Mr. A.B. Chaudhari, J. (Oral):- This appeal was preferred by the State of Punjab against the judgment dated 19.09.2005, passed by Judge, Special Court, Patiala, by which the trial Court had recorded order of acquittal.

2. Learned State counsel vehemently argued that evidence on record about demand and acceptance of bribe amount was duly proved by official witnesses. It is submitted that the presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act will have be raised against the accused in the wake of the recovery of tainted money from accused. He, therefore, submitted that trial Court went wrong by acquitting the respondent-accused.

3. None appears for the respondent.

4. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order. Dealing with the submission made by learned State counsel I find undoubtedly due to recovery of tainted money duly proved by the official witnesses would raise presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1979 SC 1408 and subsequent judgments following the said judgment, I find that the mere recovery itself is not enough to make order