JUDGMENT ( 1. ) ORIGINALLY, this appeal is filed by appellant Satishbhai Nagindas Gandhi, but during the pendency of the appeal, he has expired on 4.9.2007 and therefore, by an order dated 29.4.2008, his son named as Bantibhai Satishbhai Gandhi is joined as party - appellant. ( 2. ) THE original appellant - deceased has filed this Appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Valsad, in Special Corruption Case No.9 of 2002 (Old Special Case No.1 of 1993) dated 7.2.2003, by which the appellant ? accused convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(Gh) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. THE learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellant - accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and awarded sentence to the appellant to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, i/d, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. THE appellant was also ordered to suffer simple imprisonment for two and half years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, i/d, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(Gh) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. THE learned Special Judge has ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that in the year 1992 at Chikhali of Valsad District, the complainant was working as Labour Contractor. He had plot in the GIDC, Unai and he wanted to construct a factory for manufacturing the utensils. He had to fill up the form for the purpose of obtaining the loan. Therefore, he contacted the accused, who was serving as a Clerk at the relevant time in the District Industry Department, for obtaining the form for getting loan. When the complainant asked the accused for the form, the accused asked the complainant to give him Rs.300/-. Therefore, the complainant gave Rs.100/- to the accused at that time. The accused also told the complainant that he shall pay the remaining amount of Rs.200/- to him later on. Thereafter, the accused reminded the complainant about remaining amount of Rs.200/-. Hence, he approached the ACB office, Valsad. After following necessary formalities, the ACB officer and two panchas went to the office of the accused. The accused also told the complainant that he shall pay the remaining amount of Rs.200/- to him later on. Thereafter, the accused reminded the complainant about remaining amount of Rs.200/-. Hence, he approached the ACB office, Valsad. After following necessary formalities, the ACB officer and two panchas went to the office of the accused. The complainant met the accused and the accused asked the complainant whether he had brought those remaining amount. The accused gave remaining amount to the accused and as per prearranged signal, the ACB persons rushed to the spot, where the accused was sitting in the office and recovered the amount smeared with anthracene powder. ( 3. ) AFTER usual investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted the charge-sheet. In order to bring home the charge, prosecution had examined the witnesses and got exhibited a large number of documents. The witnesses examined by the prosecution viz. PW-1, Mohanbhai Nagarbhai Patel, complainant at Exhibit 12, whereas PW-2, Chhanabhai Sukkarbhai Patel, Panch at Exhibit 15, PW-3, Jayprakash Gunvantrai Vyas, Panch at Exhibit 17 and P.W.4 ? Husainmiya Sarfuuddin Saiyed, P.I. ACB at Exhibit 23. Thereafter, the documentary evidence viz. complaint at Exhibit 13, FIR at Exhibit 13/A, Form to be filled by complainant for small scale industry at Exhibit 14, Panchnama at Exhibit 16, form for sanction at Exhibit 18, forwarding letter at Exhibit 19, Seizure Memo at Exhibit 24, recovered documents from office of District Industry at Exhibit 25 and registration certificate at Exhibit 26. ( 4. ) THE trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. While doing so, the trial Court has also considered the defence version and rejected the same. Accordingly the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above by the trial court Learned senior advocate Mr. K.J. Sethna appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the judgment and order is bad in law, illegal and unwarranted. He further submitted that learned Sessions Judge has seriously erred in convicting the accused without properly appreciating the evidence. He also submitted that the sanction was given without application of mind and therefore, great prejudice is caused to the accused. He also submitted that the star witnesses like complainant and panch No.1 were declared hostile and therefore, the conviction and the sentence is required to be quashed and set aside. He also submitted that the sanction was given without application of mind and therefore, great prejudice is caused to the accused. He also submitted that the star witnesses like complainant and panch No.1 were declared hostile and therefore, the conviction and the sentence is required to be quashed and set aside. He also submitted that panch No.2, could have been examined by the prosecution to depose to the factum of the utterance of the words by the panch No.1 about what happened at the relevant time, but he was not examined by the prosecution. Ultimately, the weakest pieces of evidence have been led by the prosecution. Even the evidence of Investigating Officer is not inspiring any confidence. As per the submission of the learned senior advocate Mr. Shethna, the prosecution has not been able to prove that P.W.3, who had accorded sanction was quite competent to initiate and take disciplinary proceedings against the accused. ( 5. ) LEARNED senior advocate Mr. Shethna further submitted that the complainant and panch No.1 were turned hostile and therefore, benefits of doubt is required to be given to the accused. From the evidence of these witnesses, the aspect of demand is not proved and in turn acceptance is not proved and, therefore, judgment and order of conviction and sentence is required to be quashed and set aside. The complainant P.W.1 had no knowledge about the amount which was used for trap, and even the same was not counted by him. He also submitted that from the evidence of P.W. 2 - Chhanabhai Shukkarbhai Patel at Exhibit 15, nothing has come out about the demand and acceptance on the part of the accused. The said witness also turned hostile. He drew the attention to the evidence of P.W.3 ? Jayprakash Gunvantram Vyas at Exhibit 17, who was General Manager of District Industry, Valsad on 30.11.1992 and from his evidence, it is not established that the sanction which was given to prosecute against the accused, was proper or not. In case, if the sanction is not proper, then the question of conviction and sentence awarded to the accused is not sustainable in the eye of law. He also submitted that from the evidence of P.W.4 - Husainmiya Safruddin Saiyed, it is reflected that his evidence is not supported properly to lead the case against the accused. In case, if the sanction is not proper, then the question of conviction and sentence awarded to the accused is not sustainable in the eye of law. He also submitted that from the evidence of P.W.4 - Husainmiya Safruddin Saiyed, it is reflected that his evidence is not supported properly to lead the case against the accused. The panchnama and compliant, do not inspire any confidence for the alleged offence. He also submitted that the further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was not properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge. In his further statement, the accused has denied about the currency notes found in the pocket of the accused. Even the accused denied about the recovery of the bribe amount and cloths. He also submitted that when the star witnesses like complainant and panch No.1 turned hostile and panch No.2 was not examined, then the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is not tenable in the eye law. Therefore, he lastly prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge and now, the accused is no more and therefore, his legal heir ? his son is joined as appellant. So, the appeal is required to be allowed. ( 6. ) LEARNED APP Mr. H.L. Jani for the State, vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned senior advocate Mr. Shethna. As per his submission, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 cannot be rejected in toto. LEARNED APP also read the further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that the accused has not explained properly the incident and the case of the accused is not believable, as he involved in serious offence under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act. He also read the contents of evidence of P.W.1 ? Mohanbhai Nagarbhai Patel, complainant and submitted that though the said witness turned hostile, but the contents stated in his evidence and the contents of complaint and panchnama are corroborated wholly and therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had not made demand by way of illegal gratification from the complainant. If the evidence of P.W.2 ? Mohanbhai Nagarbhai Patel, complainant and submitted that though the said witness turned hostile, but the contents stated in his evidence and the contents of complaint and panchnama are corroborated wholly and therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had not made demand by way of illegal gratification from the complainant. If the evidence of P.W.2 ? Chhanabhai Shukkarbhai Patel is carefully scrutinized, the recovery of the amount is not denied in any way because the amount which was given towards bribe was found from the pant of the accused and though the said witness turned hostile, it cannot be said that the amount was not recovered from the accused and it cannot be denied that without demanding money, how the amount was found in the pant of the accused and especially, same was smeared with anthracene powder. He also read the contents of panchnama and complaint. LEARNED APP Mr. Jani has also read the evidence of P.W.3 - Jayprakash Gunvantram Vyas, who was serving as General Manager in the department of the accused and as per his evidence, he was competent to give sanction to prosecute the case against the accused. This witness has properly studied the papers and thereafter, he accorded sanction to prosecute the case against the accused. Therefore, on the aspect of sanction, it cannot be said that the complaint was filed wrongly against the accused because the competent Authority after verifying the papers, accorded sanction to prosecute the case against the person, who is involved in such kind of offence. From the evidence of P.W.4 ? Husainmiya Sarfuddin Saiyed, the stains of anthracene powder were found on palm, fingers and thumb of the accused and even on the notes, the stains of anthracene powder were found. Therefore, the witnesses i.e. P.W.1 and P.W.2, though they were declared hostile, it cannot be said that the accused had not made demand and also had not accepted the money from the complainant and thereby, the order and judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be said unjust or improper, in any way. Here in this case, the recovery of the bribe amount was made from the sole possession of the accused and stains were found on the body of the accused. Here in this case, the recovery of the bribe amount was made from the sole possession of the accused and stains were found on the body of the accused. He also submitted that the complainant in his evidence, stated at para 11 that the complainant had not given bribe amount forcefully, but the accused demanded the same and therefore, he had given the bribe amount to the accused. Therefore, the conduct of the accused is doubtful because, the form for obtaining loan, which was filled in by the complainant, reflected the names of the complainant and his factory. Therefore, it is established that the accused was very well involved in the offence by considering the other aspects of case like evidence, complaint and panchnama. Mr. Jani, learned APP also submitted that from the evidence of P.W.2 ? Chhanabhai Shukkarbhai Patel (Exhibit 15), more particularly para 7, it transpires that the accused called the complainant to other chamber, where no one was there and the complainant gave bribe amount to the accused by right hand and the same was accepted by the accused by his left hand and the accused put the same in left side pocket of pant and when the ACB persons reached there, the amount was recovered from the left pocket of the pant of the accused. Therefore, the demand and acceptance are proved by independent witness because in presence of this witness, the accused demanded money and accepted the same from the complainant. The form which is at Exhibit 26 was also recovered from the office of the accused, which was not sent through post to the complainant. He also submitted that all the evidence on record, are against the accused and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. Hence, the appeal may be dismissed. Learned APP submitted that if the witness turned hostile, it cannot be said that the other evidence, which are on record, are not material and it also cannot be said that in case the material witness turns hostile, the prosecution fails to prove the case against the accused. He relied on the decision of Himanshu Alias Chintu Vs. State (NCT OF DELHI) reported in (2011)2 Supreme Court Cases 36, more particularly paras 30 and 31 read as under: "3o. He relied on the decision of Himanshu Alias Chintu Vs. State (NCT OF DELHI) reported in (2011)2 Supreme Court Cases 36, more particularly paras 30 and 31 read as under: "3o. In Prithi v. State of Haryana decided recently, one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) noticed the legal position with regard to a hostile witness in the light of Section 154 of the Evidence Act,1872 and few decisions of this Court as under (SCC pp.544-45, paras 25-27) "25. Section 154 of the Evidence Act, 1872 enables the court in its discretion to permit the person who calls a witnesses to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Some Courts had earlier taken the view that when a witness is cross-examined by the party calling him, his evidence cannot be believed in part and disbelieved in part, but must be excluded altogether. However this view has not found acceptance in later decision. As a matter of fact, the decisions of this Court are to the contrary. In Khujji v. State of M.P. , a three- Judge Bench of this Court relying upon earlier decisions of this Court in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa and Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka reiterated the legal position that : (Khujji ase, SCC p.635, para 6) '6. ... the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether put the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on careful scrutiny thereof.' 26. In Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat this Court again reiterated that testimony of a hostile witness is useful to the extent to which it supports the prosecution case. It is worth noticing that in Bhagwan Singh this Court held that when a witness is declared hostile and cross-examined with the permission of the court, his evidence remains admissible and there is no legal bar to have a conviction upon his testimony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence. 27. It is worth noticing that in Bhagwan Singh this Court held that when a witness is declared hostile and cross-examined with the permission of the court, his evidence remains admissible and there is no legal bar to have a conviction upon his testimony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence. 27. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that th testimony of PW 6 should be either accepted as it is or rejected in its entirety, thus, cannot be accepted in view of the settled legal position as noticed above.? 31. The aforesaid legal position leaves no manner of doubt that the evidence of a hostile witness remains admissible evidence and it is open to the court to rely upn the dependable part of that evidence which is found to be acceptable and duly corroborated by some other reliable evidence available on record. The High Court and the trial court, thus, cannot be said to have erred in acting on the evidence of PW 11 which was duly corroborated by the other reliable evidence on record. We find no flaw in the judgment of the High Court affirming the conviction of A-2 and A-3 under section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.? ( 7. ) HEARD the parties and perused the record. It appears from the judgment that learned Sessions Judge has specifically made attempt to frame the charge in connection of the demand and acceptance. ( 8. ) I have perused the record as well as judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. I have perused the oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. They have been declared hostile, but the P.W.1, who is complainant, is material witness. From evidence of P.W.1 ? Mohanbhai Nagarbhai Patel at Exhibit 12, it appears that he was labour contractor at Chikhli in 1992 and he wanted to construct building of factory, for manufacturing the utensil. Therefore, he needed a loan for which he approached the office of District Industry Center, Valsad. The accused was working as Clerk in the said office and complainant met the accused for taking such loan. At that time, the accused told the complainant to give him Rs.300/-, but the complainant was having only Rs.100/- at that time and therefore, the complainant had given Rs.100/- to the accused. The accused also told the complainant that remaining Rs.200/- would be given to accused later on. At that time, the accused told the complainant to give him Rs.300/-, but the complainant was having only Rs.100/- at that time and therefore, the complainant had given Rs.100/- to the accused. The accused also told the complainant that remaining Rs.200/- would be given to accused later on. Thereafter, the complainant approached ACB office for filing complaint against the accused under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act. ACB officer was pursued everything to the complainant and as per trap plan, the complainant along with two panchas reached at the office of the accused, where the accused was very well available at his place. Thereafter, the accused told the complainant to come at other chamber, where nobody was there. The accused told the complainant that "have you brought the money? and in reply, the complainant told that "he had brought money? and the complainant gave money to the accused. Immediately, the complainant made prearranged signal to the ACB persons and caught the accused. In cross-examination of the complainant, he had admitted that he had no animosity with the accused or any relation with the ACB officers or panch. He also admitted that he had not given the bribe money forcefully to the accused, but the accused demanded the money from him, therefore, he had given the money to the accused. He also admitted that the recovery of the said bribe amount was made from the pant of the accused. Even, the form which was recovered from the office of the accused, reflected the name of the complainant and his factory's name. He also admitted that the accused demanded bribe money twice from him. It is also reflected from the evidence of this witness that the accused would do the work, if something in form of money is given to the accused. I have perused the evidence of P.W.2 Chhanabhai Shukkarbhai Patel and from his evidence, it appears that some conversation took place between the complainant and accused and thereafter, the complainant gave money to the accused and the accused put the same in pocket of the pant. Thereafter, prearranged signal was made to the ACB persons and the ACB persons rushed to the spot and recovered bribe money from the pant put on by the accused at that time. This witness identified the accused. Thereafter, prearranged signal was made to the ACB persons and the ACB persons rushed to the spot and recovered bribe money from the pant put on by the accused at that time. This witness identified the accused. This witness also admitted that the accused had demanded the money towards illegal gratification from the accused. He also admitted that the stains of anthracene powder were found on the hands of the accused as well as the same were found on the pant of the accused. No doubt both these witnesses turned hostile, but the facts narrated in other evidence, which are on record, are corroborated. Looking to the evidence of P.W.3 ? Jayprakash Gunvantram Vyas, who was General Manager in District Industry Center, Valsad, and competent Authority of the accused, it appears that he had accorded sanction after duly verified the papers and he had authority to suspend the employee. The evidence of P.W.4 ? Husainmiya Sarfuddin Saiyed reflects that this witness perused complaint at Exhibit 13, which was filed by complainant against the accused under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This witness also stated that as per trap, this witness, complainant and panch reached at the office of the accused and on receiving prearranged signal from the complainant, they caught the accused and recovered the bribe amount from the pant of the accused. During the course of experiment of ultra violet lamp, the marks of anthracene powder were found on the thumbs and tips of the accused and also same were found on the pant of the accused. The notes which were smeared with anthracene powder, were recovered from the possession of the accused. I have perused the cross-examination of this witness. I have also perused the complaint and panchnama and they are corroborated with the evidence led by the witnesses. Therefore, it is established that the accused demanded bribe money from the complainant for doing the work and after arranging the trap, the recovery was made from the possession of the accused and therefore, the aspect of the acceptance is also proved. The stains of anthracene powder were found on the hands of the accused as well as on the pant of the accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had not demanded the bribe money and had not accepted the same. ( 9. The stains of anthracene powder were found on the hands of the accused as well as on the pant of the accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had not demanded the bribe money and had not accepted the same. ( 9. ) I have perused the case relied on by learned APP Mr. Jani. In the said referred case of Himanshu Alias Chintu (Supra), it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as stated above in para 30 and 31. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the evidence of hostile witness remains admissible evidence and it is open to the Court to rely upon the dependable part of that evidence, which is found to be acceptable and duly corroborated by some other reliable evidence available on record. ( 10. ) I have referred the case of Gopalbhai Oghadbhai Parkh Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 (1) GLR 89 . The Division Bench of this Court has held as under in Head Note (B) : "(B) Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872) ? Sec. 154 ? Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947) ? Secs. 5(1) (d) and 5(2) ? Complainant declared hostile ? In cross-examination by Public Prosecutor, complainant admitted the contents of complaint and panchnama ? contents that facts stated by complainant in his cross-examination cannot be used as substantive evidence ? Contention negatived." Therefore, it is clear that the evidence of other witness is sufficient to hold the involvement of the accused in the commission of offence. I have also referred the case of Habeeb Mohammad Vs. State of Hyderabad reported in AIR 1954 SC 51 , regarding the submission made by the learned senior advocate Mr. Shethna that the material witness panch No.2 is not examined by the prosecution then the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is not just and proper, hence, requires to be quashed and set aside. In the said decision in para 11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed in detail and held that "It is bounden duty of the prosecution to examine a material witness, particularly, when no allegation has been made that if produced, he would not speak the truth. In the said decision in para 11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed in detail and held that "It is bounden duty of the prosecution to examine a material witness, particularly, when no allegation has been made that if produced, he would not speak the truth. Not only, does an adverse inference arise against the prosecution case from his non production as a witness in view of illustration (g) to Section 114 of Evidence Act but the circumstances of his being withheld from the Court casts a serious reflection on the fairness of the trial. AIR 1936 PC 289. Rel. On AIR 1945 PC 42, Distinguished.? ( 11. ) AS the material witness turned hostile, the entire evidence cannot be said to be washed off. In this connection, I have also referred the decision in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Anirudhsing and Anr. reported in 1997 GLR (3) 2245, Head Note D and more particularly paras 28 to 30, which are as under: "28. The next question is : Whether the evidence that Anirudhsing was apprehended on the scene of evidence immediately after the occurrence is proved? In this behalf, though the prosecution sought to examine number of witnesses, unfortunately, most of them turned hostile to the prosecution. What is the weight or acceptability of the evidence of hostile witnesses has been considered by this Court in some decisions. In Khujji V. State of M.P. 1991(3) SCC 627 : JT 1991(3) SC 151, this Court said that : "The evidence of PW 3 ? Kishan Lal and PW 4 ? Ramesh came to be rejected by the trial Court because they were declared hostile to the prosecution by the learned Public Prosecutor as they refused to identify the appellant and his companions in the dock as the assailants of the deceased. But Counsel for the State is right when he submits that the evidence of a witness, declared hostile, is not wholly effaced from the record and that part of evidence which is otherwise acceptable can be acted upon. It seems to be well setteld by the decisions of this Court ? Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana ( 1976(1) SCC 389 ), Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa ( 1976(4) SCC 233 ) and Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka ( 1980(1) SCC 30 ) ? It seems to be well setteld by the decisions of this Court ? Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana ( 1976(1) SCC 389 ), Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa ( 1976(4) SCC 233 ) and Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka ( 1980(1) SCC 30 ) ? that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannnot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.' 29. In that case, the evidence of a hostile witness was scanned by this Court and found to be accepted and relied on. In State of U.P. V. Ramesh Prasad Mishra 1996(10) SCC 360 : JT 1996(9) SC 566, it was held thus : "It is rather unfortunate most unfortunate that these witnesses, one of whom was an advocate, having given the statements about the facts within their special knowledge under Sec.161 recorded during investigation, have resiled from correctness of the versions in the statements. They have not given any reason as to why the investigating officer could record statements contrary to what they had disclosed. It is equally settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused, but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted.? 30. in view of the above settled position, merely because some of the witnesses have turned hostile, their ocular evidence recorded by the Court cannot be held to have been washed out or unavailable to the prosecution. It is duty of the Court to carefully analyse the evidence consistent with the prosecution case is acceptable or not. It is the salutary duty of every witness who has the knowledge of commission of of crime, to assist the State in the evidence; unfortunately for various reasons, in particular deterioration in law and order situation and the principle of self-preservation may a witness turn hostile and in some instances even direct witnesses even direct witnesses are being liquidated before they are examined by the Court. In such circumstances, it is high time that the Law Commission looks into the matter. We are informed that the Law Commission has recommended to the Central Government to make necessary amendments to the Cr.P.C. And this aspect of the matter should also be looked into and proper principles evolved in this behalf. Suffice it to state that responsible persons like Sub-Divisional Magistrate turned hostile to the prosecution and most of the responsible persons who were present at the time of flag-hoisting ceremony on the Independence Day and in whose presence a ghastly crime of murdering a sitting M.L.A. Was committed have derelicted their duty in assisting the prosecution and to speak the truth relating to the commission of the crime. However, we cannot shut our eyes to the realities like the present ghastly crime and would endeavour to evaluate the evidence on record. Therefore, it is the duty of the trial Judge or the appellate Judge to scan the evidence, test it on the anvil of human conduct and reach a conclusion whether the evidence brought on record even of the turning hostile witnesses would be sufficient to bring home the commission of the crime. Accordingly, we undertake to examine the evidence in this case.? Head Note (D) of the aforesaid decision is as under: (D) Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872) ? Sec. 154 ? Hostile witness ? Testimony of ? Merely because witness turned hostile, his entire evidence cannot be said to be washed off ? Court to analyse the evidence and reach a conclusion whether part of the evidence, which is consistent with the prosecution is acceptable. " ( 12. ) I have also referred the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narayana Vs. State of Karnakata reported in 2011(3) GLH (N.O.C.) 3, wherein the it has been held that : "Merely because independent witness to trap had turned hostile, accused cannot be acquitted.? So, in result, it is not an issue to consider that the complainant and panch firstly they declared hostile then their evidence must be discarded by the Court. Here in this case, the P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been declared hostile but when the Court found the evidence of witnesses trustworthy, reliable and acceptable then their evidence cannot be washed out. So, in result, it is not an issue to consider that the complainant and panch firstly they declared hostile then their evidence must be discarded by the Court. Here in this case, the P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been declared hostile but when the Court found the evidence of witnesses trustworthy, reliable and acceptable then their evidence cannot be washed out. Therefore, I am of the view that the demand and acceptance on the part of the accused were proved. I have also found from the perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is trustworthy, reliable and acceptable. I have also perused the further statement recorded under Section 313 of the accused, but the accused has failed to tender proper explanation in connection of his involvement in commission of the offence. ( 13. ) FROM the perusal of the evidence, it is found that present appellant is a public servant and he, in his own capacity, had accepted the bribe amount from the complainant. So the conduct of the present appellant is proved by documentary as well as oral evidence. When he made demand of illegal gratification and when he accepted the same, then it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has committed criminal misconduct. The aspects of demand and acceptance on the part of the appellant - accused are very well proved by the prosecution. The learned Special Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant accused after considering the evidence produced before him. I do not find any substance and hence, the appeal is required to be dismissed. ( 14. ) IN view of the above observation, I do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. The judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Valsad passed in New Special Corruption Case No.9 of 2002 (Old Special Corruption Case No.1 of 1993) dated 7.2.2003 is hereby confirmed. The original appellant ? Satishbhai Nagindas Gandhi has expired during the pendency of this Appeal, therefore, no other order is required to be passed. Bail bonds stands cancelled. R and P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.