Ex.P/3). He further admitted that, in the complaint (Ex.P/3), he mentioned that he had already received the payment of Rs.38,695/- and he also admitted that after receiving the amount of Rs.38,695/-, he made the complaint to the ACB office on 28.09.2006 for the first time. Therefore, in the complaint (Ex.P/3), he also informed the officers of the ACB that he had already received the amount of Rs.38,695/- and that the appellant had demanded Rs.5,000/- for media reporters and other associates. He further stated that on 29th, he was aware that the cheque had been cleared in his bank account, but he had not asked the appellant that he would not give him any bribe. The amount demanded by the appellant for media reporters and other associates is not there in the Police statement (Ex.D/1), and he could not tell the reasons for the same. He was aware that the cheque was to be issued by the BRCC and CEO, but he had not made any contact with the CEO. He made his signature on the document (Ex.P/5) in the ACB office, but he did not know as to who were present at the time when he made his signature over the document. The document (Ex.P/12) was prepared at Reva Dhaba, which was with respect to the application of powder on the notes. He signed all the documents at Bhatapara, but he did not know who were the persons who signed the documents. In further cross-examination, he admitted that the document (Ex.P/9) was 15 read over by the Investigating Officer, Anil Pathak, and then he signed it. He denied the suggestion given by the appellant that he was having a loan transaction with the appellant. He also denied the suggestion that he was scolded for supplying sub-standard food and that the teachers had made complaints about its quality. The contents of document (Ex.P/3) that he received the amount of Rs.38,695/- are correctly written. He further stated that, after 4-5 days of making the complaint, he received the cheque and, when a question was asked as to how he could have met two different persons after he had already received the amount of Rs.38,695/- and subsequently received the cheque after 4-5 days of the complaint, he clarified that he received the cheque one or two days before the trap and that he had already paid Rs.5,000/- to the appellant and Rs.5,000/- was to be paid against the cheque, for which he made the complaint and got the trap proceedings executed. From the evidence of the complainant, there is no evidence as to when and where the appellant made the demand and, admittedly, on 28.09.2006, when the complainant made the complaint (Ex.P/3), he had already received the cheque and the amount had already been realized in his bank account, and no payment was withheld by the appellant. Even the complainant had not made any contact with the CEO for release of his remaining payment, despite noting that the cheque was to be issued with the signatures of the BRCC and CEO. The evidence further surfaced that the tape-recorder was handed over to the complainant on 23rd and he recorded the conversation on 27th, which was deposited in the office of the ACB on 28th. Further, the said tape-recorder was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/12) on 05.10.2006 16 at Bhatapara. In paragraph 10 of his statement, he specifically stated that when he returned the first tape-recorder, no tape-recorder was again handed over to him subsequently. Admittedly, when the complainant had already received his amount, there would be no question of any demand for withholding the payment towards the work done by the complainant for the supply of food. 19.PW-9, Anil Kumar Pathak, is the Investigating Officer, who stated in his evidence that on 28.09.2006, when he was posted as Inspector at ACB Office, Raipur, the complainant Khilawan Sahu made a complaint on 28.09.2006 that the appellant was demanding a bribe, which is Ex.P/3. He handed over the tape-recorder, including the cassette, to the complainant for recording the conversation between him and the appellant and Panchnama Ex.P/4 was prepared. On 04.10.2006, the complainant informed him through phone that he had recorded the conversation with the appellant. He called two panch witnesses for the trap proceeding on 04.10.2006 and they proceeded from Raipur to Bhatapara on 05.10.2006 at about 08:00 AM after constituting the trap party. The complainant met them at Lajij Dhaba, Bhatapara. They introduced the complainant, who produced the tape-recorder before them. The conversation was heard in the presence of the panch witnesses and transcript Ex.P/6 was prepared. Thereafter, the complainant made his second complaint Ex.P/5. The complainant Ex.P/5 was prepared by Hemant Kumar, DSP. The second complaint was also read over to the panch witnesses and they also gave their consent for the trap proceeding. Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/11 was recorded on 05.10.2006 against the appellant. Thereafter, the complainant also gave Rs.5,000/- which was to be given to the appellant. The said 17 Rs.5,000/- was in 9 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination and 5 currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination. Panchnama of the numbers of the currency notes was prepared and the cassette was seized from the tape-recorder vide Ex.P/12. The constable Ram Pravesh Mishra applied phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes and they were kept in the pocket of the shirt of the complainant. The search of the complainant was also taken and Panchnama Ex.P/17 was prepared. The complainant was advised not to touch the currency notes before handing them over to the appellant. The hand-wash of the witnesses remained unchanged, whereas the hand-wash of the constable who applied the phenolphthalein turned pink in colour. The hand-wash was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/16. Another tape-recorder was also given to the complainant for recording the conversation with the appellant and Ex.P/13 was prepared. The pre-trap Panchnama Ex.P/17 was prepared and thereafter they proceeded towards the office of the appellant. The complainant entered into the office and after some time the appellant also came there. After completion of the transaction, the complainant made a gesture about completion of the transaction and the members of the trap party entered into the office room of the appellant. The appellant admitted that he had taken the bribe from the complainant and, on his search, the tainted notes were seized from the purse kept in the pocket of the appellant. The numbers of the tainted currency notes were tallied and Panchnama of the currency notes was prepared. Except the hand-wash of the appellant, the hand-wash of the witnesses remained unchanged, whereas the hand-wash of the appellant turned pink in colour. The hand-wash of the pant and purse of the appellant also turned pink in colour. The hand-wash of the 18 complainant also turned pink in colour. The tainted currency notes, purse and pant were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/18. Spot map was prepared by the Patwari, which is Ex.P/1, and during the investigation, the file of the case of the complainant was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/19. The papers introduced by the complainant were also seized, which are Articles 1 to 4, vide seizure memo Ex.P/20. The hand-wash solution was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/20 and the hand-wash tape-recorder was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/9. The transcript was also prepared, which is Ex.P/10. The appellant was arrested and the FIR was registered. The solutions were sent for chemical examination to the State FSL, Raipur, from where report Ex.P/28 was received. The service record of the appellant was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/14. He made correspondence with Dena Bank, Bhatapara Branch, and their memos are Ex.P/31 and Ex.P/32. The relevant information was furnished by Dena Bank through document Ex.P/15, along with copies of the two cheques bearing Nos. 8213011 and 8213872. The bank statement of the complainant Khilawan Sahu's account with State Bank of Indore was also furnished by the concerned Bank, which are Ex.P/34, Ex.P/35 and Ex.P/36. 20.The statements of the witnesses have been recorded and, after completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. In cross-examination, he admitted that he received the complaint on 28.09.2006, which is Ex.P/3, in which the complainant made an allegation that the appellant was demanding Rs.10,000/- as bribe. He denied the suggestion that, before handing over the bribe amount, the subject cheque was handed over to the complainant by the appellant. He further admitted that on 28.09.2006, the first tape-recorder was 19 handed over to the complainant. He could not tell as to when the complainant had a conversation with the appellant. He voluntarily stated that on 04.10.2006, the complainant informed him about the conversation with the appellant. He admitted that the transcript was prepared on 05.10.2006. He further admitted that in document Ex.P/6, at various places, the conversation was not audible. In para-35 of his cross-examination, he stated that he had taken the voice sample of the appellant twice for its frequency test. He admitted that he had not sent the voice of the appellant and the voice available in document Ex.P/6 for frequency testing to any expert. He further admitted that no written notice was issued to the panch witnesses to participate in the trap proceeding. He voluntarily stated that they were given notice through the Superintendent of Police. He admitted that the transcript was prepared at Lajij Dhaba, Bhatapara. He further admitted that in document Ex.P/4, the place where the transcript was prepared is not mentioned. On 05.10.2006 at 10:00 AM, the second complaint was made to him and, on that basis, Dehati Nalishi was recorded. The second tape-recorder was given to the complainant on 05.10.2006 at 11:40 AM. He further admitted that after recording the conversation of the appellant, the said tape-recorder was returned by the complainant and, after preparation of its transcription, it was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/12 at 11:36 AM. He further admitted that in the second tape-recorder, the voice was not clear. He also admitted that in the second transcript also, he had not taken the voice sample of the appellant. Thereafter, he could not remember as to who entered into the office room of the appellant first. After entering into the office room, the hand-wash of the complainant and the appellant was made and 20 Panchnamas were prepared. He also could not remember as to in which pocket the purse of the appellant was kept. He further admitted that the bills of Articles 1 to 4 had already been submitted to the BRC Office by the complainant. He also admitted that the bank officers had given in writing the information that the cheques issued to the complainant were encashed on 02.09.2006 and 29.09.2006. The amount of Rs.38,695/- had already been paid to the complainant on 29.06.2006. He also admitted that the cheques which were to be issued under Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhatapara, were to be issued under the joint signatures of the BRC and CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara. Before issuance of the cheque, the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara, after verification of the entire material, signed the cheque, and only thereafter could the cheque be issued. 21.PW-7, S. K. Sharma, is the panch witness who stated in his evidence that he received information on 04.10.2006 and was called to the ACB Office. He was contacted there and called at 5th at about 07:00 AM. When he reached the ACB Office, they took him to Bhatapara. Firstly, they reached Sahu Hotel, where they met Ram Khilawan Sahu, who is the complainant. Thereafter, they took them to Lajij Dhaba, and the second complaint was obtained from the complainant and the tape- recorder was also obtained from him. The complainant handed over Rs.5,000/- to the officers of the ACB, which was given to the other officers of the trap party. The hand-wash proceedings were conducted, phenolphthalein powder was applied to the said currency notes and they kept the tainted currency notes in the pocket of the shirt of the complainant and instructed him and made him understand to give the same to the appellant and to make a gesture. Then they reached the 21 office of the appellant, but he was not found there and came later on. After completion of the transaction, the complainant made a gesture and then they also entered into the office room and caught hold of the appellant. The hand-wash proceedings were conducted and the hand- wash solution and the wash of the pant and purse were turned pink in colour and other proceedings of the trap were drawn. In cross- examination, he admitted that the second complaint was made by the complainant in his presence. He also admitted that the first complaint was not shown to him. Thereafter, he stated that he heard the conversation in the tape-recorder and the complaint was also shown to him. 22.PW-8, Roshan Lal Uikey, is also a panch witness. He too has stated that he was informed to appear in the office of ACB on 04.10.2006. When he appeared there, he was again called on 05.10.2006 at 07:00 AM. On 05.10.2006 at about 07:00 AM, when he appeared at the Office of ACB, they were taken to Bhatapara at Lajij Dhaba. There, they met the complainant and the complainant handed over a tape-recorder to the officers of ACB and also made a complaint. The complainant handed over Rs.5,000/-, on which the constable applied phenolphthalein powder. The pre-trap Panchnama proceedings were drawn there and they instructed the complainant about the transaction and the gesture to be made after completion of the transaction. They proceeded towards the office of the appellant; however, the appellant was not present there and he came later on in the computer room of the office. The complainant handed over the amount to the appellant, which the appellant kept in his purse, and the purse was kept in the back pocket of his pant. The complainant came out from the office and 22 made a gesture and then the officers of ACB entered into the office room and caught hold of the appellant. On being searched, the tainted currency notes were seized from the purse of the appellant, which he had kept in the back pocket of his pant. The hand-wash and the wash of the clothes and purse were turned pink in colour. The necessary Panchnamas were prepared, the wash solutions were seized and the trap proceedings were drawn. The relevant file and register were also seized in his presence. The transcript was not prepared in his presence; however, in the transcript Ex.P/6, his signature is there. In the other tape-recorder, nothing could be recorded. He admitted his signatures over the Panchnamas Ex.P/15, Ex.P/16, Ex.P/17, Ex.P/18, Ex.P/19, Ex.P/20 and Ex.P/21. The tape-recorder was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/9, on which also his signature is there, and in the transcript Ex.P/10, his signature is also there. In cross-examination, he stated that he was informed to appear in the ACB office for the trap proceeding at 07:30 AM. They proceeded for Bhatapara and reached there at 10:30 AM. They met Khilawan Sahu at Lajij Dhaba, Bhatapara. He read over the complaint of the complainant, but the complainant had not informed anything to them. They heard the conversation at Lajij Dhaba, but the voice was not clear. He also admitted that the officers of ACB asked him to sign the transcript and disclosed that they had already prepared the transcript of the conversation. He denied that he had signed at the office of ACB, Raipur, and he voluntarily stated all the signatures had been made at Bhatapara. 23.From the evidence of complainant Khilawan Sahu, PW-3, it appears that he had gone to the Office of ACB on 28.06.2006 and made the first complaint Ex.P/3. It is not the case of the prosecution that before 23 28.06.2006, the complainant had gone there and the officers of ACB had handed over the tape-recorder to him for recording the conversation. There is also no evidence of the complainant as to when the appellant made the demand for bribe. The fact relevant here is that in the complaint itself, the subject cheque had already been released in the bank account of the complainant and, in the first complaint itself, he mentioned that the payment of Rs.38,695/- had been made to him. When the complainant had already received the amount in his bank account, there was no question of making any demand for bribe from him. Further, without any previous initiative or any demand, the complaint was made on 28.09.2006 itself when the complainant made the complaint to the officers of ACB. The complainant, in para-4 of his examination-in-chief, has stated that he was provided a tape-recorder on 23rd and he recorded the conversation on 27th and deposited the same in the Office of ACB on 28th. At the Office of ACB, it was decided to conduct the trap proceeding on 5th and he was asked to meet them at Bhatapara Chowk. It is relevant to note the relevant para-4 of the evidence of PW-3 Khilawan Sahu, which reads as under:- “4. संभवतः मैं 23 तः रीख को टेप मिमैंलने को बा द आरीप सं दिदने को 27 को बा तःचीतः को टेप किकोया था औरी 28 तः रीख को टेप व पसं एसंबा मैं जमैं किकोया था । तःबा वहाँ # आकि$सं मैं तःया हुआ किको आगा मैं 5 तः रीख को टेप कोरीने को लिलया ज यागा औरी मैं(झे भ ठा प री मैं ची+को को प सं मिमैंलने को लिलया कोहाँ।" “10. मैंरी द्वा री टेप व पसं कोरीने को बा द मैं(झे दबा री टेप नेहाँ- दिदया गाया था ।" “11. संहाँ हाँ. किको रिरीश्वतः को1 मैं गा को संबाध मैं रिरीको र्ड4 कोरीने को लिलया ज टेप मैं(झे दिदया था । याहाँ मैं(झेसं भ ठा प री मैं दिदने को 05.10.06 को जप्तः किकोया गाया था " 24.According to this witness, apart from handing over the tape-recorder on 23rd and recording the conversation on 27th, he handed over the tape- 24 recorder to the officers of ACB on 28th. It was settled to conduct the trap on 5th, which was settled at the ACB Office, Raipur. The contradictory evidence of the Investigating Officer, PW-9 Anil Pathak, is there. He stated that on 28.09.2006, the complainant made a complaint and he handed over the tape-recorder for recording the conversation with the appellant. Thereafter, on 04.10.2006, the complainant informed him through telephone about the recording of the conversation and then he called two panch witnesses on 04.10.2006. On 05.10.2006, the panch witnesses and the trap party proceeded for Bhatapara and met the complainant at Lajij Dhaba, where the complainant handed over the tape-recorder to the officers of ACB and transcript Ex.P/6 was prepared. Meaning thereby, without any pre-trap Panchnama or without verifying the conversation, the trap party was constituted and they proceeded for Bhatapara and, at Bhatapara, the transcript was prepared. As per the evidence of complainant PW-3, the tape-recorder was handed over to the officers of ACB at the Office at Raipur, whereas, from the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW-9, the tape-recorder was handed over to them at Lajij Dhaba, Bhatapara, and the pre-trap proceeding was conducted. The complainant has stated that no second tape-recorder was handed over to him, whereas the Investigating Officer has stated that the second tape-recorder was handed over to him for recording the conversation and Panchnama Ex.P/13 was prepared. When the amount had already been received by the complainant and the bills, Articles 1 to 4, had already been received by him, the cheques were encashed and, without verifying the conversation allegedly recorded in the tape-recorder, the trap party was constituted. The discrepancies in the evidence of the complainant, 25 the Investigating Officer and the panch witnesses give rise to reasonable suspicion about the proceedings. There are material discrepancies regarding the handing over of the tape-recorder and its return to the officers of ACB. 25.Further, the voice allegedly recorded in the tape-recorder has not been proved by the prosecution to be the voice of the appellant by examining the frequency of the voice available in the tape-recorder as well as the voice of the appellant. Without there being any evidence regarding the identification of the voice of its maker, it is not an admissible piece of evidence, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Gupta Vs. State through Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 (2) SCR 864 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that tape recorded statement is admissible in evidence if the voice of the speaker is identified by the maker of record and other persons recognizing his voice. In paragraph 12 of said judgment, it has been held as under : “12. On the issue of evidentiary value and credibility of the recording in the cases of trap, the law is well settled in the case of Ram Singh vs. Col. Ram Singh 1985 (Suppl) SCC 611, wherein this Court held that tape recorded statement is admissible in evidence if the voice of the speaker is identified by the maker of the record and other persons recognizing his voice. In case, the maker is unable to identify the voice, strict proof would be required to determine whether or not, the said voice is of alleged speaker. The accuracy of the tape recorded statement must be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial. The possibility of tampering with, or erasure of any part of the tape recorded statement must be totally excluded. The voice of the particular speaker must be clearly audible and must not be lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances, otherwise, the transcript as prepared, is inadmissible in evidence.” 26.Admittedly, in the present case the prosecution has not proved the fact that the voice recorded in the tape-recorder was the voice of the 26 appellant Niranjan Prasad. Therefore, possibility of tampering with the tape-recorder and alleged conversation cannot be ruled out. 27.Further, in absence of certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, the evidence of a digital tape-recorder is not admissible as held by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh Ramrao Chavan Vs. Dattratray Gulabrao Phalke & Others, 2015(3)SCC 123. In paragraph 16, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “16. It is to be noted that in the first complaint filed by the second respondent - the de facto complainant, there is no allegation for any demand for bribe by the appellant. The allegation of demand is specifically against accused no.2 only. That allegation against the appellant is raised only subsequently. Be that as it may, the only basis for supporting the allegation is the conversation that is said to be recorded by the voice recorder. The Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratories, State of Maharashtra vide Annexure-B report has stated that the conversation is not in audible condition and, hence, the same is not considered for spectrographic analysis. Learned Counsel for the respondents submit that the conversation has been translated and the same has been verified by the panch witnesses. Admittedly, the panch witnesses have not heard the conversation, since they were not present in the room. As the voice recorder is itself not subjected to analysis, there is no point in placing reliance on the translated version. Without source, there is no authenticity for the translation. Source and authenticity are the two key factors for an electronic evidence, as held by this Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and others[4].” 28.Further, there is no evidence about the safe custody of the tape- recorder in which the conversation was allegedly recorded. The said tape-recorder, as per the evidence of the Investigating Officer, was in possession of the complainant from 28.09.2006 till 05.10.2006, whereas, as per the evidence of the complainant, it was in his possession from 23.09.2006 till 28.09.2006. There is no verification of the voice recorded in the said tape-recorder. There may be a possibility of tampering with the tape-recorder. Further, neither any application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872, was moved nor the 27 certificate as required under Section 65-B was filed by the prosecution to prove its case and, as such, the said evidence is inadmissible and cannot be taken into consideration against the appellant, as the transcript is also not supported by a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. 29.The co-ordinate Bench of this Court has considered the judgment in State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v. C.B. Nagaraj, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1175, and has observed that: "25. It is pertinent to note that till 05.02.2007, when the Respondent had conducted the physical/spot inspection, there is not even a whisper of there being any demand of bribe. Moreover, when the Complainant went back to the Respondent's office at 5:30 PM with the money, the prosecution case itself as per the deposition of its witnesses makes it clear that the Respondent had informed the Complainant that he had already forwarded the concerned file. Thus, if the same is accepted, there was no occasion for the Complainant to go ahead with paying the amount, which he claims to be in the nature of bribe demanded by the Respondent, after the work for which the bribe was purportedly sought, had already been done. The observation of the High Court to this extent is correct that just because money changed hands, in cases like the present, it cannot be ipso facto presumed that the same was pursuant to a demand, for the law requires that for conviction under the Act, an entire chain beginning from demand, acceptance, and recovery has to be completed. In the case at hand, when the initial demand itself is IRON even if the two other components of payment and recovery can be held to have been proved, the chain would not be complete. A penal law has to be strictly construed [Md. Rahim Ali v State of Assam, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695 @ Paragraph 45 and Jay Kishan v State of U.P. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 296 @ Paragraph 241. While we will advert to the presumption under Section 20 of the Act hereinafter, there is no cavil that while a reverse onus under specific statute can be placed on an accused, even then, there cannot be a presumption which casts an uncalled for onus on the accused. Chandrasha (supra) would not apply as demand has not been proven. In Paritala Sudhakar v State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1072, it was stated thus: 28 '21. As far as the submission of the State is that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, as it then was, would operate against the Appellant is concerned, our analysis supra would indicate that the factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of animus between the Appellant and complainant, is not proved. In such circumstances, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act would not militate against the Appellant, in terms of the pronouncement in Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 250: 22. In view of the aforementioned discrepancies in the prosecution case, we are of the opinion that the defence story set up by the appellant cannot be said to be wholly improbable. Furthermore, it is not a case where the burden of proof was on the accused in terms of Section 20 of the Act. Even otherwise, where demand has not been proved, Section 20 will also have no application. (Union of India v. Purnandu Biswas [(2005) 12 SCC 576: (2005) 8 Scale 246] and T Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401: (2006) 1 Scale 116])." 30.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 bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This constitutes offence under Section 13 (1)(d) (i) and (ii) (iii) In both case, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence. 31.In the present case also, when the case of the complainant itself is that on the date of the complaint, i.e., 28.09.2006, he had already received the amount of Rs.38,695/-, had already submitted his bills and the 29 cheque had already been encashed, there was no occasion for the appellant to make any demand and, thus, the prosecution could not establish the demand made by the appellant from the complainant. There are sufficient discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with respect to the alleged demand made by the appellant, as the cause for which the demand was allegedly made had already been redressed. Further, mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when the demand itself has not been proved. 32.In the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. (2014) 13 SCC 55 it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that mere recovery of currency notes cannot prove the offence and it has been held as under: “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. ((2010) 15 SCC 1) and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI {(2009) 3 SCC 779). 33.Further, in the case of Sejappa v. State reported in (2016) 12 SCC 150 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 10 & 21 held as under:- “10. In order to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, “proof of demand” is a sine qua non. This has been affirmed in several judgments including a recent judgment of this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. {(2014) 13 SCC 55}, wherein this Court held as under: “7. Insofaras 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 30 may be made to the 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).” “21. While dealing with the contention that it is not enough that some currency notes were handed over to the public servant to make it illegal gratification and that the prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid was an illegal gratification, reference can be made to the following observation in Mukut Bihari v. State of Rajasthan {(2012) 11 SCC 642), wherein it was held as under: “11. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused, when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as bribe. Mere receipt of amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten the guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification, but the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. 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. However, before 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. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his 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.” 34.PW-5, Kalaram Mehar, is an officer of Dena Bank, Bhatapara. He proved that the subject cheque was cleared in the bank account of the complainant on 29.09.2006. 35.PW-6, Ram Parvesh Mishra, is a constable at ACB who applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes. He too has stated that all the pre-trap proceedings were conducted at Ajay Dhaba, 31 Balodabazar. The complainant gave Rs.5,000/- to the officers of ACB, on which he applied phenolphthalein powder, and the complainant was instructed not to touch the currency notes before handing them over to the appellant. The sample of phenolphthalein powder was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/16. In cross-examination, he stated that phenolphthalein powder was kept in the custody of the concerned constable and it was given to him at the time of the trap proceeding. He admitted that the complainant informed the officers of ACB that the appellant had demanded a bribe for issuance of the cheque. He did not know that the complainant had made the complaint after payment of the amount. 36.PW-10 is also a Head Constable and a member of the trap party. He too has stated that they proceeded to Bhatapara and met the complainant at the Dhaba, where the complainant made a complaint and handed over the tape-recorder to the officers of the ACB. The conversation was heard and thereafter the pre-trap proceedings were drawn. Thereafter, they proceeded to the office of the appellant and, after completion of the transaction, the complainant made a gesture and the trap proceeding was conducted. Thereafter, in cross- examination, he admitted that at the office of ACB, no proceedings were drawn. He could not remember as to whether the complainant had disclosed there at Bhatapara about the payment of the cheque amount. 37.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, 1985 Supp SCC 611 held that as regards evidence recorded on a Tape-recorder or other mechanical process, the preponderance of 32 authorities is in favour of the admissibility of the statements subject to certain safeguards, viz., (1) The voice of the speaker must be identified by the maker of the record or the persons recognizing his voice. Where the maker is unable to identify the voice, strict proof will be required to determine whether or not it was the voice of the alleged speaker. (2) The accuracy of the tape-recorder statement must be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence: direct or circumstantial. (3) Possibility of tampering with, or erasure of any part of the tape-recorder statement must be totally excluded. (4) The tape-recorder statement must be relevant. (5) The recorded cassette must be sealed and must be kept in safe or official custody. (6) The voice of the particular speaker must be clearly audible and must not be lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances. On careful consideration in that case the Court held that the tape recorded statements were inadmissible in evidence and that such an evidence would not have any probative value to inspire any confidence. 38.On minute examination of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is quite clear that, with regard to the initial demand, there are material contradictions in the evidence of the complainant PW-3 and other witnesses. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW-9, Anil Kumar Pathak, it is clear that the evidence of the initial demand could not be proved. Further, the safe custody of the conversation recorded in the tape-recorder has also not been proved. The contradictory and inconsistent statements of the witnesses are not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offence. The grievance of the complainant 33 had already been redressed and the amount had already been paid to him. When the grievance of the complainant had already been redressed and the transaction had already been completed, there was no occasion for the accused to make any demand, which makes the prosecution case suspicious. The recovery of the tainted amount from the accused, even if it is found that the tainted amount was in possession of the appellant, is not sufficient to hold him guilty of the alleged offence. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case of demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. 39.Consequently, by giving benefit of doubt, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the offence alleged against him. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond shall remain in operation for a further period of six months as provided under Section 481 of BNSS Act, 2023. 40.The trial court record be send back forthwith along with copy of this judgment for necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika/Alok