MUKHTIAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.R.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                       [2017] 8 S.C.R. 109


MUKHTIAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.R.                    A
                                v.
                      STATE OF PUNJAB
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1163 of 2017)
                          JULY14,2017                               B

          [ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]
       Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: ss. 7 and 13 - Proof of
ingredients of ss. 7 and 13 - Demand of illegal gratification -
Conviction of Station House Officer of Police Station uls. 7 and 13 C
for taking bribe from the appellant - Upheld by the High Court. -
On appeal, held: Evidence with regard to the demand of illegal
gratification as made on the day of trap operation wholly inadequate
to comply with the pre-requisites to constitute the ingredients of the
offence with which the original accused had been charged -
Prosecution failed to prove the charge levelled against the original D
accused beyond all reasonable doubt - Courts below failed to
analyse the factual and legal aspects as involved in their true
perspectives - Thus, the order of the High Court affirming the
conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court is set aside.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court                                E
       HELD: 1.1 It would be patent from the materials on record
that the evidence with regard to the demand of illegal gratification
either of Rs.3,000/- which had been paid or of Rs.2,000/- as made
on the day of trap operation is wholly inadequate to comply with
the pre-requisites to constitute the ingredients of the offence F
with which the original accused had been charged. Not only the
date or time of first demand/payment is not forthcoming and the
allegation to that effect is rather omnibus, vague and sweeping,
even the person in whose presence Rs.3,000/- at the first instance
is alleged to have been paid has neither been produced in the
investigation nor at the trial. In other words, the bald allegation G
of the complainant with regard to the demand and payment of
Rs.3,000/- as well as the demand of Rs.2,000/- has remained
uncorroborated. His statement to this effect lacks in material
facts and particulars and per se cannot form the foundation .of a
decisive conclusion that such demand in fact had been made by H
                                 109
110           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A     the original accused. Viewed in this perspective, the statement
      of the complainant and the Inspector S, the shadow witness, in
      isolation that the original accused had enquired as to whether
      money had been brought or not, can by no means constitute a
      demand as enjoined in law as an ingredient of the offence levelled
      against the original accused. Such a stray query ipso facto in
8
      absence of any other cogent and persuasive evidence on record
      cannot amount to a demand to be a constituent of the offence
       under Section 7 or 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
      [Para 25] [119-F-H; 120-A-CJ
          1.2 Not only the prosecution version of demand and
C  acceptance of illegal gratification in the police station seems to
   be unusual, contradictions of the witnesses, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-
   5 with regard to the location of the transaction relating to Rs.2,000/
   - also renders it doubtful. It is also noticeably unusual that the
   currency notes when allegedly handed over by the complainant
 D to the original accused, the same instead of being keenly kept
   with him, were placed casually in the card board box placed on
   his table. Though the original accused, apart from imputing his
   false implication at the instance of Superintendent of Police said
   to be the relative of the complainant could not adduce. any
   evidence to consolidate the same, the fact remains that this officer
 E at the relevant point of time was indeed the Superintendent of
   Police and was the superior of PW5 who led the trap operation.
    [Para 26] (120-D-E]
          1.3 On an overall appreciation of evidence on record, in
   the context of the elucidation of law pertaining to proof of the
 F ingredients of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, the prosecution has
   failed to prove the charge levelled against the original accused
   beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial court as well as the High
   Court failed to analyse the factual and legal aspects as involved
   in their true perspectives and resultantly the determinations made
 G are not sustainable. The judgment and order of the High Court
   affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court
   is set aside. [Para 27] (120-F-G[
            P Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police,
            State of Andhra Pradesh and Am: (2015) 10 SCC 152;
 H          A. Subair v. State of Kera/a (2009) 6 SCC 587;
MUKHTIAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.R.                                  111
              v. STATE OF PUNJAB

      State of Kera/a v. C.P Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450 : [20111                        A
      6 SCR 864; B. Jayaraj v. State of A. P (2014) 13 SCC
      55 : [20141 4 SCR 554 - referred to.      ·
      Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab (2016) 11 SCC 357:
      [2016) 4 SCR 995; Somabhai Gopalbhai Patel v. State
      of Gujarat (2014) 5 SCC 103 - distinguished.                                B
                           Case Law Reference
      (2015) 10 sec 152                   referred to           Para 10
      (2009) 6 sec 587                    referred to           Para 14
      (2011) 6 SCR 864                    referred to           Para 14
                                                                                  c
      [20141 4 SCR 554                    referred to           Para 15
      (2014) 5    sec 103                 distinguished         Para 16
       (2016) 4 SCR 995                   distinguished         Para 16
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1163 of 2017.                                                                 D
      From the Judgment and Order dated 07. 01.2015 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRA-S. No. 2112-SB of2009.
       0. P. Bhadani, S. S. Pandey, Advs. for the Appellant.
       Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Kuldip Singh, Advs. for the Respondent. ·              E
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       AMITAVA ROY, J. 1. Leave granted.
       2. The appellant, heir of Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) has
carried this appeal to this Court against the affirmation of his conviction       F
under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), recorded at the first instance
by the learned Special Judge, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) in his judgment
and order dated 04.09.2009. Thereby the predecessor of the present
appellant had been, as a consequence of his conviction, sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 7 and            G
to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- therefor and further sentenced to 2 years'
rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(2) of the Act
along with fine ofRs.2,000/- with related default sentence.
       3. Though this verdict was challenged before the High Court by
·the original convict, he, during the pendency of the appeal expired,             H
1-12            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 8 S. C.R.


A      whereupon the present appellant got herself substituted with a bid to
       purge him of the stigma. She having failed in her endeavour as the appeal
       has been dismissed, seeks redress from this Court.
             4. We have heard Mr. O.P. Bhadani, learned counsel for the
       appellant and Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, learned counsel for the respondent.
 B            5. Sans the unnecessary details, the essence of the prosecution
       case is that the predecessor of the appellant, Mukhtiar Singh (also
       referred to hereinafter as original accused) while was serving as Station
       House Officer of Police Station, Ajnala was entrusted with the
       investigation of the case launched against Sarabjit Singh (complainant)
 c     by his (Sarabjit) wife under Sections 406,498A IPC. It was alleged by
       the complainant-Sarabjit Singh that the original accused in order to favour
       him in the investigation demanded and received bribe of Rs. 3,000/-
       from him (Sarabjit) and in the process and at the fag-end of the probe,
       demanded a further amount ofRs.2,000/- as illegal gratification to file a
       report of exoneration. That the original accused threatened to harass
 D     the complainant ifhe did not submit to his demand, was also imputed. At
       this, the complainant approached the DSP, Vigilance, FS-1 Unit - 2
       Punjab, Chandigarh and lodged a complaint disclosing the above facts.
          6. The said officer after recording the statement of the complainant
   took preparatory steps to lay a trap to intercept the original accused and
 E set up a trap team constituting amongst others oflnspector Satpal (PW2)
   andAman Kumar (PW3). Currency notes furnished by the complainant
   amounting to Rs. 2,0001- were smeared with phenolphthalein powder
   and handed over to the complainant to be delivered to the original accused
   on demand. Inspector Satpal (PW2) was nominated as a shadow witness
 F to accompany the complainant so as to be a witness to the possible
   transaction. Subsequent thereto, on the appointed day, the trap team
   visited the Ajnala Police Station, whereupon the complainant and the
   shadow witness met the original accused in his room. Thereafter the
   original accused having enquired as to whether money had been brought,
   the complainant handed over the prepared currency notes to the former,
 G who kept it in a card board box placed on his table. The prosecution
   version is that on this, the shadow witness signalled the other members
   of the trap team waiting outside, who thereafter entered the room,
    confronted the original accused with the demand and receipt of the
    currency notes whereupon, he took out the same from the card board
 H box and handed over those to trap team. As the fingers of the original
 MUKHTIAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.R.                            113
        v. STATE OF PUNJAB [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

 accused when dipped in the chemical compound prepared for the purpose A
 indicated that he had handled the currency notes, the investigating party
 completed the formalities and after obtaining the report of the Forensic
 Science Laboratory, lodged the prosecution against the original accused
 on obtaining the necessary sanction therefor.
         7. In support of the charge under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act B
  laid by the prosecution, which the original accused denied, it examined
  several witnesses including the complainant Sarabjit Singh (PW I), the
  shadow witness Inspector Satpal (PW2), Aman Kumar (PW3) and
  Paramjit Singh Khaira (PW5). In course of his examination under Section
  313 Cr.P.C., the original accused denied the correctness of the
  incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution and pleaded to be c
  innocent. He categorically denied to have either made any demand for
  illegal gratification or having received any bribe from the complainant
  and alleged that the complainant was a relative of Superintendent of
· Police, Mukhwinder Singh Cheena, who constantly pressurised him
  (original accused) not to file charge-sheet in the case lodged against the D
  complainant and that as he (original accused) did not succumb thereto,
  he was falsely implicated in the case through Sarabjit. The original
  accused also examined Lakhwinder Singh as a defence witness to
  demonstrate that the prosecution case of demand and recovery through
  a trap drill was a myth and that instead on the basis of the stratagem
  between Sarabjit and Superintendent of Police, Mukhwinder Singh E
  Cheena, he was forcibly lifted from outside the Ajnala Police Station
  and embroiled by fabricating records.
        8. The Trial Court however on the basis of the evidence on record
 held the charge against the original accused to be proved and as referred
 to hereinabove, the High Court by the impugned order, has sustained the     F
 conviction and sentence so recorded by it.
        9. As the impugned judgment would reveal, the High Court while
 noting that the original accused at the relevant time was in-charge of the
 investigation of the case under Sections 406,498A IPC initiated by the
 wife of the complainant against him, proceeded on the pre-supposition G
 that as both the original accused and the complainant belonged to the
 police force, there was a remote possibility of a false complaint being
 lodged. It held that the demand of Rs. 2,000/- and the receipt thereof
 had been established by the prosecution and there was no reason for the
 prosecution or its witnesses to lie against the original accused. The High H
114              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A Court however recorded that there was no direct demand of illegal
  gratification by the original accused from the complainant in the presence
  of the shadow witness at the police station, but the query made by him
  (original accused) of the money being brought or not did amount to such
  demand. In addition, the receipt of the currency notes of Rs. 2,000/-
  which was recovered by the trap team, did substantiate the accusation
8
  of demand as well. The High Court held the view that the imputation of
  false implication at the instance of the Superintendent of Police,
  Mukhwinder Singh Cheena, as made by the original accused in his 313
  Cr.P.C. statement, in absence of any evidence, did not merit acceptance.
  To reiterate, the High Court thus affirmed conviction and sentence
C awarded by the Trial Court.
           10. The learned Counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged
   that the evidence on record is visibly deficient to prove the demand,
   receipt and recovery of any amount of illegal gratification as alleged and
   thus as the indispensable ingredients of the offence with which the original
 D accused had been charged, have remained unproved, the conviction and
   sentence is patently untenable and if allowed to stand would result in
   gross travesty ofjustice. Without in any manner conceding to the charge
   ofreceipt or recovery of the amount of Rs.2,000/- as per the prosecution
   case, it has been alleged that in absence of any proof of demand therefor,
   the same is wholly inconsequential qua the prescriptions of Sections 7
 E and 13 of the Act. The prosecution having failed to establish any demand
   for bribe as alleged, no presumption under Section 20 of the Act is also
   available to further the charge, he urged. To buttress these pleas, reliance
   has been placed on the decision of this Court in P. Satyanarayana
   Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh
                  1
 F and Another •
           11. As against this, the learned Counsel for the respondent has
    submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is cogent and
    convincing and in the face of the concurrent findings of the two two
    courts below holding that the charge against the original accused had
 G been established, no interference is warranted. She has further asserted
    that not only the essential ingredients of the offence under Sections 7,
    13(2) of the Act have been amply proved by the prosecution, the view
    taken by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court finds endorsement
    in the pronouncements of this Court in Somabhai Gopalbhai Patel vs.
 H    1
          (2015) 10 sec 152
MUKHTIAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.R.                              115
       v. STATE OF PUNJAB [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

State of Gujarat2 and Mukhtiar Singh vs. State of Punjab3•                    A
       12. The contrasting arguments and the evidence on record to the
extent essential and relevant have been analysed.
       13. Before averting to the evidence, apt it would be to refer to the
provisions of the Act whereunder the original accused had been charged:
                                                                              B
        "7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal
        remuneration in respect of an official act. - Whoever, being, or
        expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to
        accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for
        any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal
        remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to C
        do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the
        exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person
        or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice
        to any person, with the Central Government or any State
        Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or D
        with any local authority, corporation or Government company
        referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant,
        whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with
        imprisonment which shall be not less than three years but which
        may extent to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
        13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant-(1) A public servant E
        is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, -

        (2) ............... "
        14. The indispensability of the proof of demand and illegal
gratification in establishing a charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, F
has by now engaged the attention of this Court on umpteen occasions.
In A. Subair vs. State of Kerala 4, this Court propounded that the
prosecution in order to prove the charge under the above provisions has
to establish by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of the illegal
gratification and till that is accomplished, the accused should be considered G
to be innocent. Carrying this enunciation further, it was exposited in ·
State ofKera/a vs. C.P. Rao 5 that mere recovery by itself of the amount
said to have been paid by way of illegal gratification would not prove the
'(2014) 5 sec 103
'(2016) 11sec357
• (2009) 6 sec 587
'(2010 6 sec 450                                                              H
                                                                                     .....
116            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove
                                                                                     •
  payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted
  the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained.
         15.ln P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), this Court took note of
  its verdict in B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P. • underlining that mere
B possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without
  proof of demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well
  as Section 13(l)(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.
c 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. Satyanaraya11a Murthy (supra) on a
D survey of its earlier decisions on the pre-requisites of Sections 7 and 13
  and the proof thereof summed up its conclusions as hereunder:
             "23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the
             gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d)(i) and
             (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge
 E           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
 F           from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 and 13
             of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder."
                                                             (emphasis supplied)
         16. The textual facts in Somabhai Gopalbhai Patel (supra) and
   Mukhtiar Singh (supra) and the quality of evidence adduced by the
 G prosecution are clearly distinguishable and are thus of no avail to the
   prosecution as would be discernible from the analysis of the materials
   on record.
            17. It is in the above adumbrated legal enjoinment, that the evidence
      on record has to be scrutinised. Having regard to the gravamen of the
 H    '(2014) 13 sec 55
MUKHTIAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.R.                            117
       v. STATE OF PUNJAB [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

charge and the imperatives of demand ofillegal gratification, the receipt A
and recovery thereof, the evidence on.record relatable thereto only need
be noticed.
        18. Sarabjit Singh (PW!), the complainant stated that on
01.06.2005, he was posted with Traffic Police at Moga and that at the
instance of his wife, a case under Section 498A IPC had been registered B
against him inAjnala Police Station. He stated that the original accused,
who was a sub-inspector of Ajnala Police Station was conducting the
investigation of the case, agreed to allow him to participate in the
investigation on payment of Rs. 3,000/-, which was accordingly paid.
The witness alleged that the original accused made a further demand of
Rs.3,000/-, whereafter negotiation was scaled down to Rs.2,000/-, so as C
to favour the complainant in the case, with the threat that if the demand
was not met, he would see that he is harassed in connection therewith.
According to this witness, he being disinclined to advance further illegal
gratification, lodged a complaint with DSP Paramjit Singh Khaira, who
recorded his statement and requisitioned from him currency notes of D
Rs. 2,000/- comprised of three notes ofRs.500 and five notes of Rs. l 00
each, treated those with phenolphthalein powder and constituted a trap
team with Inspector Satpal as shadow witness and Aman Kumar Mani
 and Shashi Kant. The witness further stated that the police party thereafter
visitedAjnala Police Station and he and Inspector Satpal met the original
 accused in his room and on being asked as to whether the money had E
 been brought or not, he handed over Rs.2,000/- as prepared to the original
 accused, who received the same and after counting the money kept in a
 card board box. At this, the shadow witness signalled the waiting members
 of the raiding party along with the DSP Paramjit Singh Khaira, who
 entered the room, intercepted the original accused and recovered the F
 currency notes on being handed over by him on demand. The witness
 also stated about the exercise undertaken by dipping the hands of the
 original accused in the liquid compound prepared, which turned pink to
 indicate that he had handled the currency notes treated with
 phenolphthalein. The witness also proved the currency notes as Ex. P 1
 to PS.                                                                       G

      19. In his cross-examination, the complainant admitted that M.S.
Cheena, the then Superintendent of Police, Vigilance was posted as S.S.P,
Moga but denied that he was related to him. He could not recall the date
on which he had paid Rs.3,000/- for the first time to the original accused
and admitted of not having made any complaint in connection therewith. H
118             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A He conceded that one Santosh Singh Lamberdar of his village was with
  him when he paid this amount but the said person had not been produced
  as a witness either in the investigation or at the trial. He admitted as
  well that the card board box containing the money was not seized. He
  however denied the suggestion that he had been pressurising the original
  accused to conclude the investigation in his favour and that he had
B
  implicated him falsely. He also denied the suggestion that there was
  neither any demand for illegal gratification by the accused nor was any
  sum as alleged accepted by or recovered from him.
         20. Inspector Satpal (PW2), who was the shadow witness, after
  reiterating the statement of the complainant with regard to the pre-trap
C proceedings, stated that he along with the complainant on that day met
  the original accused and followed to his quarter in the building of the
  police station whereafter the original accused enquired of the complainant
  as to whether he had brought the money, on which, the latter handed
  over three currency notes denomination of Rs.500 and five currency
D notes of Rs.100 each to him and that he kept the same in a card board
  box lying near him. The witness stated that he then gave a signal to the
  other members of the raiding party including the D.S .P. (Vigilance) who
  entered the room and undertook the steps pertaining to recovery and
  seizure as narrated by the complainant.
E            21.In cross-examination, this witness did not refer to the quarter
      of the original accused in the building of the police station and stated that
      both he and the complainant met him in his room in the police station. He
      however confirmed that the card board box was lying on the table of the
      accused which was not seized by the police. He denied the suggestion
      that he was not a member of the raiding party and that he had signed the
F     memo while sitting in his office.
         22. Aman Kumar Mani (PW3) is a witness to the steps taken by
  the raiding party after it had entered the room in response to the signal
  given by the shadow witness. According to him, on being enquired, the
  original accused took out the currency notes of Rs.2,000/- from the box
G lying in his room and that the same tallied with those set out in the memo
  prepared by the police. He proved as well the currency notes as Ex.Pl
  to P8.
          23. Superintendent of Police, Paramjit Singh Khaira (PW5), deposed
  that he was posted as DSP (Vigilance) FS-1, Unit-2, Punjab, Chandigarh
H on 0 I .06.2005. He stated that on that day, he recorded the statement of
MUKHTIAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.R.                           119
      v. STATE OF PUNJAB [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

the complainant pertaining to the demand ofillegal gratification made by A
the original accused. He thereafter constituted a trap team as above
and treated currency notes totalling Rs.2,000/- for the exercise and led
the party to the Ajnala Police Station. The witness affirmed that Inspector
Satpal was nominated as the shadow witness to accompany the
complainant to witness the actual transaction and track the accompanying B
conversation and to give signal to the trap team at the appropriate point
of time. This witness however stated in categorical terms that the
 complainant and the shadow witness went to the house of the original
 accused whereas the other members of the trap team waited outside
 and when Inspector Satpal flagged his signal, the house of the accused
 situated near Ajnala Police Station was raided. He stated that the police C
 party intercepted the accused and on being asked, he took out the
 currency notes of Rs.2,000/- from the card board box placed on the
 nearby table which tallied with those mentioned in the pre-trap, prepared
 memo and seized the currency notes. That the fingers of the original
 accused were dipped in the liquid compound, which turned pink was D
 also stated.
       24. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that Mr.
Mukhwinder Singh Cheena was at the relevant time posted as
Superintendent of Police, Mohali and that he was his in-charge, then. To
the suggestions made, the witness stated that he had no knowledge that
the complainant was related to Mukhwinder Singh Cheena and that the         E
latter had been pressurising the original accused not to pursue the case
against the complainant. He also denied the suggestion that the Mr.
Cheena was the brain behind the raid and the registration of the case
against the original accused.
        25.It would thus be patent from the materials on record that the F
 evidence with regard to the demand of illegal gratification either of
 Rs.3,000/- which had been paid or ofRs.2,000/- as made on the day of
 trap operation is wholly inadequate to comply with the pre-requisites to
 constitute the ingredients of the offence with which the original accused
 had been charged. Not only the date or time of first demand/payment is G
 not forthcoming and the allegation to that effect is rather omnibus, vague
 and sweeping, even the person in whose presence Rs.3,000/- at the first
 instance is alleged to have been paid i.e. Santosh Singh Lamberdar, has
 neither been produced in the investigation nor at the trial. In other words,
 the bald allegation of the complainant with regard to the demand and
                                                                              H
120                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017] 8 S.C.R.



A     payment of Rs.3,000/- as well as the demand of Rs.2,000/- has remained
      uncorroborated. Further to reiterate, his statement to this effect lacks in
      material facts and particulars and per se cannot form the foundation of
      a decisive conclusion that such demand in fact had been made by the
      original accused. Viewed in this perspective, the statement of complainant
B     and the Inspector Satpal, the shadow witness in isolation that the original
      accused had enquired as to whether money had been brought or not,
      can by no means constitute demand as enjoined in law as an ingredient
      of the offence levelled against the original accused. Such a stray query
      ipso facto in absence of any other cogent and persuasive evidence on
      record cannot amount to a demand to be a constituent of the offence
C     under Section 7 or 13 of the Act.
             26. ln·addition thereto, not only the prosecution version of demand
      and acceptance of illegal gratification in the police station seems to be
      unusual, contradictions of the witnesses, PW-!, PW-2 and PW-5 with
      regard to the location of the transaction relating to Rs.2,000/- also renders
D     it doubtful. It is also noticeably unusual that the currency notes when
      allegedly handed over by the complainant to the original accused, the
      same instead of being keenly kept with him, were placed casually in the
      card board box placed on his table. Though the original accused, apart
      from imputing his false implication at the instance of Superintendent of
      Police Cheena, said to be the relative of the complainant could not
E     adduce any evidence to consolidate the same, the fact remains that this
      officer at the relevant point of time was indeed Superintendent of Police
      at Mohali and was the superior of PW5 who led the trap operation.
             27. On an overall appreciation of evidence on record, in the context
      of the elucidation oflaw pertaining to proof of the ingredients of Sections
F     7 and 13 of the Act as adverted to herein-above, we are of the unhesitant
      opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against
      the original accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The charge against
      him therefore fails. The Trial Court as well as the High Court had failed
      to analyse the factual and legal aspects as involved in their true
G     perspectives and resultantly the determinations made are not sustainable.
      The impugned judgment and order of the High Court affirming the
      conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court is set aside. The
      appeal is allowed.


      Nidhi Jain                                                     Appeal allowed.