High Court of Chhattisgarh · 2025
Case Details
1 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.09.24 16:22:41 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:49020 NAFR CRA No. 1686 of 2017 Judgment reserved on 19/09/2025 Judgment delivered on 24/09/2025 Mangla Prasad Shrivastav @ M. P. Shrivastav S/o Roopram Shrivastav, Aged About 59 Years Occupation Nodal Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Permanent Address Zone No. 2, Street No. 6, New Adarsh Nagar, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh versus Appellant(s) State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Counsel along with Mr. Suraj Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Adv. General Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge CAV Judgment Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24/10/2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Durg, C.G. in Special Criminal Case No.6/2014, whereby the learned Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- 2 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 Conviction Sentence Section 7 of the Prevention of R.I. for 1 year and fine of ₹10,000/- Corruption Act with default stipulation Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section R.I. for 2 years and fine amount of 13 (2) of the Prevention of ₹10,000/-, with default stipulation Corruption Act Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 1. (a) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Ankush Agrawal (PW-6) (henceforth ‘the Complainant’), was engaged in computer data entry and scanning work as proprietor of M/s Dabdiwal Computers, situated at Station Road, Durg. On 18.12.2012, he had undertaken the work of data entry and scanning of the District Co- operative Central Bank, Durg, pursuant to a work order. For this work, the complainant was entitled to receive a total sum of ₹1,21,000/-, out of which approximately ₹90,400/- had been paid, leaving a balance of ₹31,038/-. At the relevant time, the accused, Mangla Prasad Shrivastava @ M.P. Shrivastava, was posted as Nodal Officer in the said Bank. When the complainant approached the accused for release of the remaining payment, the accused allegedly demanded illegal gratification of ₹25,000/- at the rate of Rs.0.25 paisa per scan. As the complainant did not wish to pay the bribe and intended to catch the accused red-handed, he lodged a written complaint before the ACB Office, Raipur. (b) On receipt of the complaint, Inspector S.K. Sen (PW8) registered a 3 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 preliminary enquiry. For verification, the complainant was provided with a digital voice recorder to capture the demand of bribe. The complainant made a telephonic call to the accused, during which the accused instructed him to leave the internet modem and the agreed bribe amount at his house. This conversation was recorded on the complainant’s mobile phone and later produced before the ACB, where a transcript was prepared. Thereafter, panch witnesses were called, and a trap team was constituted. Twenty currency notes of ₹500/- each, totaling ₹10,000/-, were arranged, their numbers noted, and the notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. Demonstration of the sodium carbonate solution test was conducted before the complainant and the panch witnesses. (c) On 05.06.2013, as per the trap plan, the tainted money was kept in the left pocket of the complainant’s jeans with instructions to hand it over only on demand and to note where the accused kept the money. Around 11:30 a.m., the complainant went to the office of the accused. Upon enquiry by the accused, the complainant confirmed that he had brought the money, thereafter the accused directed him to place the cash inside the drawer of his table. The complainant accordingly placed the tainted money in the drawer and came out, giving the pre-arranged signal. The trap team immediately entered and caught the accused red-handed. The tainted notes were recovered from the drawer of the accused’s table, and their numbers matched with the earlier noted ones. Sodium carbonate test was conducted on the drawer, where the alleged money was kept by the complainant upon instructions of the accused, which turned pink on 4 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 contact, confirming handling of the tainted notes. (d) A detailed panchnama of the proceedings was prepared. The tainted money, sodium carbonate solution samples, and the complainant’s jeans pocket were seized and sent for chemical examination. Thereafter, FIR bearing Crime No. 21/2013 was registered against the accused for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. During investigation, relevant documents, including the complainant’s work order, bank records, and the service details of the accused, were collected. After completing investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, which was registered as Special Case No.
Legal Reasoning
06/2014. Upon cognizance, the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which were read over and explained to the accused. The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried. (e) In support of its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, namely, Chamanlal Sahu (PW-1), Anil Verma (PW-2), Kailash Hirwani (PW-3), R.K. Chandravanshi (PW-4), Shivcharan Sahu (PW-5), Ankush Agrawal (complainant, PW-6), D.R. Sahu (PW-7), S.K. Sen (Investigating Officer, PW-8), and Pushkar Singh Rawat (PW-9). Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C was recorded wherein, he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 2. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein 5 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned herein- above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant- accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 3. (i) Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. It is pointed out that the trap proceedings itself are doubtful, since the complainant (PW-6) did not follow the instructions of the I.O., kept the tainted money in the drawer in absence of the appellant, and yet gave the pre-decided signal to the ACB. The recovery from the drawer, without proof of the drawer being under the exclusive control of the appellant, and coupled with the negative phenolphthalein test of the appellant’s hands, clearly rules out voluntary acceptance. (ii)
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel would further submit that there was no pending bill of the complainant on the relevant date, and in fact the complainant had already received payment in excess of the work order, thereby falsifying the allegation of demand. The evidence of PW-7 D.R. Sahu and documents Exh.-P/17, P/17A, and P/28 corroborate that no bill was pending. The conduct of the complainant is suspicious as he failed to record the alleged demand on the digital recorder provided by the I.O., and instead relied on a mobile phone which has not been seized or proved to belong to him. The audio recordings (Ex.P/7) are inadmissible 6 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 in absence of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and no forensic examination has been conducted to prove the voice of the appellant. Even the panch witness PW-4 R.K. Chandravanshi turned hostile and deposed that the voices were mixed and there was no demand of bribe; he further admitted that pressure was exerted by the ACB authorities. (iii) Learned counsel would next submit that even the shadow witness PW-5 Shivcharan Sahu has also not supported the case, as his signatures are absent on the trap proceedings. The prosecution’s own witnesses have admitted that the bribe was not recovered from the appellant, that the phenolphthalein test was negative, and that the key of the drawer was not with the appellant. Thus, demand and acceptance are not proved beyond doubt. She would also submit that the sanction for prosecution of the accused suffers from serious defects, as it was not accorded by the competent authority and does not reflect due application of mind. The sanction order (Ex.P/25) is not signed by the members of the sub- committee and the Chief Executive Officer of the DCCB had no authority to accord sanction. Reliance has been placed on Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1979 (4) SCC 172). (v) Lastly, learned senior counsel would submit that the appellant has examined himself and brought on record that the complainant’s firm was non-existent and lacked valid TIN registration, and that due to confrontation regarding excess billing, the complainant lodged a false 7 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 case out of vengeance. In light of the above, the prosecution evidence is wholly unreliable, suffers from contradictions, and fails to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, thereby rendering the conviction unsustainable in law. 4. Conversely, learned counsel for the State would contend that the prosecution has successfully established the charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act beyond reasonable doubt. He would submit that there is a clear and categorical demand of illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant, which is evident from the very contents of the First Information Report. He would further point out that the demand and acceptance are also corroborated by the conversation recorded on the mobile phone of the complainant, which forms part of the evidence. It is further submitted that all the relevant proceedings were duly documented, and the signatures of both the Investigating Officer as well as the complainant were obtained on the contemporaneous records to maintain authenticity. In addition thereto, the transcript of the recorded conversation was prepared in accordance with law, which clearly supports the case of the prosecution. Thus, the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance stand proved, and the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court warrants no interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely. 6. For the sake of convenience, it would be appropriate to quote the relevant 8 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 case laws with regard to demand, acceptance, recovery of illegal gratification, which is quoted below : 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1724, held as under:- “68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarized as under. (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. (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. (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. (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 9 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 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 Section 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 Section 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 inturn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act. (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 10 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 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. (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. (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 a 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 Section 13 (1) (d) (1) and (ii) of the Act. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature." 8. In the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1191 the Supreme Court observed as under:- "8. There could be no doubt that the evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particular. After introduction of Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code making the person who offers bribe guilty of abetment bribery, the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused 11 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 with the crime has to be insisted upon.… 9. The status of person offering bribe and the caution required while assessing his evidence implicating a Govt. servant was examined by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in the case of M.Ο. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala, 1995 SCC (3) 351, wherein, it was held as under: “12. Now confining ourselves to the case of bribery it is generally accepted that the person offering a bribe to a public officer is in the nature of an accomplice in the offence of accepting illegal gratification but the nature of corroboration required in such a case should not be subjected to the same rigorous test which are generally applied to a case of an approver. Though bribe givers are generally treated to be in the nature of accomplices but among them there are various types and gradation. In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act the complainant is the person who gives the bribe in a technical and legal sense because in every trap case wherever the complaint is filed there must be a person who has to give money to the accused which in fact is the bribe money which is demanded and without such a giving die trap cannot succeed. When there is such a demand by the public servant from person who is unwilling and if to do public good approaches the authorities and lodges complaint then in order that the trap succeeds he has to give the money. There could be another type of bribe giver who is always willing to give money in order to get his work done and having got the work done he may send a complaint. Here he is a particeps criminis in respect of the crime committed and thus is an accomplice. Thus there are grades and grades of accomplices and therefore a distinction could as well 12 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 be drawn between cases where a person offers a bribe to achieve his own purpose and where one is forced to offer bribe under a threat of loss or harm that is to say under coercion. A person who falls in this category and who becomes a party for laying a trap stands on a different footing because he is a only a victim of threat or coercion to which he was subjected to. Where such witnesses fall under the category of "accomplices" by reason of their being bribe givers, in the first instance the court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration if necessary as a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case may vary having regard to the facts and circumstances." 10. What therefore, emerges from the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court is that the complainant's evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and the Court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration, if necessary, as a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case, may vary, having regard to the facts and circumstances. 11. In the matter of M.R. Purshotham Vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 3 SCC 247, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when demand of bribe is not proved by the prosecution, mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 13(1) (d) of the Act. 12. In B. Jaiyaraj v. State of Andra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 5, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said 13 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 of the Act unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. Presumption against public servant under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only if demand for acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. 13. Similar view has been taken in the matter of A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala, 2010 AIR SCC 1115 and Subhash Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2003 SC 2169. 14. Evidence on record, led by both the prosecution and the defence, is required to be scrutinized in order to ascertain whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification. Accordingly, the question that arises before this Court is whether the appellant had demanded illegal gratification from the complainant, and whether there was any acceptance thereof by the appellant. 15. Complainant- Ankush Agrawal (PW6) deposed that on 18.12.2012 he had undertaken the work of data entry and scanning for the District Cooperative Central Bank, Durg, for a total payment of about ₹1,21,000/-. Out of this, approximately ₹90,400/- had been paid to him, leaving a balance of ₹31,038/-. For releasing this balance amount, the accused demanded a bribe of ₹25,000/-. As he was not willing to pay the bribe, on 01.06.2013 he lodged a written complaint against the accused at 14 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 the Anti-Corruption Bureau Office, Raipur. On the same day, Inspector S.K. Sen handed over him a voice/tape recorder to record his conversation with the accused. On 02.06.2013, between 5.00 to 5.30 p.m., he called the accused who had directed him to leave the internet modem and the agreed bribe amount at his house. This entire conversation was recorded on his mobile phone bearing number 9827108335. This witness further stated that on 04.06.2013 he informed Inspector Sen about the developments over the phone, after which he was called to the ACB office at Raipur on 05.06.2013 at 7 a.m. with the mobile recording. At the ACB office, Inspector Sen introduced him to the panch witnesses. The recording was produced by him, heard by the officers, transcribed, and authenticated before further proceedings commenced. He further deposed that on 05.06.2013 he went to the ACB office, Raipur, with the first installment of the bribe money, i.e., ₹10,000/-, along with the mobile recording. He carried 20 currency notes of ₹500 denomination each. Thereafter, phenolphthalein powder was applied to the bribe money, which was kept in the left pocket of his jeans. He was instructed not to carry anything else in that pocket and to hand over the tainted notes to the accused only on demand. This witness further deposed that he, along with the trap team, proceeded to the Cooperative Bank at Durg in two government vehicles after the preliminary proceedings at Raipur. When he met the accused, the latter asked him whether he had brought the money. On his confirmation, the accused opened the drawer of his table and directed 15 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 him to place the money inside. The accused then locked the drawer and kept the key in the right pocket of his trousers, assuring that the payment would be prepared. Subsequently, he came out of the chamber with the accused and gave the pre-arranged signal by moving his hand over his head, as had been instructed during the preliminary proceedings. He further stated that upon his signal, Inspector Sen caught one hand of the accused, and panch witness D.S. Dhruv caught the other. On being questioned, the accused denied having accepted the bribe. This witness then informed the officers that the accused had kept the money in his drawer. When the accused was asked about the drawer and the key, he admitted that the drawer belonged to him and produced the key from his right pocket. Upon opening the drawer, the tainted currency was recovered, and the note numbers were tallied with those recorded earlier. This witness further deposed that the tainted notes were washed in sodium carbonate solution on the instructions of Inspector Sen, and the solution turned pink, which was then preserved in a sealed vial. Inspector Sen also prepared a CD of the pre-trap conversation, sealed it, and prepared the seizure memo. The tainted money was also seized under proper proceedings. He identified his written complaint dated 01.06.2013 lodged at the ACB office, Raipur, which was marked Exhibit P-20 and bore his signature. He also identified the memorandum prepared for handing over of the tape recorder on 01.06.2013 for recording the pre- trap conversation, which was marked as Exhibit P-21. He further confirmed his signature on the application dated 05.06.2013, marked 16 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 Exhibit P-19. The transcript of the recorded pre-trap conversation, prepared after the CD was made, was shown to him, which was marked Exhibit P-7, and he acknowledged his signature on it. He stated that for recording the conversation at the time of giving the bribe, a digital voice recorder was handed over to him, and the corresponding memorandum was prepared as per Exhibit P-10, which bore his signatures During cross-examination, this witness admitted that he was the proprietor of Dabdiwal Computers, which has now been closed. He confirmed that he had knowledge of computers and the internet and that his firm used to undertake government data-related work. He further admitted that although his firm had a Sales Tax Number and TIN Number, he does not remember them today, and that in the application and bills submitted by him the Sales Tax Number was not mentioned, though the TIN Number was included. At para 20, he admitted that from the payments he received, Sales Tax was deducted as per rules and that he used to deposit the same with the Sales Tax office. He further confirmed that his firm also sold computer parts. At para 21, he admitted meeting Mangala Prasad Shrivastava even prior to issuance of the work order. At para 22, he acknowledged that he does not remember who issued the work order, nor does he know who used to verify the bills submitted by him, and that the application for work did not mention the Sales Tax or TIN Numbers. At para 23, he admitted that he was given the work order dated 18.12.2012 for scanning and data entry work amounting to Rs. 1,21,448/- and that he retained a copy of every bill 17 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 submitted by him. At paras 24 to 26, he confirmed his signatures on multiple bills (Exhibits D-1 to D-7) and accepted that he had received payments corresponding to those bills. At para 27, he admitted that all payments from the Bank were credited to his firm’s account through demand drafts, and that by 27.05.2013 he had already received Rs. 1,45,356/- against the work order. At para 28, he admitted that he could not recall from memory which period or area of work the bill of Rs. 31,038/- related to and that he would need to check his records to confirm this. At para 29, he acknowledged the possibility that the Bank may have assigned him additional work beyond the original order. At para 30, he admitted that he had once visited the accused’s house to check a computer and that he used to communicate with the accused over mobile phone. Finally, at para 31, he admitted that prior to lodging the complaint, he had not recorded the accused’s voice, and that for bill payments he did not approach any other officers or employees of the Bank except the accused. At para 32, he admitted that he had not provided the modem to the accused by 05.06.2013 and that he had not submitted any written communication regarding pending bill payments to the Bank or the accused before filing the complaint. At para 33, he admitted that he first went to the ACB office on 01.06.2013, was given a digital voice recorder, and was instructed to record conversations. He further admitted that on 02.06.2013 he called the accused once, did not meet him in person at the Bank, and had not used the digital recorder until then. At para 34, he admitted that he called from his home, the 18 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 accused instructed him to leave the modem at the house, but he does not remember the exact discussion about the agreed bribe amount. He also admitted that his police statement does not specify which company’s mobile he used to record the conversation. At para 35, he admitted that the recordings were stored in his mobile voice recorder and that he played them before Inspector Sen on 05.06.2013. He denied that he made no attempts to record between 02.06.2013 and 05.06.2013, and confirmed he had attempted to record but it did not succeed. At para 36, he admitted that conversations did occur with the accused during 02.06.2013–05.06.2013, and that the recordings presented at the ACB office on 05.06.2013 were not made using a voice changer. At para 37, he admitted that the ACB did not take the accused’s voice sample in his presence and he does not remember if voice verification was done, but he acknowledged submitting a second complaint after listening to the recordings. At para 38, he admitted that the transcriptions (Exhibit P-7) did not mention the demand of Rs. 25,000/- or Rs. 10,000/-, and that he used a Samsung mobile. At paras 39–41, he admitted that during his first visit to the accused’s table, he did not meet the accused immediately, and that there were other employees present, including a female Bank employee. He also admitted that he placed Rs. 10,000/- in the drawer in the accused’s absence and that he did not know why this detail was not recorded in his police statement. At para 42, he admitted that he was not instructed by the ACB officers to hand over the money directly to the accused’s hand and that he cannot explain why certain details were 19 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 omitted from his police statement. At para 43, he admitted that the accused told him to get the bills prepared but did not handle the preparation himself, and he denied any conversation suggesting no pending bills or disputes at that time. At para 44, he admitted that he met Inspector Sen in the Bank gallery and indicated the bribe by a gesture (hand on head), which was not recorded in his police statement. 16. PW1-Chaman Sahu, one of the witness of pre-trap proceeding, has deposed that he has been serving as a municipal/home guard at ACB, Raipur for the past 10–12 years and that he did not know the accused personally. He stated that on 04.06.2013, Inspector Sen instructed him to be present at the ACB office at 7:30 AM for confidential work. He reported on time and met two witness-panchas, Shri Dhruv and Shri Chandravanshi, as well as the complainant, Ankush Agrawal. Introductions were made, and the complainant submitted a written complaint, which was read to the panchas. Satisfied with the reading, the panchas proceeded with the official process, during which the complainant provided Rs. 10,000/- as a bribe. The denominations and serial numbers of the notes were recorded by Panch Dhruv, and the notes were then handed to PW1, who applied phenolphthalein powder on them. The notes were placed in the complainant’s jeans pocket after frisking, under Inspector Sen’s direction, who instructed that the bribe should only be handed to the accused on demand, its location be disclosed, and after giving it, the complainant should signal by placing his hand on his head. After applying the phenolphthalein powder, PW1 washed his hands, 20 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 turning the solution pink, which was then seized. The seizure document was prepared as Exhibit P-1, bearing his signature in section A-A. PW1 clarified that he was not present at the location of the alleged bribe- giving; Inspector Sen had taken his statement regarding the procedure. During cross-examination, this witness admitted that he is on deputation as Home Guard and had not informed the ACB about this deputation. He confirmed that he received oral instructions from Inspector Sen to be present at the office for confidential work. He also admitted that the complainant was already present when he arrived and that he had not mentioned the exact timing of the complainant’s arrival in his police statement (Exhibit PD-1). He could not confirm whether the complainant lodged a complaint on 01.06.2013. He admitted that no frisking was conducted on the complainant except for taking the bribe notes. PW1 confirmed that placing the phenolphthalein-treated notes in the complainant’s pocket took 15–20 minutes and that his hands were not washed before applying the powder. He denied failing to place the bribe money in the complainant’s pocket or acting under ACB pressure. PW1 also stated that he could not recall minor procedural details but affirmed that the sequence of events described in his examination-in-chief was accurate. 17. PW2- Anil Verma, in his deposition has stated that he holds the post of Nodal Officer and has been employed with Reliance Communications Limited, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, since 2005. He stated that, pursuant to a 21 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 request from the ACB Raipur office dated 20.03.2014, he was asked to provide details regarding the mobile number 9827108335, including the subscriber’s name and call records from 02.06.2013 to 05.06.2013. Based on the records, he confirmed that the number was registered in the name of Ankush Agrawal alias Ramesh Agrawal and had been active since 22.03.2005. He further stated that the call details and the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act were prepared, which are marked as Exhibit P-2 and P-3, bearing his signature in Part A. He added that the information was provided pursuant to the application marked P-4. During cross-examination, this witness admitted that he had not submitted his educational or computer science qualifications to ACB Raipur and had not brought these certificates with him. He confirmed that he had not submitted any documents to substantiate the SIM allocation and that he had indicated in his own application dated 24.03.2015 that the CAF (Consumer Application Form) would be presented if available. He stated that call records are maintained on the main server in Mumbai and that he had downloaded the requested information from the Mumbai server. He further clarified that only an operator with the authorized password and ID can access information from the main server. This witness admitted that while the call details indicate the IMEI number of the mobile used, he had not recorded the IMEI number in his report. 18. R.K. Chandravanshi (PW4), has stated that in June 2013 he was posted as 22 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 Assistant Project Coordinator under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan at Collectorate, Raipur, and on receiving instructions from ACB Raipur regarding a complaint of demand of bribe by the accused, he went to the ACB office where Inspector Sen explained the trap procedure and introduced him to team members including Constable Mishra and Assistant Director Dhruv. At para 4, this witness has deposed that he had no conversation with the complainant and when the trap was conducted, they were outside and after getting the signal, they proceeded inside. According to this witness, when Inspector Sen asked the accused to open the drawer of his table where the tainted notes were kept, he was present there. On the accused opening the drawer, the bribe amount of ₹10,000/- was recovered. He has further stated that he cannot now specify the denominations of the recovered currency notes. He has stated that on dipping the bribe amount into sodium carbonate solution, the colour turned pink, and the pink-coloured solution was seized by the ACB officials in his presence. He has further stated that the ACB officials repeatedly told the accused to accept the bribe money, but the accused persistently refused to accept it. The ACB officials also told him that the money was his and that he should accept it, but even then the accused declined. At para 13, this witness has admitted that after listening to the conversation recorded on mobile through a recorder, the same was transcribed from the tape, and thereafter a CD was prepared using a laptop. At para 20, this witness has stated that when Inspector Sen asked the accused about the bribe amount, the accused again refused to accept 23 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 the bribe. He further stated that when the bribe amount recovered from the drawer was dipped into a water solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink. He also stated that whether the hands of the accused, when dipped into the solution, turned the colour pink or not, he cannot say today. This witness, at para 27, has categorically stated that during the proceeding the Complainant had gave a digital voice recorder to Investigating Officer- Sen, though no voice was recorded in that. This witness stated that the Complainant had told to IO that he had recorded the conversation in his mobile. During further examination, this witness has stated that The witness has stated that his signatures on Ex.P-7 were taken only after the proceedings had concluded and not on the second day at the ACB office. He does not know who carried out the transcription of Ex.P-7, which mobile model was used, or whether Ankush Agrawal assisted in its preparation. He did not identify the voice for preparing the transcription and signed Ex.P-7 only after comparing it with the transcript; the transcription procedure itself was not conducted in his presence. While listening to the recording, other voices were present, and no noise-reduction software was used. Ex.P-7 does not reflect the accused demanding ₹25,000 or any specific amount as bribe. After apprehending the accused, no voice sample was taken in the witness’s presence, nor was voice matching conducted before him. The mobile phone and memory card were not seized in the witness’s presence. He does not recall the date of the recording or the duration of the transcription procedure. On the day of the trap, the mobile 24 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 was with Inspector Sen, but its subsequent custody is unknown to him. At para 44, he has stated that when the complainant Ankush Agrawal entered the cooperative bank, the team was standing outside the bank across the road. He further stated that from the place where they were standing, Ankush Agrawal was not visible. He does not have any knowledge about whom Ankush Agrawal met inside the bank or what conversation took place. He also does not know the location of the accused at the time when Ankush Agrawal entered the bank. At para 46, this witness has stated that he cannot confirm whether there was a glass partition in the area where the accused was seated, though he further stated that some kind of partition arrangement was in place. He stated that the trap team did not require any key to enter the accused’s chamber, nor was any key of the chamber seized from the accused. He also does not have any knowledge about how Ankush Agrawal placed the bribe amount in the drawer. 19. PW5 – Shivsharan Sahu has stated that he was posted as a constable at ACB Raipur since 2012. On 05.06.2013, he attended the ACB office at 7:30 a.m. as directed by Inspector S.K. Sen. At the office, Inspector Sen introduced the trap team to the complainant Ankush Agrawal. The complainant submitted a written complaint and a mobile phone, which were examined by Inspector Sen and the Panch witnesses. The bribe conversation was transcribed from the mobile and a CD was prepared through a laptop. PW5 has stated that when he and the complainant entered the accused’s office, the accused was not present. They went out 25 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 and later re-entered, finding the accused seated. He followed them to the verandah, where Inspector Sen arrived and apprehended the accused. He has stated that the accused denied accepting the bribe when questioned by Inspector Sen, and that a personal search was conducted, but no bribe amount was found on the accused. The bribe was later reportedly recovered from the drawer, which the accused opened using a key from his pocket. PW5 has further stated that he did not see or verify the mobile conversation recording submitted by the complainant, and has no knowledge about the mobile’s make, the system used, or whether the accused’s voice was verified. He also did not see the work orders, bills, or scanning details submitted by the complainant, and his signatures are not on the verification or transcription records. He has stated that he did not sign any panchnamas for seizure of the CD, digital voice recorder, bribe amount, table drawer, or other trap-related proceedings. No daily register is maintained at ACB, and there is no documentary proof of his participation in the proceedings. PW5 has stated that the accused’s chamber had a wooden partition, but he does not know how many other employees were present or their interactions with the complainant. During the second entry, he sat in an outer room and could not hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused clearly. He also cannot recall the seating positions or whether the accused requested the complainant to show a bill before leaving the chamber. He has stated that the accused’s hands, when washed in the sodium carbonate solution, did not change its color. He does not know whether the table drawer was 26 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 open or closed before the accused arrived. PW5 has stated that he observed the events under the instructions of Inspector Sen and denies that he did not witness the occurrence or that his statement is untrue. 20. PW8, Shri S.K. Sen, Investigating Officer, deposed that he has been serving as Inspector in the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur since August 2004 and identified the accused present in Court. He stated that on 01.06.2013, the complainant Ankush Agrawal, proprietor of M/s Dabriwal Computers, appeared before the Superintendent of Police, ACB, Raipur and submitted a written complaint (Ex.P-20). The complainant informed that his firm was engaged in computer spare parts, data entry and scanning work and had received a work order from the District Cooperative Central Bank, Durg. Against work worth ₹1,21,448/-, payment of ₹90,409/- had been made and a balance of ₹31,038/- remained pending. For clearing the said bill, the accused, M.P. Shrivastava, Nodal Officer, demanded illegal gratification of about ₹25,000/- calculated at the rate of 25 paisa per scanned account. As the complainant was unwilling to pay, he desired to have the accused caught red-handed. The complaint was marked to PW8, who provided the complainant with a digital voice recorder for verification. The complainant thereafter recorded a telephonic conversation in which the accused reiterated the demand and asked him to drop the bribe and modem at his residence. On 05.06.2013, the complainant was called to ACB office with the recorded conversation and the proposed trap amount. Meanwhile, a memorandum was issued to the Collector, Raipur, 27 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 who deputed two panch witnesses, R.K. Chandravanshi and D.S. Dhruv. A trap team was constituted comprising Dy.S.P. B.S. Paikara, Inspector Jerol Lakra, Constables Shivsharan Sahu and Rampravesh Mishra, and Soldier Chamanlal. At 7:30 AM on 05.06.2013, the complainant, panch witnesses and trap team assembled at ACB office. The complainant submitted his second written complaint (Ex.P-19) and produced the mobile recording, which was played before the team as well as the panch witnesses. After being satisfied, the complaint was endorsed and a Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-33) was drawn. Transcript of the conversation was prepared (Ex.P-7) and a CD copy of the recording was seized (Ex.P-8). The complainant produced ₹10,000/- in twenty ₹500 notes, which were treated with phenolphthalein powder and kept in his pant pocket after noting their numbers. He was instructed to hand over the money only if demanded and to give a pre-decided signal after doing so. A demonstration test was conducted with sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink only when the constable who applied the powder dipped his fingers; the solution was sealed as sample (Ex.P-1). A preliminary panchnama (Ex.P-11) was prepared, and a second digital recorder was also given to the complainant (Ex.P-10). Thereafter, the team proceeded to the District Cooperative Bank, Durg. The complainant, accompanied by shadow witness Shivsharan Sahu, entered the accused’s chamber, while the trap team waited nearby. Soon thereafter, the complainant gave the pre-decided signal, whereupon the team rushed in and found the accused emerging from his chamber with the complainant. On being 28 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 questioned, the accused disclosed his name as M.P. Shrivastava but denied having received the bribe. Hand wash of the accused in sodium carbonate solution did not yield any colour change. The complainant and the shadow witness then revealed that the accused had directed the complainant to place the tainted notes in the drawer of his table, which was subsequently locked. On being confronted, the accused admitted that the key of the drawer was with him. Before opening the drawer, the panch witnesses were searched and nothing incriminating was found (Ex.P-12). A memorandum (Ex.P-13) was prepared acknowledging that the key of the drawer was with the accused. The drawer was thereafter opened by the accused himself, and the tainted currency notes were recovered in the presence of the panch witness D.S. Dhruv. PW8, Inspector S.K. Sen, further deposed that during the course of investigation, he seized various documents relating to the work order and bills of the complainant. As per seizure memo Ex.P-17, the original work order and related documents were attached to the case record, which were marked as Ex.P-17B (pages 118–124 of the file). Along with the work order, quotation copies were also seized (Ex.P-17C). He further stated that certain bills submitted by the complainant were also seized under Ex.P-17, including the bill dated 15.04.2013 for ₹2,078/-, already marked as Ex.D-4, bill dated 15.04.2013 for ₹10,333/- marked as Ex.D- 5, bill dated 16.04.2013 for ₹7,692/- marked as Ex.D-6, and bill dated 17.04.2013 for ₹17,949/- marked as Ex.D-7. He also seized confirmation orders relating to the work at villages Nagpura, Sailud and Arjunda. He 29 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 deposed that during investigation, a memorandum (Ex.P-40) was issued to the Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank, Durg, seeking the service book, appointment order, posting order, and details of work allocation of the accused. Another memorandum (Ex.P-41) was issued to the same authority seeking copies of the work orders issued to the complainant, details of the branches where scanning work was carried out, and particulars of bills submitted and payments made. In response, the Bank supplied information which was placed on record as Ex.P-42 (running into 8 pages). Information regarding pending bills of the complainant was also obtained and marked as Ex.P-28, P-30 and P- 31. PW8 further stated that he sought call detail records of the complainant’s mobile number 9827108335 from Reliance Mobile, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, for the period 02.06.2013 to 05.06.2013. The CDR and ownership details were exhibited as Ex.P-4, Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3. Similarly, the call details of the accused’s mobile number 7509868187 were also obtained through memorandum Ex.P-43, and the information was marked as Ex.P-44. Defence counsel objected to the exhibition of these records on the ground that the details were not supported with a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The objection was noted, but the Court admitted the documents provisionally as exhibits, keeping the question of admissibility to be decided at the stage of final appreciation of evidence. PW8 also confirmed that he recorded the statements of the complainant Ankush Agrawal, panch witnesses R.K. Chandravanshi and D.S. Dhruv, trap team members B.S. Paikara, Jerol 30 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 Lakra, Rampravesh Mishra, Shivsharan Sahu and Chamanlal Sahu, strictly as narrated by them, without addition or alteration. On completion of investigation, the case file was sent to the Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank, Durg, for sanction of prosecution against the accused M.P. Shrivastava. After obtaining sanction, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court. In cross-examination, PW8 admitted that the District Cooperative Central Bank is a cooperative institution governed by its own service rules, and that no document has been placed on record to show that its employees are Government servants or that the Bank receives aid or grants from the State or Central Government. He admitted that the appointment order of the accused (Ex.P-26) did not specifically mention the authority issuing it, and that the prosecution sanction order (Ex.P-24) was issued by the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to a resolution of the Staff Sub-Committee dated 04.08.2014. He conceded that no member of the Staff Sub-Committee was examined as a witness. He also acknowledged that Ex.P-25, being the resolution of the Staff Sub- Committee, did not bear signatures of its members, though it was authenticated by the Chief Executive Officer. PW8 further admitted that he did not verify whether the complainant’s firm, M/s Dabriwal Computers, had paid commercial tax or sales tax to the Government, nor did he check whether its registration had expired in March 2012. He denied the suggestion that the accused had informed him about the complainant’s firm being unregistered at the relevant time. The witness 31 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 stated that, as per the order sheet (Ex. P-17A), payment of ₹52,869/- was made to Ankush Agrawal on 11.02.2013 vide DD No. 3516; ₹38,052/- on 17.04.2013 vide DD No. 10255; ₹26,781/- on 01.05.2013 vide DD No. 10350; and ₹27,654/- on 27/29.05.2013 vide DD No. 11424. Thus, a total payment of ₹1,45,356/- had been made. However, he clarified that the actual work order was of ₹1,21,448/-, out of which only ₹90,409/- was paid, and a sum of ₹31,038/- remained pending in relation to Nandghat, Berla and Bori branches. The witness deposed that till 01.06.2013 Ankush Agrawal had not submitted any bill, but had only provided a summary. On 07.06.2013, he sought information from the District Cooperative Bank, Durg, which was replied through Ex. P-20, informing that as on 05.06.2013, no bill of Dabriwal Computers was pending. He admitted that a digital voice recorder was handed over to Ankush Agrawal on 01.06.2013 for verification, but when returned on 05.06.2013 it was found empty. The complainant explained that he had recorded the conversation with the accused over his mobile phone. The witness admitted that no such direction was given to record on mobile, nor was any voice sample of the accused obtained. He also admitted that he did not verify in which folder the recording was stored in the mobile. The recording presented by Agrawal was copied into a CD through USB connection, but no document was prepared to show the CD was blank before writing. He further admitted that the transcript (Ex. P-7) did not contain mention of demand of ₹25,000/-. He also conceded that it was not verified whether the mobile used had any voice-modifying software, 32 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 although technically voices can be altered through computers. The witness admitted that personal search (jama-talashi) was carried out in the ACB office at Raipur and that the tainted money was kept in the right pocket of the complainant’s jeans with a direction that it be handed over to the accused only on demand. He admitted that the complainant and trap team travelled to the spot in separate vehicles and did not arrive together. He further admitted that the team could not see what transpired between the complainant and accused inside the chamber before their entry. He accepted that when the accused was apprehended, he was coming out of the chamber and was not seated inside. The tainted money was not recovered from his exclusive possession, and on dipping his hand in sodium carbonate solution, no pink colour appeared. The witness also stated that the complainant had informed him about what had transpired during his first visit to the accused’s chamber along with shadow witness Shivsharan Sahu. 21. Pushkar Singh Rawat (PW-9), Nodal Officer, deposed that he had received a requisition from the Investigating Officer, ACB, seeking details of ownership of mobile number 9827108335 belonging to the complainant Ankush Agrawal, as well as call details from 02.06.2013 to 05.06.2013. In compliance with the requisition, he furnished the requisite information, which is exhibited as Ex. P-4. He further stated that the said information was accompanied by relevant documents and was duly signed and authenticated from his office. He further deposed that on the same requisition, details relating to mobile number 7509868187, stated to 33 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 be in use of the accused, were also furnished. The communication addressed by his office in this regard is exhibited as Ex.P-43, and the call details supplied thereunder are exhibited as Ex. P-44. In cross-examination, he admitted that the call detail records supplied by his office were system-generated and no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act was issued by him along with the documents. 22. The alleged bribe demand relies significantly on the mobile recording and its subsequent transcription (Ex.P-7) and CD. Under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, the authenticity and reliability of electronic evidence are paramount. PW4 has stated that he did not witness the preparation of the transcription, did not identify the appellant’s voice, and was unaware of the mobile model or whether the complainant assisted in preparing it. He signed Ex.P-7 only after comparing it with the transcript and not contemporaneously with the recording process. PW5, a shadow witness, confirmed that he did not verify the mobile recording, its transcription, or the appellant’s voice. Neither witness observed the seizure of the mobile, memory card, or the CD, nor did they sign any panchnamas for these proceedings. There was no forensic validation or expert verification of the recording, and overlapping voices and lack of noise-reduction measures further compromise the clarity of the record. Consequently, the evidence falls short of the requirements under Section 65B, raising substantial doubts regarding its admissibility and reliability. 34 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 23. Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act reads as under:- 65B. Admissibility of Electronic records- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. (2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:-- (a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer; (b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities; (c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and 35 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 (d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities. (3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether-- (a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or (b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or (c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or (d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly. (4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say, -- (a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer; (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position 36 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it. (5) For the purposes of this section,- (a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment; -- (b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities; (c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment. 24. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the matter of Anvar P.V. (supra) held as under:- 22..........An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65-B are satisfied. Thus case of CD, VCD, chip etc. the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65-B obtained at the time of taking the documents, without which, the secondary evidence 37 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 pertaining to the electronic record, is inadmissible. 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Anvar P.V. (supra), held that an electronic record, as secondary evidence, cannot be admitted unless the requirements of Section 65-B are satisfied. Therefore, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, or similar electronic media, such records must be accompanied by a certificate obtained at the time of taking the documents; in the absence of such certificate, secondary evidence pertaining to the electronic record is inadmissible. In the present case, the recording cannot be admitted even for the reason that the mobile phone in which the conversation was recorded has not been seized. 26. From the testimony of PW6 (complainant), it is clear that although he alleged a demand of ₹25,000/– by the appellant, the transcript (Ex.P-7) prepared from the mobile recording does not mention such demand or acceptance. PW6 himself admitted in cross-examination that the bribe amount was placed in the drawer in the absence of the appellant and that no specimen voice of the appellant was taken. These admissions weaken the prosecution’s case of demand and acceptance. 27. PW4 (panch witness) and PW5 (shadow witness) further corroborated that the appellant had refused to accept the bribe, and the recovery was made from the drawer. Both these witnesses categorically stated that they neither witnessed the complainant handing over money to the appellant nor saw the appellant physically handling the tainted notes. PW4 admitted that the transcript was not prepared in his presence, that he 38 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 could not identify the appellant’s voice, and that he had no knowledge of the technical process. Similarly, PW5 confirmed that he did not verify the recording or transcript, nor did he sign any panchnama relating thereto. 28. The Investigating Officer (PW8) also conceded that no specimen voice was obtained, no expert opinion was sought for voice identification, and the mobile phone/memory card containing the original recording was not seized in the presence of independent witnesses. PW2 and PW9, the nodal officers, admitted that the call detail records were provided without any contemporaneous Section 65B certificate. Thus, the mandatory statutory requirements to prove electronic evidence were not fulfilled. 29. In the absence of the requisite 65B certification, and with no scientific verification of the alleged conversation, the electronic record produced by the prosecution remains inadmissible. The conversation, which purportedly forms the foundation of the case, has not been proved to belong to the appellant, nor has it been shown to contain any demand of illegal gratification. 30. Even otherwise, the trap proceedings do not inspire confidence. The tainted currency was admittedly recovered from the drawer in the absence of the appellant, the appellant’s hand-wash did not turn pink, and there was no evidence of physical acceptance. PW4 and PW5 could not confirm the placement of the money or the condition of the drawer. These material inconsistencies go to the root of the prosecution story. 31. In light of the above infirmities, the prosecution has failed to prove 39 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of bribe. The electronic evidence is inadmissible under Section 65B, the oral testimonies lack corroboration, and the recovery itself stands unexplained. Accordingly, the case against the appellant remains unsubstantiated in law. 32. So far as the question of acceptance and seizure of illegal gratification is concerned, this Court deems it appropriate to carefully examine the evidence of the complainant, the shadow and panch witnesses, as well as the Investigating Officer. 33. Ankush Agrawal (PW6), the complainant, deposed that he had carried with him ₹10,000/– in powder-treated notes and, upon entering the office of the accused, placed the money in the drawer of the accused at his direction. He further stated that the accused was not touching the notes at that time, and the recovery was later effected by the trap party from the drawer. In his cross-examination, PW6 candidly admitted that the money was kept in the drawer in the absence of the accused, that no specimen voice of the accused was ever obtained, and that the transcript (Ex.P-7) did not record any demand of ₹25,000/– or acceptance of ₹10,000/– by the accused. 34. R.K. Chandravanshi (PW4), the panch witness, stated that during the trap the accused refused to accept the bribe despite insistence, and subsequently the money was recovered from the drawer. He admitted that he did not witness the actual handing over of the money, nor did he see 40 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 the complainant placing the notes inside the drawer. He further admitted that the transcript was not prepared in his presence, that he could not identify the accused’s voice, and that he was not aware of the technical process by which the CD or transcript was prepared. 35. Shivsharan Sahu (PW5), the shadow witness, deposed that he accompanied the complainant but did not observe the complainant actually handing over any bribe to the accused. He confirmed that the money was recovered from the drawer in the absence of the accused and that the hand-wash of the accused did not turn pink. In cross- examination, this witness admitted that he did not verify either the mobile recording or its transcript, nor did he sign any panchnama connected with the preparation of such electronic record. 36. Inspector S.K. Sen (PW8), the Investigating Officer, corroborated the recovery of ₹10,000/– from the drawer of the accused’s table. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that the accused’s hand-wash did not turn pink, that no voice sample of the accused was taken, and that no expert verification of the electronic record was ever conducted. He also admitted that the mobile phone, memory card, or original recording device was not seized in the presence of independent witnesses and that the transcript (Ex.P-7) did not reflect any clear demand of ₹25,000/–. 37. From the evidence of PW6, PW4, PW5, and PW8, it becomes evident that there was no direct proof of the accused voluntarily accepting the tainted money. The complainant himself admitted that the money was 41 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 placed in the drawer without the accused’s physical contact. Both panch and shadow witnesses denied witnessing the act of handing over. The Investigating Officer admitted to critical lapses in the procedure, including absence of voice sampling and lack of forensic verification. 38. Furthermore, the independent panch witness (PW4) did not support the prosecution on the aspect of demand or acceptance. Instead, he reiterated that the accused had declined to accept the bribe. The shadow witness also failed to corroborate the prosecution case. Their statements, coupled with the negative hand-wash result, strongly dilute the evidentiary value of the recovery. 39. The prosecution also sought to rely upon the electronic evidence in the form of the mobile recording, CD, and transcript (Ex.P-7). However, neither PW4 nor PW5 attested the preparation of the transcript or identified the accused’s voice. PW2 and PW9, the nodal officers, admitted that no valid certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act accompanied the call records. The Investigating Officer himself conceded that no such certificate was produced. Hence, the electronic record fails to meet the mandatory conditions of admissibility. 40. In addition, the complainant (PW6) admitted that the transcript did not contain any express demand of bribe, and both panch and shadow witnesses confirmed that the recorded conversation was overlapping and unclear in parts. No scientific or expert opinion was ever sought to establish the authenticity of the recording. Thus, the primary evidence of 42 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 demand and acceptance remains uncorroborated and unreliable. 41. The seizure of the tainted notes from the drawer, without establishing a voluntary acceptance by the accused, does not fulfill the ingredients of Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The complainant admitted to placing the notes in the drawer himself, while the witnesses denied seeing the accused handle them. The negative hand- wash test further reinforces the absence of physical contact. 42. The role of independent corroboration is crucial in trap cases. However, both PW4 and PW5, the panch and shadow witnesses, categorically failed to support the prosecution version regarding demand and acceptance. Their evidence, instead, supports the defence version that the accused had not accepted the bribe. 43. In view of these material contradictions, absence of direct proof of demand or acceptance, inadmissibility of the electronic record under Section 65B, and the negative outcome of the hand-wash test, the Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential element of voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification. Consequently, the seizure of the tainted notes from the drawer, without any evidence that the drawer was within the absolute control of the accused and without any corroborative evidence of demand and acceptance, remains unsubstantiated. 44. In order to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, it has to be borne in mind that: 43 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 (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 issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence. 45. While convicting the appellant, the trial Court has not considered the aforesaid evidence and deficiencies in the prosecution witnesses, thereby committing illegality. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the offence against the appellant. 46. Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is a sine qua non for establishing the guilt of the accused under the offence of bribery. To prove guilt, the prosecution must first establish the demand for illegal gratification and its subsequent acceptance, either through direct evidence oral or documentary or, in the absence of such, by circumstantial evidence. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove both the demand and acceptance of the alleged bribe. Even the 44 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 alleged recovery of bribe remains unproved. Consequently, the prosecution has not established the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 47. Apart from the above, the evidence regarding prosecution sanction is also relevant in favor of the appellant. 48. D.R. Sahu (PW7) deposed that he recognizes the accused, M.P. Shrivastava, and was posted as Additional Manager at the District Cooperative Bank, Durg, from 16.07.2010 to March 2015. He stated that on 05.08.2014, he granted prosecution sanction in Crime No. 21/2013 against the accused through a letter to the Inspector General, ACB, Raipur (Exhibit P-23). The sanction order (Exhibit P-24) and the certified copy of the approving officer’s meeting (Exhibit P-26) bore his signatures. PW7 brought the accused’s original first posting order and service book pursuant to Court summons. Certified copies (Exhibit P- 20C and Exhibit P-27C) bore his signatures, and the originals (Exhibit P- 26 and Exhibit P-27) were returned after verification. Discrepancies between Exhibit P-26 and P-26C were clarified as representing the same order. He also provided information requested by Inspector S.K. Sen, ACB, on 15.06.2013, including certified copies of the bank statement and the accused’s suspension order (Exhibit P-28 and P-29) and a notesheet of complainant Ankush Agrawal’s data entry and photo-scanning work (Exhibit P-31). PW7 further deposed that data entry orders were sent on 03.05.2012 and 18.12.2012 to Zenith Software Ltd., Bangalore, and M/s 45 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 Dabriwal Computers, Durg, with certified copies filed in the records. He confirmed that no bills of M/s Dabriwal Computers were pending as of 05.06.2013 and that payment without bill submission did not occur. PW7 clarified that prosecution sanction is granted by the Staff Sub-Committee, not the CEO, and Exhibit P-25 is a certified copy of its proceedings. His chief examination was adjourned for lunch, and all originals were returned after verification. 49. From the statements of PW7 (D.R. Sahu) and the documents produced in Court, it is evident that while PW7 provided certified copies and originals of the prosecution sanction letter, meeting proceedings, first posting order, service book, suspension order, and notesheets related to the complainant’s work, critical procedural irregularities are apparent. Exhibit P-28 confirms that no bills of M/s Dabriwal Computers were pending and no payments were made without submission of bills, establishing proper financial compliance. However, with respect to the prosecution sanction, PW7 clarified that only the Staff Sub-Committee is competent to grant such sanction, not the CEO. Exhibit P-25, which purports to record the sanction, was issued in the CEO’s name and lacks signatures of the Staff Sub-Committee members. This discrepancy indicates that the sanction was not validly authorized by the competent authority, thereby undermining the legal foundation of the prosecution against the appellant. While procedural documentation was otherwise maintained, the irregular issuance of the sanction renders it legally infirm and creates a doubt upon the sanctioning authority that whether the 46 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 sanction has been given by proper application of mind. 50. It is the trite law that the sanctioning authority must be shown to have applied its mind and no presumption regarding the sanction arising on facts can be drawn. 51. In the case at hand, there is no proper sanction to prosecute the accused/appellant because in the sanction order there is no signature of members of the Staff Sub Committee, which is competent to grant sanction to prosecute the appellant herein. In fact, the sanction order issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the DCCB, who is not the appointing authority of the appellant. The grant of sanction is not an ideal formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act. 52. Considering the above factual scenario, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification. In view of the insufficiency of evidence, the judgment passed by the trial Court is set aside, and the conviction of the appellant is quashed. 53. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under the aforementioned sections are hereby set-aside and he is acquitted of the charges. 54. The appellant is reported to be on bail. However, his bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and shall remain operative for a further period of 47 CRA No. 1686 of 2017 six months in view of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. (481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)}. 55. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri