Judgment Z.K. Saiyed, J.—By way of present appeal, filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wife of the original appellant (now deceased)-accused has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09th September, 1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad City, in Special Case No. 05 of 1992 whereby the learned Special Judge was pleased to convict the appellant-original accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, and also imposed fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine; sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. The appellant-original accused was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) which is punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, and also imposed fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. 2. Heard Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants. Mr. Raju has contended that the appellant-original accused has expired and as his wife wants to prosecute the matter further, he is arguing the matter on merits. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, complainant has its own factory for manufacturing aluminum and steel utensils at Sanand. The father of the complainant, who has expired on 4th November, 1990, owns a telephone. As the complainant was receiving excessive bills of telephone, he gave one application on 05th June, 1991 under his signature to Accounts Officer, Shreeji Complex, Ahmedabad. On 5th July, 1991 the telephone was disconnected by the Telephone Department. The outstanding amount bill amount for the said bill was Rs. 2,755/-. It is the case of the prosecution that in pursuance to the application dated 5th June, 1991, the complainant received a communication dated 26th July, 1991 from Accounts Officer (Internal) (I), Navrangpura Telephone Exchange, Ahmedabad. Accordingly, the complainant went to meet the Officer on 26th July, 1991. At that time, the Officer verified the file of the complainant and told him to pay outstanding amount towards telephone bill and thereafter he will send his file at Shreeji Complex. Accordingly, the complainant went to meet the Officer on 26th July, 1991. At that time, the Officer verified the file of the complainant and told him to pay outstanding amount towards telephone bill and thereafter he will send his file at Shreeji Complex. Thereafter, on 31st July, 1991 the complainant went to Shreeji Complex and met Section Supervisor-appellant-accused. After verifying the file of the complainant, he told the complainant first to clear the outstanding dues towards telephone bills. At that time, the complainant gave another application dated 29th July, 1991 under his signature whereby he wanted to transfer the said telephone on his name and also to disconnect the S.T.D. Service. It is the case of the prosecution that at that time the appellant-accused told the complainant that after the payment of outstanding dues towards telephone bill, for three to four months, telephone would not be connected and for transfer, it will take further three to four months time. It is further the case of the prosecution that the appellant-accused showed the short-cut way to the complainant and told to pay Rs. 500/- extra towards miscellaneous expenses to do the work of the complainant. The complainant agreed with the proposal of the appellant-accused against his wish. On that day, as the complainant was not having money, he had not paid the outstanding amount towards telephone bill. Accordingly, on 2nd August, 1991 the complainant met the present appellant-accused at about 13.30 hours and as per the instructions, paid two bills of Rs. 2,755/- and Rs. 916/- respectively as well as Rs. 100/- towards reconnection charges and received the receipts for the same. It is the case of the prosecution that at about 14.00 hours the present appellant-accused asked the complainant in his office as to whether he had brought miscellaneous amount of Rs. 500/-, to which the complainant replied that he has Rs. 200/-. Therefore, the appellant-accused told the complainant to pay Rs. 200/- and also told to pay remaining amount of Rs. 300/- to him before 18.00 hours at his office. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs. 200/- to the appellant-accused. Before giving the said amount of Rs. 200/-, the complainant noted down the numbers of currency notes. 4. Thereafter, as the complainant was not willing to pay bribe and inspite of that he has paid Rs. 300/- to him before 18.00 hours at his office. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs. 200/- to the appellant-accused. Before giving the said amount of Rs. 200/-, the complainant noted down the numbers of currency notes. 4. Thereafter, as the complainant was not willing to pay bribe and inspite of that he has paid Rs. 200/-, he approached the ACB Office, Ahmedabad and gave a written complaint at 15.30 hours. On receipt of complaint received from the complainant, services of two panchas were sought. The facts of the case were narrated to them and thereafter the experiment was made on the currency notes with the help of anthracene powder. The basic ingredients of the anthracene powder were made understood to the panchas as well as the complainant. After performing the experiment, preliminary part of the panchnama was drawn. The currency notes were smeared with anthrecene powder, i.e. three notes of Rs. 100/- each. The said notes were put in the left pocket of shirt of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant, panchas and members of the raiding party proceeded towards Shreeji Complex in Government Jeep Car. Thereafter, the complainant and the panch No. 1 went inside the office of the appellant-accused and stood near the table of the appellant-accused. Thereafter, after sometime the appellant-accused got up and told the complainant to come aside whereupon the complainant and the panch No. 1 followed the appellant-accused and went near the passage of toilet where the appellant-accused asked the complainant as to whether he has brought Rs. 300/- or not, to which the complainant replied in affirmative. The appellant-accused therefore, told in presence of panch No. 1 to give the said amount and accordingly, the complainant took out Rs. 300/-from the pocket of his shirt and gave to the appellant-accused in presence of panch No. 1. The said notes were counted by the appellant-accused and he put the same in the left pocket of his pant. Thereafter, the appellant-accused, complainant and the panch No. 1 came to the table of the appellant-accused and took their seats. Thereafter, the complainant went outside and gave signal, as agreed, to the members of raiding party. Thereafter, P.I. Mr.Puvar told the Head Constable to carry out experiment of ultraviolet lamp. In the light of ultraviolet lamp, shining particles were found on the hands of complainant and the appellant-accused. The pant put on by the appellant-accused was seized. Thereafter, the complainant went outside and gave signal, as agreed, to the members of raiding party. Thereafter, P.I. Mr.Puvar told the Head Constable to carry out experiment of ultraviolet lamp. In the light of ultraviolet lamp, shining particles were found on the hands of complainant and the appellant-accused. The pant put on by the appellant-accused was seized. Anthracene powder was also found on the upper portion and inner side of left pocket of the shirt of the complainant. Thereafter, second part of panchnama was drawn at about 20.15 hours in the office of the accused, which was signed by the panchas as well as P.I. Mr. Puvar. 5. Thereafter, offence came to be registered at R.C. No. 29/91 against the appellant-accused by C.B.I. Thereafter, Mr. K.D. Sinha, Police Inspector, carried out the further investigation and seized papers, currency notes pertaining to the case by preparing seizure memos, recorded statements of panchas, complainant and trapping officer. Thereafter, after obtaining sanction, charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant-accused. 6. Thereafter, charge at Exhibit 9 was framed against the appellant-accused. The appellant–accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to bring the home the charges levelled against the appellant-accused, the prosecution has examined witnesses and also produced documentary evidence in support of its case. The appellant-accused has also examined one witness in defence. 8. Thereafter, further statement of the appellant-accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, in which the appellant-accused has denied the case of the prosecution. The appellant-accused has stated in his further statement that he was unaware about calling of the panchas and drawing first part of the panchnama. The appellant-accused has denied that he obtained Rs. 200/- as bribe in the afternoon from the complainant and told him to pay Rs. 300/- by evening. He has admitted that second part of panchnama was prepared in his presence, but denied that signatures were obtained in his presence. The appellant-accused has also denied that Rs. 200/- was seized from him. The appellant-accused stated that a false case is filed against him. 9. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 9th September, 1997 held the appellant–accused guilty to the charges levelled against him as mentioned aforesaid. 10. 200/- was seized from him. The appellant-accused stated that a false case is filed against him. 9. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 9th September, 1997 held the appellant–accused guilty to the charges levelled against him as mentioned aforesaid. 10. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad City, the appellant-accused has preferred the present appeal. 11. Heard Mr. S.V. Raju, leaned Senior Counsel for the appellant-accused and Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned Special Prosecutor with Mr. R.C. Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 12. Mr. Raju, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused has argue out the matter in two folds. In the first fold, he has contended that original accused has expired and wife of the appellant-accused is facing financial problems. Her son is under treatment of brain tumor and therefore, prayed for some mercy. He has relied upon one judgment of Bombay High Court reported at 2004 CriLJ 3001 and contended that the Bombay High Court has considered the similar issue in that case and set aside the conviction. 13. Mr. Raju has read the oral evidence of P.W. No. 1-panch at Exhibit 17 and contended that in presence of panch No. 1 no demand was made by the appellant-accused and even demand and acceptance is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has also read the oral evidence of P.W. No. 2-Complainant at Exhibit 22 and contended that the was some relation between the appellant-accused and the complainant and due to that relation, the appellant-accused had given Rs. 500/- to the complainant to pay the outstanding amount towards telephone bill amount and that amount was received by the appellant-accused from the complainant, which is due to him. The said amount was not accepted in form of illegal gratification. Mr. Raju has further contended that the appellant-accused has already submitted this fact in his probable defence, which is not considered properly by the learned trial Judge. He has contended that Exhibit 26 affidavit-cum-declaration is required to be considered. The said amount was not accepted in form of illegal gratification. Mr. Raju has further contended that the appellant-accused has already submitted this fact in his probable defence, which is not considered properly by the learned trial Judge. He has contended that Exhibit 26 affidavit-cum-declaration is required to be considered. He has read the contention of the affidavit-cum-declaration at Exhibit 26 and contended that the complainant himself has stated in affidavit on oath that he was in short of amount and therefore, he met the appellant-accused and the appellant-accused was kind enough to lend Rs. 500/- to the complainant, which the complainant promised to return on the very same day. The complainant has further stated in his affidavit at Exhibit 26 that only because the appellant-accused lend him Rs. 500/-, he could pay the bills in question. He has also submitted that he has paid Rs. 200/- in the afternoon to the appellant-accused and subsequently he has paid the remaining amount of Rs. 300/-. He has clearly admitted in his affidavit that he has stated incorrect facts before the Anti Corruption Bureau against the appellant-accused. The amount of Rs. 200/- and Rs. 300/- found from the appellant-accused has nothing to do with any bribe or nothing to do with reconnection charges. Thus, from the affidavit-cum-declaration of the complainant at Exhibit 26 it is very clear that the appellant-accused is innocent and falsely he was involved in the offence. He has contended that the complainant himself turned hostile. From the contention of the affidavit at Exhibit 26 the defence has established his defence beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, contended that the appellant-accused is required to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him. He has also read the oral evidence of Trapping Officer and contended that the oral evidence of this witness is biased. Oral evidence of the Trapping Officer is not a corroborative piece of evidence. He has also contended that the present appellant-accused is innocent and he has been falsely involved in the present case. As per the affidavit of complainant at Exhibit 26 itself, it is crystal clear that Just to teach lesson to someone in the Telephone Department, false complaint is filed by the complainant. He has also contended that the present appellant-accused is innocent and he has been falsely involved in the present case. As per the affidavit of complainant at Exhibit 26 itself, it is crystal clear that Just to teach lesson to someone in the Telephone Department, false complaint is filed by the complainant. He, therefore, contended that the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge is required to be quashed and set aside and the appellant-accused is required to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 14. As against this, Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned Special Prosecutor with Mr. R.C. Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No. 1. Mr. Ravani has supported the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge. He has contended that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, circumstantial evidence and evidence produced on record, the order passed by the learned Special Judge is absolutely just, proper and correct and need not requires interference. He has read oral evidence of P.W. No. 2-complainant at Exhibit 22 and contended that demand and acceptance is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that the appellant-accused has demanded bribe amount from the complainant for reconnection of telephone and to transfer the telephone in his name and as the complainant was not willing to give bribe, filed the complaint. In connection with the demand, at first point of time, the complainant has given Rs. 200/- to the appellant-accused. The appellant-accused has specifically told the complainant to give remaining amount of Rs. 300/- to him by evening in his office. Thus, there is a specific demand is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has read the oral evidence of P.W. No. 1-Panch-No.1 and contended that he is an independent witness and in his presence, demand was made by the appellant-accused and it was accepted by the appellant-accused. He has also contended that from the oral evidence of this witness, recovery is also proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is also contended that anthrecene powder was found from the fingers, tips and pocket of the shirt of the appellant-accused. He has further contended that due to collusion with the appellant-accused, later on, the complainant has filed affidavit-cum-declaration, which is exhibited at Exhibit 26. The said affidavit cannot be considered in favour of the appellant-accused. The said affidavit is an afterthought and it was used as a defence version. He has further contended that due to collusion with the appellant-accused, later on, the complainant has filed affidavit-cum-declaration, which is exhibited at Exhibit 26. The said affidavit cannot be considered in favour of the appellant-accused. The said affidavit is an afterthought and it was used as a defence version. It is created evidence and it cannot be considered in favour of the appellant-accused. It is also contended that from the oral evidence of Trapping Officer, acceptance and recovery is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, contended that the appeal is required to be dismissed. 15. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused papers produced before me. I have also considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties. I have perused oral evidence of PW No. 1, who is an independent witness and a public servant. From the oral evidence of this witness, contention of Panchnama at Exhibit 19 is proved. I have also perused cross-examination of this witness. Even from cross-examination also, this witness has proved the case of the prosecution. It appears from the oral evidence of this witness that demand was made by the appellant-accused in presence of PW No. 1 and even the same is accepted in presence of this witness. The trap amount is recovered from the pant of the appellant-accused. Thus, demand and acceptance is proved beyond reasonable doubt through the oral evidence of PW No. 1. Even presence of anthrecene powder is also found from the finger, tips and pocket of the pant of the appellant-accused. I have also perused oral evidence of PW No. 2-complainant at Exhibit 22. The PW No. 2 has contended that the appellant-accused had demanded bribe amount for re-connection of telephone and to transfer the telephone in his name and in that connection, demand was made by the appellant-accused. As the PW No. 2-complainant was not willing to give bribe, he has registered a complaint against the appellant-accused with ACB Police Station and in that regard, preliminary panchnama was prepared and raid was carried out. It is clearly transpires from the oral evidence of this witness that the amount was From the oral evidence of PW No. 1 at Exhibit 17, I have found that demand is proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is clearly transpires from the oral evidence of this witness that the amount was From the oral evidence of PW No. 1 at Exhibit 17, I have found that demand is proved beyond reasonable doubt. I have also perused cross-examination of the complainant and from the cross-examination, acceptance of bribe money and recovery of the bribe money from the possession of the appellant-accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt. So far as affidavit-cum-declaration at Exhibit 26 is concerned, the same is filed later on. The said affidavit is filed as an afterthought by the appellant-accused and it is an created document. The said affidavit is filed only due to pressure of the appellant-accused. The defence has heavily relied upon the said concocted document. The defence has failed to establish that if the said affidavit at Exhibit 26 can be believed, then as to why the complainant at the first point of time gave evidence against the appellant-accused. The said affidavit at a belated stage and as an afterthought. I have also perused statement of the appellant-accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant-accused has failed to establish the probable defence. The defence taken by the appellant-accused is not trustworthy, reliable and acceptable. I have perused Section 20 of the Evidence Act and as per the Evidence Act, appellant-accused has to rebut the presumption, but in the instant case, the appellant-accused has failed to rebut the presumption. Mr. Raju has also relied upon the judgment of Bombay High Court, but the facts of the said case is different than the instant case. In the present case, demand, acceptance and recovery is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Apex Court has observed in so many cases that no leniency can be awarded in these type of cases. Corruption is a cancer of the society and I am of the opinion that no leniency can be awarded in these type of cases. As per the provision of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, presumption is required to be drawn against the present appellant-accused and when the appellant-accused has failed to rebut the presumption, defence version cannot be considered. 16. Hence, in view of foregoing reasons, present appeal is dismissed. As per the provision of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, presumption is required to be drawn against the present appellant-accused and when the appellant-accused has failed to rebut the presumption, defence version cannot be considered. 16. Hence, in view of foregoing reasons, present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09th September, 1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad City, in Special Case No. 05 of 1992, is hereby confirmed; however, as the appellant-original accused has expired, no order with respect to sentence is passed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.