1 CGHC010018642017 2026:CGHC:41271 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1541 of 2017 Devcharan Sahu S/o Late Mani Ram Sahu, Aged About 56 Years Assistant Development Officer, Janpad Panchayat Antagarh, R/o Awaspara Korar, Police Station Korar, District North Bastar Kanker, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through A.C.B. Raipur Unit Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate along with Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 22/09/2026 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.09.2017, passed by learned VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.09.26 17:28:53 +0530 2 Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), North Bastar, Kanker, in P.C. Act Special Case No. 4/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence U/s. 7 of of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 R.I. for 04 years with fine of Rs. 6000/-. In default of payment of fine further R.I. for 03 months. U/s. 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 R.I. for 05 years with fine of Rs. 9000/-. In default of payment of fine further R.I. for 06 months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that, the appellant was working as Assistant Development Extension Officer and posted at Janpad Panchayat, Antagarh, District North Bastar, Kankar. The mother and sister-in-law of the complainant Anit Kumar Uike (PW-2) granted subsidy of Rs. 75,000/- to each of them under the Indira Awas Scheme for construction of their houses and in lieu of issuance of second installment of withdrawal of the amount, the appellant demanded Rs. 15,000/- as bribe. The complainant Anit Kumar Uike (PW-2) made a written complaint (exhibit P-1) to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jagdalpur on 04.04.2015 alleging in it that his mother and sister-in-law already received Rs. 37,500/- to each as first installment of the subsidy granted to them, however the appellant issued withdrawal slip for withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/- to each on 07.04.2015 and demanded Rs. 15,000/- from him after withdrawal of the said amount from the bank. 3 He does not want to give him the brief and then lodged the report. A tape recorder was handed over to the complainant for recording the conversation between him and the appellant on 04.04.2015 and panchnama (exhibit P-2) was prepared. The complainant recorded the conversation between him and the complainant on 04.04.2015 itself and produced the said tape recorder to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jagdalpur on 14.04.2015. On the said date of 14.04.2015, he made his second complaint (exhibit P-3) alleging in it that, when he negotiated with the appellant, he settled the bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/- and issued withdrawal slip of Rs. 20,000/- to each of them and asked him not to use the earlier withdrawal slip of Rs. 15,000/-. It has also been alleged in the second complaint that on 13.04.2015, he withdrawn Rs. 20,000/- from the bank account of his mother and sister-in-law, which was also informed to the officer of the ACB through mobile phone and the appellant assured him that after giving the bribe money, he would issue the withdrawal slip of third installment of Rs. 10,000/- to each of them. The transcript (exhibit P-4) of the conversation between the appellant and the complainant recorded in the tape recorder was prepared on 14.04.2015 and after verifying the complaint made by the complainant, the officers of ACB constituted a trap party. Dehati Nalishi (exhibit P-6) was recorded and pre-trap panchnama (exhibit P-9) was prepared. The panch witnesses Sudhakar Bodle and Vikas Sahu (PW-3) were called at office of ACB. The complainant produced Rs. 10,000/- cash, which was of 20 currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination, phenolphthalein power 4 was applied on the said currency notes. It was kept in the pocket of the complainant and he was convinced not to touch the said currency notes before handing over the same to the appellant and after completion of transaction gesture to be made. Another tape recorder was also handed over to the complainant for recording conversation at the time of handing over the bribe amount to the appellant. The hand wash proceeding was drawn and after completion of pre-trap formalities, the trap party proceeded on 15.04.2015 towards the office of the appellant. 3. When they reached near Antagarh college, he made a telephonic call to the appellant and then he informed him that he is at Korar and the appellant called him at village Korar. The trap party then proceeded towards Korar and thereafter the appellant asked him to come to Chilhati chowk. After 10-15 minutes, the appellant also reached there, and he handed over the tainted note of Rs. 10,000/-, which he kept in his right pocket of full pant and the appellant assured him that he will issue the withdrawal slip of third installment within 4-5 days. After completion of transaction, he made gesture to the members of trap party and then they immediately came there and caught hold the appellant. The tainted currency note was recovered from the right pocket of full pant and its number was tallied with the panchnama. The hand wash of the appellant was turned into pink colour, which was seized in a bottle. The wash of the tainted currency note seized from the appellant was also turned into pink colour. The hand wash proceeding of the witnesses was also drawn. Necessary panchnama 5 was prepared. The transcript of the conversation was also prepared which is exhibit P-11. The tainted currency notes and other articles were seized. Spot map (exhibit P-25) was prepared. The posting order of the appellant (exhibit P-28) was seized, the relevant document of Indira Awas Scheme was also seized and then the FIR (exhibit P-20) was registered. The appellant was arrested. After necessary sanction for prosecution from the competent authorities and after obtaining the FSL report of the hand wash solution and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before the learned trial Court. 4. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. the appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CRPC has also been recorded, in which he denied the circumstances that appears against him, pleaded innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. He further stated that he has not demanded any bribe from the mother and sister-in-law of the complainant. On the date of incident, he had gone to village Korar in a funeral and the complainant called him at village Korar on the pretext that he has some work with him and when he met him, he tried to put currency 6 note to his hand, but he refused to accept it and then he forcefully put it in his pocket of the pant. He neither demanded nor accepted the money from him. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as has been mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 7. 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 prosecution witnesses. The three ingredients of the offence of illegal gratification i.e. (i) demand, (ii) acceptance, and (iii) 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 complainant itself that on 13.04.2015, they withdrawn the amount from the bank for which the appellant demanded bribe, therefore, there is no question for making a complaint on 14.04.2015. He would further submit that the first complaint was made on 04.04.2015 and on that very day the tape recorder was handed over to the complainant for recording conversation with the appellant and the complainant recorded the conversation on the same day, but he handed over the tape recorder to the officers of ACB only on 14.04.2015. Till that time, it was with the possession of the complainant and therefore, tempering in the 7 voice recorded in the tape recorder cannot be ruled out. Further, there is no voice sample of the appellant taken by the prosecution and there is no voice analysis report to prove that the voice recorded in the tape recorder is that of the voice of the appellant. He would further submit that the panch witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and even they denied the preparation of transcript in their presence. Further, the investigating officer M.L. Negi (PW-9) has clearly admitted in his evidence that the complaint made by the complainant was neither shown to the panch witnesses nor they read over the same, nor any transcript was prepared in their presence and there is possibility of loosing the confidentiality, thus the prosecution itself has not confidence upon their witnesses itself. It is further argued that the investigating officer is a relative of the complainant and the initial complaint was made by the complainant at Antagarh and not at the office of ACB Jagdalpur and in the panchnama (exhibit P-2) the place of handing over the tape recorder to the complainant is also mentioned at Antagarh. The distance between Antagarh and Jagdalpur is about 150 KMs and the time shown in the proceeding and the evidence is not possible that in such a short span of time, the complainant and the witnesses appeared at both the places and draw the trap proceeding. Considering all these aspects of the case, no case as alleged are made out against the appellant and he is entitled for acquittal. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and 8 has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions or contradictions the evidence of prosecution witnesses are reliable and sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the alleged offence. The demand as well as acceptance has duly been proved by the prosecution witnesses. There is sufficient evidence on record that the appellant initially demanded Rs. 15,000/- which was subsequently negotiated and settled at Rs. 10,000/-. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the complainant and other witnesses that the conversation recorded in the tape recorder is tempered. The voice recorded in the tape recorder was identified by the complainant and transcript was prepared. The recovery of tainted money from the pocket of the appellant proved that he demanded the bribe from the complainant for issuance of withdrawal slip of second installment of the subsidy granted under the Indira Awas Scheme. Though the minor discrepancies came in the evidence of panch witnesses, but they admitted their signature over all the documents and proved the trap proceedings. The hand wash of the appellant was also turned into pink colour, which duly supported the prosecution case. He accepted the currency note towards the bribe demanded by him. The learned trial Court after due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, rightly held the appellant guilty of the alleged offences, which is justified and does not require any interference. The appeal filed by the appellant does not have any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court. 10. 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. 11. 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, (2017) 8 SCC 136 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 14 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 accused 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 thereunder would arise only on such proof of demand. This Court thus in P. Satyanarayana murthy on a survey of its earlier 10 decisions on the prerequisites of Sections 7 and 13 and the proof thereof summed up its conclusions as hereunder: (SCC p. 159, para 23)” 12. In the matter of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, (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 11 illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind: (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe- giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under 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 12 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 13 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 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 14 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." 13. 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. 14. PW-2, Anit Kumar Uike is the complainant. He stated in his evidence that subsidy of Rs. 75,000/- under the Indira Awas Scheme was sanctioned to his mother Lakshni Bai and his sister-in-law Ramsheela Bai to each of them and they have already received the first installment of Rs. 37,500/- by each of them. The appellant inspected their house and issued withdrawal slip of Rs. 15,000/- each and the second installment of the subsidy and demanded Rs. 15,000/- as bribe from him. Since he was taking care of the construction work, he actively involved in withdrawal of the money from the bank and used to go to the bank along with his mother and sister-in-law. On 04.04.2015, he made a written complaint (exhibit P- 1) to DSP Mr. Negi at Antagarh, then he handed over a tape recorder for recording conversation between them and panchnama (exhibit P- 2) was prepared. On 04.04.2015, at about 11:00 a.m. he along with his another sister-in-law Dasari Bai had gone to office of Janpad Panchayat, Antagarh and negotiated the amount of bribe and then the appellant settled Rs. 10,000/- as bribe money. Thereafter, he 15 issued two withdrawal slips of Rs. 20,000/- each in the name of his mother and sister-in-law and asked him to give the bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/- after withdrawal of the money from the bank. He also said that the third installment of Rs. 15,000/- would be issued only when he will give him the amount of Rs. 10,000/-. ******* He recorded the conversation in the tape recorder. The appellant asked him to give the amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 15.04.2015 at Antagarh Office, which was informed by him to Mr. Negi on 13.04.2015, through mobile phone. Since he, his mother and his sister-in-law do not want to give any bribe money, he made his second complaint (exhibit P-3) on 14.04.2015 to the office of ACB Jagdalpur along with the withdrawal slip dated 07.04.2015 and bank withdrawal slip dated 13.04.2015. He also produced the tape recorder before the DSP Mr. Negi. After hearing its voice, the transcript (exhibit P-4) was recorded and two CDs of the conversations were prepared. One of these two CDs were seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-5). The FIR (exhibit P-6) was recorded on his complaint. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- was returned by Mr. Negi to him and asked him to give again on 15.04.2015 before the panch witnesses and the panchnama (exhibit P-7) was prepared. On 14.04.2015, at about 5:00 p.m. he along with two panch witnesses DSP Mr. Negi, Inspector Mr. Chandrashekhar Dhruw, Mr. Rajendra Singh Thakur and Mr. Parmeshwer Thakur proceeded from the office of ACB Jagdalpur and reached at about 10:30 p.m. at Makdi Lakh Extension Centre and stayed there in the night. On 15.04.2015, at 16 about 7:15 a.m. he was introduced with the panch witnesses. They read over his complaint and verified the same and panchnama (exhibit P-8) was prepared. He produced Rs. 10,000/- and then the number of the said currency notes were taken and Mr. Baghel applied phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes and it was kept in his right pocket of full pant and advised him not to touch the said notes before handing over it to the appellant. He also convinced about gesture to be made after completion of transaction. He also conducted the hand wash proceeding. Thereafter another tape recorder was given to him for recording of conversation at the time of handing over the bribe amount to the appellant. The preliminary panchnama (exhibit P-9) was prepared and then they proceeded for Antagarh at about 8:45 a.m. 15. When they reached at Antagarh, he made a telephonic call to the appellant and then he informed him that he is at village Korar and also called him at village Korar. He along with the trap party and his nephew Sahdev proceeded towards Korar and waited at Chilhari chowk, Korar. After 10-15 minutes, the appellant also came there and then he handed over the bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/- to him, which he kept in right pocket of his full pant. He assured him that he will issue the withdrawal slip of third installment within 4-5 days. The conversation was also recorded in the tape recorder and then he made gesture to the members of trap party, then they came there and caught hold the appellant. From Chilhati chowk, Korar, the appellant was taken to the premises of Jain Grocery shop. The 17 appellant refused to give his talashi and then he informed the members of trap party that the appellant kept the bribe amount in the right pocket of his full pant. The hand wash proceeding was drawn and hand wash solution was turned into pink colour, which was kept in the bottle and seized. The tainted currency notes of Rs. 10,000/- was also seized from the right pocket of full pant of the appellant and its numbers were tallied with the numbers mentioned in the panchnama. Further panchnama of the proceeding (exhibit P-10) was prepared. Transcript of the conversations (exhibit P-11) was also prepared. At this stage, the complainant declared hostile on some part of the proceeding regarding applying of phenolphthalein powder, hand wash proceeding and seizure of hand wash solution and he was cross-examined by the prosecution. 16. In his cross-examination by the defence, he stated that by mistake he has written in his written complaint that he was sent for lodging of the complaint. He admitted that he made a written complaint (exhibit P-1) to DSP Mr. Negi at Antagarh. Mr. Negi is basically resident of Antagarh. He further admitted that in the panchnama (exhibit P-2), which was of handing over the tape recorder to him, the place is mentioned as Simabila, Nayapara, Antagarh. He voluntarily explained that the tape recorder was handed over to him on the road in front of the house. At that time, one Gajendra Nath was also with him. He made a complaint (exhibit P-1) on 04.04.2015 and the withdrawal slip was given to his mother and sister-in-law on 07.04.2015 for Rs. 15,000/- to each. Before that, each of them have 18 already withdrawn the first installment of Rs. 37,500/-. In place of withdrawal slip of Rs. 15,000/-, the withdrawal slip of Rs. 20,000/- was issued on 04.04.2015. He voluntarily stated that the withdrawal slip was undated and they on their own put the date as 13.04.2015 and withdrawn the amount. He also explained the discrepancy of 04.04.2015 and 07.04.2015 which was with respect to issuance of withdrawal slip. ******* On 04.04.2015, after receiving the tape recorder for recording the conversations, when he had gone to the appellant, his sister-in- law Dasari Bai was also with him. The appellant demanded bribe, when he came to his house, but he could not remember as to what was the date. He was demanding bribe since last one month. He did not disclose to anyone about the bribe demanded by the appellant, except his parents. The conversation was recorded in presence of Dasari Bai. ******* In further cross-examination, he stated that on 04.04.2015, he recorded the conversation and handed over a tape recorder to the officers of ACB on 14.04.2015. In between that period, it was with him and he had not disclosed it to anyone. On 04.04.2015, the appellant stopped them to withdraw the amount of Rs. 15,000/- for which the slip was issued and issued another slip of Rs. 20,000/-, but he has not taken back the earlier slip of Rs. 15,000/-. The alleged demand made by the appellant was not in knowledge of his mother and sister-in-law. At the time of handing over the amount of bribe, his nephew Sahdev was also with him. 19 17. PW-9, M.L. Negi is the investigating officer, who stated in his evidence that he was posted as Inspector at ACB, Jagdalpur. On 04.04.2015, the complainant Anit Uike came to his house at Antagarh and made a written complaint (exhibit P-1) that the appellant is demanding Rs. 15,000/- as bribe. He gave him a tape recorder for recording of conversation between them for verification of his complaint. On 04.04.2015 itself, he was being informed by the complainant that he recorded the conversation, however due to engage in a marriage function, he could not come to Jagdalpur and on 14.04.2015, he came to Jagdalpur and made a second complaint (exhibit P-3) along with withdrawal slip dated 07.04.2015 (exhibit D-1 and D-2). He prepared the transcript (exhibit P-4) from the conversation recorded in the tape recorder. A CD was prepared, which was seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-5). He complainant also handed over Rs. 10,000/- cash, but he returned it by asking to again given on 15.04.2015 before the panch witnesses and a panchnama (exhibit P-7) was prepared. He recorded unnumbered FIR (exhibit P-6). He further stated that on 13.04.2015, the complainant informed him that he already recorded the conversation and he will come on 14.04.2015. Based on the information, on 13.04.2015, he wrote a letter (exhibit P-40) to the Collector, Jagdalpur for panch witnesses and then two panch witnesses Sudhakar Bodle and Vikas Sahu were nominated as panch witnesses. On 14.04.2015, at about 17:00 hrs, the panch witnesses appeared at the office of ACB and then the trap party proceeded for Makdi Lakh Training and Extension Center through the official vehicle 20 and they stayed there in the night. In the next morning, at about 7:15 a.m. the complainant was introduced with the panch witnesses and his complaint was being read over by them and they verified also. The verification panchnama is exhibit P-8. Pre-trap panchnama was prepared and after necessary formalities and procedure, they proceeded to the office of the appellant. He also disclosed the entire proceeding of pre-trap, hand wash and various panchnamas. In examination in chief he also stated about trap proceeding, which they have conducted after completion of transaction of bribe money to the appellant and seizure of various documents and other articles. He also prepared the transcript (exhibit P-4) on 14.04.2015 and exhibit P-11 on 15.04.2015. He also issued the certificate under Section 65- B of the Evidence Act, which is exhibit P-52. ******* In cross-examination, he admitted that as and when the complainant made his complaint (exhibit P-1) to him, he immediately conducted preliminary inquiry and handed over the tape recorder to the complainant at village Simabila, Nayapara, Antagarh. He further admitted that the tape recorder which was given to the complainant on 04.04.2015 was returned by him on 14.04.2015 at the office of ACB, Jagdalpur. In between that period, it was with the complainant. He has not inquired about any tempering in the said tape recorder and recording of conversation. He further stated that they were not given an opportunity of being heard about the conversation. Due to confidentially of the case, neither the complaint was produced before them, nor the transcript was produced. In para 37, he stated that “सही 21 ही कि प्र०पी० 4 स् प्ट एवं सडी जप्ती सबंधिती जप्ती पीत्र प्र०पी० 5 र्यवंही मेरे द्वारे पीचसक्षि!र्य" एसबं र्यलर्य जगदलपी&रे मे' उपीस्थि*ती ही+ने स पी-वं रे ल गई थी। सही ही कि दिदने 14.04.2015 + पीचस! एसबं र्यलर्य जगदलपी&रे मे' उपीस्थि*ती ही+ गर्य थी। सही ही कि उस दिदने पीचसक्षि!र्य" + रिरेश्वती रेमे मेग सबं मे' सडी नेही4 स&नेई गई थी औरे ने ही स् प्ट पीढ़ने द7 गई थी। स! स्वंती8 हीने ही कि ट्रैपी दल 15.04.2015 प्रती8 रे मे' गदि:ती किर्य जने थी प्ररेण ग+पीनेर्यती + दखती दिदने 14.04.2015 + पीचसक्षि!र्य" + टपी वंतीलपी, तीर्यरे स् प्ट एवं शि>र्यती आवंदने नेही4 स&नेर्य गर्य थी औरे ने ही पीढ़वंर्य ” गर्य थी। . There is possibility that the witnesses may violate the confidentiality, therefore, they were not being informed about the proceedings. He further admitted that in the panchnama (exhibit P-8 and P-9), there is no mention of read over the transcript or hearing of the voice of the CD. He further admitted that at the time of alleged transaction, the conversation was not audible at Chilhati chowk. He further admitted that he has not taken any voice sample of the complainant and the appellant. He also admitted that he has not get the tape recorder examined about any tempering. In para 48, he stated that “ सही ही कि मे@ने इस प्ररेण मे' प्रथीB वं अक्षिDर्य&क्ती आवंज +ई नेमे-ने नेही4 शिलर्य ही। सही ही कि टपी मे' छेड़छेड़ किर्य जने सबं मे' +ई वंज्ञाकिने पीरे!ण नेही4 रेर्य ही औरे ने ही +ई अक्षिDमेती शिलर्य ही।”. 18. PW-3, Vikas Sahu is the panch witness, who stated in his evidence that on 13.04.2015, he was being informed by Mr. M.L. Negi and asked him to appear at the office of ACB Jagdalpur on 14.04.2015. On the said date, when he appeared, he was not informed about the trap proceeding, however they proceeded towards Makadi and 22 stayed there in the night. On 15.04.2015, he was introduced by the complainant and then all the pre-trap proceeding and trap proceedings were conducted. In cross-examination, he admitted that on 14.04.2015, when he appeared at the office fo ACB, no proceedings were drawn in his presence. He also admitted that neither any conversation was displayed, nor any transcript was prepared. He also not being served with any notice of being panch witness. In para 21, he stated that " सही ही कि दिदने 14.04.2015 + >मे 5 बंज जबं मे@ एसबं र्यलर्य जगदलपी&रे मे' उपीस्थि*ती हुआ ती+ उस समेर्य मेरे समे! एसबं वंल" ने इस प्ररेण स सबंधिती +ई र्यवंही नेही4 थी। र्यही D सही ही कि दिदने 14.04.2015 + >मे समेर्य ने ती+ मे&झे प्रथीB द्वारे प्रस्ती&ती किडीजिजटल वंई> रिरेडी मे' दज वंती स&नेर्य गर्य औरे ने ही उस शिलप्र्यतीरेण उस दिदने + तीर्यरे किर्य गर्य। मे@ एन्ट7 रेप्>ने र्यलर्य जगदलपी&रे मे' उपीस्थि*ती हुआ थी मे@ बंतीMरे पीचस! हूँO इस बंती +ई शिलखिखती आद> नेही4 पीढ़र्य गर्य औरे ने ही मे&झे दिदखर्य गर्य। सही ही कि मे@ जही पीद* हूँO वंही प्र+ट+ल स मेरे नेमे +ई आद> मे&झे प्रप्ती नेही4 हुआ ” थी। . In para 22, he admitted that “ सही ही कि दिदने 14.04.2015 + एसबं ” र्यलर्य जगदलपी&रे मे' मेरे प्रथीB स +ई मे&लती नेही4 हुई थी। . He further admitted that in the document (exhibit P-8) his satisfaction about the complaint has not been recorded. He also could not remembered about his statement recorded by the ACB. He further admitted that at the time of trap proceeding, the appellant was denying that he has not taken any bribe amount. He admitted that since he had not heard the voice of the appellant, he could not say that the words recorded in the tape recorder is the voice of the appellant. In his presence, no voice sample was taken by the officers of ACB. 23 19. PW-1, Sahdev Uike who was allegedly accompanied the complainant at the time of trap proceeding, though has stated in his examination in chief about transaction of bribe money to the appellant, but in his cross-examination he admitted that, he did not know about sanction of Indira Awas Scheme to Ramsheela Bai and Lakshni Bai and the complainant has also not disclosed anything to him about the same. On the date of incident, his uncle called him, but for what reason he called him, he did not know. He resiled from some part of his police statement (exhibit D-1) with respect to conversation of bribe amount. He further admitted that he did not know anything about money transaction between the appellant and the complainant. He also admitted that the appellant denied that he demanded bribe money from the complainant. Since he was sitting outside of the room, he did not know what transpired inside the room. 20. PW-4, Rajendra Singh Thakur is the constable at Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jagdalpur. He stated in his evidence that on 14.04.2015, the complainant made a compliant about demand of bribe by the appellant. He also produced a tape recorder and he prepared two CDs of the conversations recorded in the tape recorder. On the instance of the complainant, the transcript was prepared by Mr. Negi and one CD was seized. The panch witnesses Sudhakar Bodle and Vikas Sahu appeared on 14.04.2015 and then all of them proceeded for Makdi Lakh Extension Centre, where they stayed in the night. On 15.04.2015, all the pre-trap proceedings and trap proceedings were drawn. After initial part of examination in chief, he was declared 24 hostile and on cross-examination by the prosecution, he stated the further proceeding in which he participated during the trap. ******* In cross-examination by the defence, he admitted that they have not inquired about any tempering in the tape recorder, which was produced on 14.04.2015. In para 20, he admitted that “दिदने 14.04.2015 + प्रथीB द्वारे किडीजिजटल वंई> रिरेडीरे पी> किर्य जने पीरे उसमे' छेड़छेड़ ही+ने सबं मे' +ई जच नेही4 गर्य थी। सही ही कि प्रथीB द्वारे किडीजिजटल वंई> रिरेडीरे मे' दज आवंज + स&नेरे उस द+ नेग सडी बंनेने र्यवंही पीचसक्षि!र्य" एसबं र्यलर्य आने स पीहील ज च& थी। र्यही D सही ही कि उक्ती किडीजिजटल वंई> रिरेडीरे मे' दज आवंज आरे पीरे स् प्ट D एसबं र्यलर्य मे' पीचसक्षि!र्य" आने स पीहील तीर्यरे ज च& थी। सही ही कि तीर्यरे द+ नेग सडी मे' स ए नेग सडी + पीचसक्षि!र्य" एसबं र्यलर्य मे' आने स पीहील ही सलबंद रे जप्ती रे शिलर्य गर्य थी।”. He further admitted that he has not read over the complaint made by the complainant and therefore, he was unaware about it. He also admitted that the conversation between the appellant and the complainant was not audible from the distance where they were standing. He further admitted that they have not taken any voice sample of the complainant and the appellant. He also not acquainted with the voice of the appellant and therefore, he could not say as to whether the voice recorded in the tape recorder is the voice of the appellant or not. 21. PW-5, Mahesh Kumar Baghel is the seizure witness of motorcycle (exhibit P-23) and he declared hostile. PW-6, Dhiraj Ram Jain is the Patwari who prepared the spot map (exhibit P-25). PW-7, Mukesh Kumar Thakur is the translator posted at Law and Legislative 25 Department, Mantralaya, Raipur who proved the sanction for prosecution (exhibit P-27). PW-8, Goverdhan Gajballa is the witness of seizure of the service record of the appellant, which is exhibit P-28 to P-39. 22. From the evidence, it surfaced that the complaint was made by the complainant on 04.04.2015 and on the same day he recorded the conversation between him and the appellant. From his evidence, it also reveals that he handed over the said tape recorder to the officers of ACB on 14.04.2015. From 04.04.2015 up to 14.04.2015, the said tape recorder was in possession of the complainant. The complainant had not tried to produce it before the officers of ACB, immediately after recording of conversation. As per Para 5 of his evidence, he telephonically informed about recording of conversation with the accused on 13.04.2015 to Mr. Negi and thereafter had gone to office of ACB on 14.04.2015. The said tape recorder was seized on 14.04.2015 vide seizure memo (exhibit P-5). When the tape recorder was remained in possession for quite a long time with the complainant, the tampering in the conversation allegedly recorded in the tape recorder cannot be ruled out and the prosecution has not been able to prove its genuineness that it was not tampered. Admittedly, no voice sample either of the complainant or of the accused was taken and there is no frequency test of their voices. 23. 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 26 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 (20) SCC 793 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 Para 13 of said judgment, it has been held as under : “13. 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.” 27 24. 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 appellant. Therefore, possibility of tampering with the tape-recorder and alleged conversation cannot be ruled out. 25. 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 Sanjaysinh 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 28 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.” 26. 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 29 hand, when the initial demand itself is suspicious, 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: '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 30 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])." 27. Further, from the documents (exhibit P-4) which is the transcript of the conversation recorded in the tape recorder on 04.04.2015 and transcript prepared on 14.04.2015 was signed by the witnesses Parmeshwar Thakur and Rajendra Singh Thakur (exhibit P-5). Parmeshwar Thakur has not been examined by the prosecution and Rajendra Singh Thakur has been examined as PW-4. He admitted in his cross-examination that the proceeding of preparation of transcript and CD has already been prepared before appearance of the panch witnesses and the CDs were sealed before the appearance of the panch witnesses. The investigating officer PW-9/M.L. Negi admitted in Para 37 of his evidence that the CD was not being heard by the panch witnesses and the transcript was also not produced before them for its reading. He also admitted that he neither taken the voice sample nor get the tape recorder examined about its tempering. Further, the CD was prepared with the help of a laptop as has been mentioned in the seizure memo (exhibit P-5). However, the said laptop has not been seized nor produced before the Court to prove the genuineness of the said CD or transcript. Therefore, it cannot be 31 said that the prosecution is able to prove the demand made by the accused through the alleged conversation between the appellant and the complainant. 28. 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 authorities is in favour of the admissibility of the statements subject to certain safeguards, which reads as under in paragraph 32 -: (1) The voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognise his voice. In other words, it manifestly follows as a logical corollary that the first condition for the admissibility of such a statement is to identify the voice of the speaker. Where the voice has been denied by the maker it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker. (2) The accuracy of the tape-recorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence - direct or circumstantial. (3) Every possibility of tampering with or erasure of a part of a tape-recorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render the said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible. (4) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of Evidence Act. 32 (5) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody. (6) The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and not 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. 29. In order to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, it has to be borne in mind that: “(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This constitutes offence under Section 13 (1)(d) (i) and (ii). (iii) In both case, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in 33 issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence.” 30. In the present case also, when the case of the complainant itself is that on 13.04.2015, he withdrawn the amount from the bank, 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. One more vital aspect is that the Dasari Bai, who was said to have been present along with the complainant at the time when the demand made by the appellant, has not been examined to prove the alleged demand. Further, the subsidy was sanctioned in favour of Lakshni Bai and Ramsheela Bai. However, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the demand was not made by them, but the alleged demand was made from the present complainant, in whose favour no subsidy was sanctioned nor he was beneficiary of Indira Awas Scheme. 31. Further, mere recovery of the 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 34 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 V. Sejappa v. State, (2016) 12 SCC 150, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 21 held as under: “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 35 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. On minute examination of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is quite clear that, with regard to the alleged demand of illegal gratification, there are material discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant PW-2, Anit Kumar Uike, and other prosecution witnesses. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer 36 PW-9, M.L. Negi, it is clear that the tape recorder, in which the alleged conversation was recorded, remained in the custody of the complainant from 04.04.2015 till 14.04.2015 and no inquiry or scientific examination was conducted to rule out any possibility of tampering with the recording. Further, no voice sample of the complainant or the appellant was taken and no voice analysis was conducted to establish that the voice recorded in the tape recorder was that of the appellant. The evidence of the panch witnesses also does not establish that they had heard the alleged conversation or verified the transcript before the trap proceedings. The contradictory and inconsistent statements of the prosecution witnesses, coupled with the aforesaid infirmities in the investigation, are not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the alleged offence. The recovery of the tainted amount from the appellant, even if it is found that the said amount was recovered from his possession, by itself is not sufficient to establish the essential ingredient of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has not been able to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 35. 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 37 bond shall remain in operation for a further period of 06 months as provided under Section 481 of BNSS Act, 2023. 36. The trial court record be send back forthwith along with copy of this judgment for necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved