Judgment M.D. Shah, J.—Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 1997 is filed by the appellant-original Accused No. 1-Wilfred Samuel Christian while Criminal Appeal No. 1160 of 1997 is filed by the appellant-original Accused No. 2-Rohitkumar C. Chunara being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and order dated 17-11-1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad, in Special Case No. 18 of 1992 whereby the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to suffer more RI for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Original Accused No. 1 was also ordered to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to suffer more RI for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Original Accused No. 2 was however acquitted of the said charge. 2. As the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 1997 died during the pendency of this appeal, his legal heir was permitted to continue the proceedings vide order dated 15-10-2007 passed in Cri. Misc. Appln. No.1325 of 2007. 3. As common facts and law are involved in both the appeals, both the appeals were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 4. Case of the prosecution in short is that one Ambalal Shankarlal Patel, the complainant herein, a resident of Room No. 177 of Block No. 74 of Gujarat Housing Board, Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad, had purchased the said room from one Babulal Shivlal Patel on 4-3-1986 for Rs. 25,000/- which was to be repaid in monthly instalment of Rs. 40/-. Since the complainant was out of Ahmedabad when municipal tax for the said room for the year 1987-88 was sent to the complainant, he could not file protest petition against the said assessment and as per the advice of his friend Natvarbhai Ramabhai, he initiated proceedings in Court. However, when municipal tax for the year 1988-89 was received, he made objection and hence, tax was again assessed and he was called upon to pay Rs. 64=73 and he deposited Rs. 75/- since he was not having change. On 1-9-1990, he paid Rs. 65/-. However, when municipal tax for the year 1988-89 was received, he made objection and hence, tax was again assessed and he was called upon to pay Rs. 64=73 and he deposited Rs. 75/- since he was not having change. On 1-9-1990, he paid Rs. 65/-. It is the further case that after the disposal of Tax Valuation Appeal preferred by the complainant for the year 1987-88 on 29-7-1991, the complainant with his friend Natvarbhai went to Tax Department of the Municipal Corporation on 18-9-1991 and produced copy of the judgment with an application and an acknowledgement receipt was also issued. It is the further case that at that time, one person named Christianbhai, present in the office told them that he was handling the said work and an amount of Rs. 500/- would have to be paid for doing the said work. Since the amount was excessive, they asked him to reduce it and it was allegedly told by Christianbhai that he knew Naturbhai and he would adjust the said amount by going to the shop of Natvarbhai and they left the place. After 15-20 days, Christianhai and one Rohit Chunara came to his house, but he was not present and it was informed by his wife that he was in the shop of Natvarbhai, but they could not be met and they left a chit to meet them between 3 and 6 p.m. in the Health Department of Municipal Corporation. However, they did not go to meet them. When he returned home from his service at about 4 p.m. on the date of complaint, Natvarbhai came to his house and told that Christianbhai and Rohit Chunara of AMC came and demanded Rs. 500/- which was reduced to Rs. 300/- which was asked to be collected on 4-1-1992 between 10 and 11 a.m. at his shop. Since he did not want to pay the said amount, he approached the ACB office and lodged the complaint. On receipt of aforesaid information, ACB conducted raid after following due procedure and filed charge sheet before the Special Court. The learned Special Judge thereafter framed charge against the accused at Ex. 2. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt against the accused, prosecution examined Ambalal Shankarbhai Patel at Ex.10, Rameshchandra Hiralal Patel at Ex. The learned Special Judge thereafter framed charge against the accused at Ex. 2. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt against the accused, prosecution examined Ambalal Shankarbhai Patel at Ex.10, Rameshchandra Hiralal Patel at Ex. 19 and Babubhai Hiralal Surti at Ex.21. The prosecution has also relied on several documentary evidence including complaint of Ambalal Shankarlal Patel at Ex. 11, panchnama of raid at Ex. 22, sanction to prosecute the accused at Ex. 23 among other evidence. After the evidence of prosecution witnesses was over, further statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused did not examine any witness. On conclusion of trial and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, present appellants accused were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid in the earlier part of this judgment giving rise to these appeals. 5. Heard learned advocate, Mr. A.D. Shah for the appellants and learned APP, Mr. L.R. Pujari for the respondent-State in both the appeals. 6. It is submitted by learned advocate, Mr. A.D. Shah that though there was no demand by the Accused No. 1, the learned Judge ought not to have relied on the evidence of the complainant, P.W.No.1, Ex.10 qua the alleged demand on 18-9-1991. It is further submitted that when the alleged demand was made by the Accused No. 1, Natvarbhai was present and it was stated by the complainant that Natvarbhai had told him about the visit of accused and payment of Rs. 500/- for reduction of tax and the demand was reduced to Rs. 300/- and hence, Natvarbhai ought have been examined by the prosecution as a witness to establish the alleged demand. The evidence of the complainant as regards demand is not trustworthy and not reliable in absence of evidence of Natvarbhai. It is further submitted that the alleged visit of accused at the residence of complainant and leaving a chit as stated by the complainant in the complaint also cannot be relied in view of the fact that the chit was not proved through any witness. It is further submitted that since the complainant did not have a direct talk with any of the accused with regard to the demand of Rs. It is further submitted that since the complainant did not have a direct talk with any of the accused with regard to the demand of Rs. 200/-, learned Special Judge gravely erred in relying on the evidence of the complainant for proving charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As regards acceptance, it is submitted that it was the case of the complainant that when the Accused No. 1 accepted the amount and when the complainant gave the agreed signal, the raiding party caught hold of the accused and hence, the currency note fell on the shirt of the accused and accused was called upon to pick the said amount. According to him, the entire evidence of complainant on this vital aspect is contrary to the prosecution case and he has not been cross-examined on this aspect. It is also submitted that no independent panch has been examined by the prosecution and the pancha examined by the prosecution is a selected person and known to the Investigating Officer. It is also submitted that there is an improvement in the version of Investigation Officer and his version is contrary to the prosecution case. It is further submitted that sanctioning authority has not been examined to prove the sanction order. He has relied on the following decisions: (i) A. Subair vs. State of Kerala reported in (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) page 85; (ii) Banarsi Dass vs. State of Haryana reported in (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) page 864; (iii) Gopal Lal Ghisulal Chhipa and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1998(1) G.L.H. Page 943; and (iv) Kanubhai Kantibhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1998 (1) GLH page 924. 7. Learned APP, Mr. Pujari, has submitted that it is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence of complainant, Investigating Officer and Panch Witness No. 2 and the panchnama that the Accused No. 1 demanded illegal gratification from the complainant and accepted the same from the complainant and was caught with the anthracene powdered currency notes. It is also proved by the prosecution that the Accused No. 2 has abated the Accused No. 1 in committing the alleged act. It is also proved by the prosecution that the Accused No. 2 has abated the Accused No. 1 in committing the alleged act. It is further submitted that after discussing and appreciating the evidence in proper perspective, the learned Special Judge has convicted the accused persons and sentenced accordingly and, therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the impugned judgment and hence, both the appeals require to be dismissed. He has also relied on the following decisions: (i) AIR 2011 Supreme Court page 608 in the case of C.M. Sharma vs. State of A.P. Th I.P. and (ii) AIR 1998 Supreme Court page 1474 in the case of State of U.P. vs. Zakaullah. 8. This Court has gone through the entire evidence more particularly the evidence of complainant, Panch Witness and Investigating Officer together with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge. It is pertinent to note that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the Accused No. 1 has been proved by the prosecution through the evidence of complainant and panchas. 9. The complainant, Ambalal Shankarbhai Patel, has been examined as P.W.No.1 at Ex.10. He has deposed that when he received the tax bill for the years 1987-88 for his house amounting to Rs. 1313=25, he was in his Village and when he returned, as time to file objection was over, appeal was filed in Small Causes Court at the advice of his friend Natvarbhai. It is further deposed that as it was decided in the said appeal that tax as per the previous assessment should be paid, he along with his friend Natvarbhai went to tax office with a copy of the order where Natvarbhai introduced him one person as Officer of Tax Department. He identified the Accused No. 1 as the said officer in the Court. It is further deposed by him that when he told that Officer that he had a judgment in his favour, it was told by that Officer that for doing his work, he will have to pay Rs. 500/- to him. It is further deposed that since he had no money, Natvarbhai told him that “Saheb” be called at his shop and they would give money as “Saheb” knows him well. 500/- to him. It is further deposed that since he had no money, Natvarbhai told him that “Saheb” be called at his shop and they would give money as “Saheb” knows him well. It is further deposed that after 15 days, Natvarbhai came to his house and told that Officer of Tax Department met him and reduced the illegal gratification from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 300/- and they would have to see the “Saheb” between 4 and 6 but they did not go to see him. It is also deposed that after few days, that Officers came to his house and gave a chit signed by Christian Saheb and Chunara Saheb as he being not there which is given to the police while filing the complaint with ACB. This witness has proved the complaint at Ex.18. He has also deposed that on the next day at about 7.45 p.m. he was called at ACB Office and was introduced with panchas. It is further deposed that “Saheb” told him as to whether he had brought the money to be given as bribe and replying in affirmative, he gave Rs. 300/- in three currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination numbers of which were noted in the preliminary panchnama and on which anthracene powder was applied. Since he was not able to recollect the complete details, he was allowed to refresh his memory. It is thereafter deposed that he had introduced panch No. 1 to Natvarbhai. It is further deposed that when he told Christian Saheb that he is having the judgment of the Court for assessing his tax, Christian Saheb told that he should forget about the talk of the Court and give Rs. 300/- as per their talk and his work would be over. He has further deposed that he thereafter gave Rs. 300/- to Christian Saheb which was accepted and putting the papers carried by him on the left side, he counted the money with both the hands and put up the same in his pocket of the shirt lifting his sweater and when he gave the agreed signal, ACB people came inside. It is further deposed that when both of his hands were checked in the ultraviolet lamp and from portion of belly to chest, anthracene powder marks were found on Christian. It is further deposed that when both of his hands were checked in the ultraviolet lamp and from portion of belly to chest, anthracene powder marks were found on Christian. After removing his sweater, when experiment of ultraviolet lamp was carried out on shirt and on left side pocket on the border line, anthracene marks were found. It is further deposed that when his pocket was searched through panch No. 1, comb, ball pen and anthracene power currency notes were taken out and on all these articles, anthracene powder mark was found and same were attached under a panchnama. 10. It is clear from the deposition of the complainant that he has supported the case of prosecution. His evidence is supported by the evidence of Rameshchandra Hiralal Patel, P.W. No. 2, Ex.19, who is a panch witness. The evidence of the complainant is further supported by the evidence of Investigating Officer, Babubhai Hiralal Surti, P.W. No. 3, Ex.21. 11. It is deposed by P.W.No.2, Rameshchandra, that he was working as Statistical Inspector in Animal Husbandry Office and on 4-1-1992 at about 7 p.m. clock, Mr.Surti, PI, from ACB came to act as panch with him. It is further deposed that when he came to ACB Office, he was introduced with the complainant. It is further deposed that Surti Saheb has taken Rs. 300/- of Rs. 100/- currency notes to be given as bribe from the complainant and after completing due procedure and drawing preliminary panchnama, same were kept in the right side pocket of the pants of complainant and they proceeded at about 9.30 a.m. and reached Ellora Hair Art where complainant introduced the panch to Natvarbhai, a friend of complainant. At about 10.15 a.m., two persons entered into the shop who were introduced by the complainant as Christian Saheb and Chunara Saheb. He has further deposed that after some time, when complainant told Christian Saheb to implement the judgment of his house tax assessment, Christian Saheb told to forget about Court’s talk instead to give Rs. 300/-. He has further deposed that when he told that he is a poor person, Chunara Saheb told that amount of Rs. 300/- reduced from Rs. 500/- is okey and hence, he did not say anything and the complainant took out Rs. 300/-. He has further deposed that when he told that he is a poor person, Chunara Saheb told that amount of Rs. 300/- reduced from Rs. 500/- is okey and hence, he did not say anything and the complainant took out Rs. 300/- from the right side pocket of the pants and gave it to Christian Saheb who accepted the same by putting the papers lying on his left hand on one side and counted the money with both the hands and put up the same on the left side pocket of his shirt and when they gave the agreed signal, ACB people came there and the Accused No. 1 was caught with anthracene powdered currency notes and other articles and panchnama was drawn there. 12. Evidence of this witness is fully supported by the evidence of Babubhai Hiralal Surti, Investigating Officer, PI of ACB and hence, his evidence is not repeated. 13. It is clear from the aforesaid evidence that all due procedures of raid were followed by the raiding party. It is proved by the prosecution through the evidence of aforesaid witnesses beyond reasonable doubt that it is the Accused No. 1 who has demanded the illegal gratification from the complainant for reducing the assessment of his house tax and after accepting the same from him, anthracene powdered currency notes of Rs. 300/- which were noted in the preliminary panchnama were recovered from his pocket. Apart from that, on the sweater, chest portion, belly, border line of pocket of shirt of the Accused No. 1 also, anthracene powder marks were found. Panchnama is proved through the evidence of these witnesses. The evidence of the complainant is supported by the evidence of independent panch witness and the Investigating Officer. When these evidence conclusive prove the offence against the Accused No. 1, no other evidence of any witness is required for basing conviction on the Accused No. 1. 14. A submission has been made by learned advocate, Mr. A.D. Shah that panch, Rameshchandra Hiralal Patel is a selected panch and is known to the Investigating Officer. In this connection, it is to be noted that when said Rameshchandra Hiralal Patel was cross-examined, he has admitted that when Investigating Officer came to his residence to tell him to act as panch, Panch No. 2-Arvindkumar Ramabhai Patel was also present with the Investigating Officer. In this connection, it is to be noted that when said Rameshchandra Hiralal Patel was cross-examined, he has admitted that when Investigating Officer came to his residence to tell him to act as panch, Panch No. 2-Arvindkumar Ramabhai Patel was also present with the Investigating Officer. He has however denied his relationship with the Investigating Officer. Merely because the panch is residing in the same colony of the Investigating Officer, Mr. Surti, it could not be said that he is a selected panch, however, his evidence has to be scrutinized with circumspection and if the evidence inspires confidence, then only, it can be relied on. On an appreciation of the evidence of this Panch Witness, Rameshchandra Hiralal Patel, it appears to this Court that he gives exact version and hence, his evidence can be relied upon as it is found to be trustworthy. 15. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the charges levelled against the Accused No. 1 have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and he has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge. Since the said findings appear to be just, legal and proper, same are not required to be interfered with. In view of the above, though there cannot be any dispute regarding the ratio laid down in the aforesaid reported decisions relied on by the learned advocate, Mr. A.D. Shah, as the charges against the Accused No. 1 has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 1997 would not be entitled to the benefit of those decisions. 16. As far as Accused No. 2 is concerned, it is not proved by the prosecution that he has in any way benefited by the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs. 300/- by the Accused No. 1 or that any share of the said amount of illegal gratification received by the Accused No. 1 would go to the Accused No. 2. The only role attributed to him is that he has uttered the words that the amount of Rs. 300/- reduced from Rs. 500/- by the Accused No. 1 is okey. Except this, nothing is there on record to hold the Accused No. 2 guilty for abating the offence. The only role attributed to him is that he has uttered the words that the amount of Rs. 300/- reduced from Rs. 500/- by the Accused No. 1 is okey. Except this, nothing is there on record to hold the Accused No. 2 guilty for abating the offence. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the charge for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not proved against the accused and hence, he is required to be acquitted of the said charge. 17. In view of the above, Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 1997 is dismissed. 18. Criminal Appeal No. 1160 of 1997 is allowed. The original Accused No. 2-Rohitkumar C. Chunara is acquitted of the charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He is on bail and hence, his bail bond shall stand cancelled. 19. The impugned judgment and order dated 17-11-1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad, in Special Case No. 18 of 1992 is modified to the aforesaid extent. 20. Office is directed to send record and proceedings to the court below forthwith. P P P P P