Judgment KOTHARI, J. Fructification of additional increments on undergoing of sterilization operation was the Government policy in practice at the relevant time. In the case of claim for additional increment, accused had said to have smelt - also said to have claimed cut - (chai-pani) - for moving papers for releasing the additional increment. The story relevant for the present purpose is, thus : 2. The complainant is one Manilal. He is a teacher in primary school at village Virpur, Taluka : Palitana, District: Bhavnagar. He claims to have two children. His wife has said to have undergone family planning (sterilization) operation on 7-7-1999. As per the Government Policy then prevailing, this act of his wife entitled him to have one additional increment in his pay. He claims to have applied for it in July, 1999 itself through proper channel and with necessary papers. Then things did not move even after lapse of two months. So, the teacher approaches Education Inspector Mr. Parmar and Mr. Parmar's Clerk Mr. Rambhai Kamalia-later person is the sole accused herein. Rambhai had alleged to have stated to him that said increment would be released after passing of the resolution, at the same time he alleged to have said to the complainant-teacher that he should arrange for Rs.500/- for chai-pani. Thereafter, the complainant alleged to have met, off and on, without any result. In December, 1999, the District Development Officer had held camp at Palitana and at that time the complainant has alleged to have tried to give him an application complaining him about injustice faced by him in the matter of increment. The Education Inspector has alleged to have restrained him by saying that "it is my job, and I would see that your increment is released. Yet, no noticeable progress in the matter". 3. Then on 7-3-2000 a day earlier from the date, as usual - on which the complaint was lodged - complainant was said to have summoned by the authorities in charge. After some talk, the complainant was asked to tender apology letter for the alleged representation he had made to the higher authority. It is also alleged that the amount of chai-pani was settled at Rs.400/-. 4. The complainant approaches A.C.B. Office, Bhavnagar and lodges complaint on the same day, i.e. 7-3-2000. 5. After some talk, the complainant was asked to tender apology letter for the alleged representation he had made to the higher authority. It is also alleged that the amount of chai-pani was settled at Rs.400/-. 4. The complainant approaches A.C.B. Office, Bhavnagar and lodges complaint on the same day, i.e. 7-3-2000. 5. As the story races towards the end, it ends in anti-climax because anticipated dramatic scene of acceptance and recovery of the trap amount did not take place. It is the case of failed trap, as the accused has alleged to have then denied the acceptance of money and that being so, no question of recovery. 6. It appears from the record that I.O was entertaining a belief that the accused has committed an offence and hence, the present case. 7. The prosecution has examined five witnesses, namely, (i) complainant Manilal Hakabhai Gohil at Exh. 17, (ii) panch witness Pankajbhai Labhshankerbhai Pandya at Exh. 20, (iii) P.I. Rakeshkumar Baldevkrushn Sharma at Exh. 48, (iv) P.I. Kantilal Panchabhai Chaudhari at Exh. 54 and (v) P.I. Kishorsinh Jorubha Gohil at Exh. 62. 8. Though this is a case of failed trap, the learned trial Court has laboured hard and lengthy and detailed discussion is made, - as if it is a usual case of demand, acceptance and recovery - in other words, usual case of successful trap. The conclusions he has drawn are (i) the present case is only a case of demand. For that also, the prosecution has not taken case of demand - it had held, - beyond the boundary of doubt; (ii) muddamal trap money are not produced; (iii) as to the assertion that increments of other teachers in such cases are released, it is clear from the record that none of such other teachers were examined, nor their statements were recorded by the police during the investigation. Therefore, it is not clear, whether increment of any such teachers in such instances were released or not. 9. The learned Advocate for the applicant, oblivious to unalterable fate of the case, has pressed for allowing the revision. The alternate submission is to remand the case. The main base of submission is - case of demand - is not possible to doubt. 9. The learned Advocate for the applicant, oblivious to unalterable fate of the case, has pressed for allowing the revision. The alternate submission is to remand the case. The main base of submission is - case of demand - is not possible to doubt. In support of demand, it was submitted that in none of the public office, any nature of work takes place or paper moves, unless negotiated amount or standard/fix payment is made. This general submission was elaborated by the learned Advocate, wherein range of submission extend to personal experience to Anna Hazare. In short, fact of the case gave opportunity to the learned Advocate to make general submission about our perennial problem-corruption. 10. On behalf of the accused, learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati has submitted that the judgment of the trial Court is just, proper and legal and no interference is called for. The learned Advocate has drawn attention to the relevant part of the discussion in the judgment and also drawn attention to the relevant part of the evidence. 11. Learned A.P.P. Mr. K.L. Pandya, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has supported the order of the learned trial Court. 12. Recently, in Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of Gujarat, 2012 (7) SCC 80 : [2013 (1) GLR 1 (SC)], clerk of City Survey Office had demanded Rs.55/- from the complainant, as the later wanted a copy of property card from the said office. Therein, it was held in Paras 16 and 17 as under : "16. It is the settled principle of law that mere recovery of the tainted money is not sufficient to record a conviction unless there is evidence that bribe had been demanded or money was paid voluntarily as a bribe. Thus, the only issue that remains to be addressed is whether there was demand of bribe and acceptance of the same. Be it noted, in the absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification, recovery alone would not be a ground to convict the accused. This has been so stated in T. Subramanian v. State of T.N., AIR 2006 SC 836 . 17. The demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is the sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act. This has been so stated in T. Subramanian v. State of T.N., AIR 2006 SC 836 . 17. The demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is the sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act. It is also settled in law that there is a statutory presumption under Sec. 20 of the Act which can be dislodged by the accused by bringing on record some evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that money was accepted other than for the motive or reward as stipulated under Sec. 7 of the Act. It is obligatory on the part of the Court to consider the explanation offered by the accused under Sec. 20 of the Act and the consideration of the explanation has to be on the anvil of preponderance of probability. It is not to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt." 13. Thus, in order to constitute an offence of illegal gratification, demand and acceptance of the amount is sine qua non. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no "acceptance". Hence, the case of prosecution must fail. 14. Earlier, in Subash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 2169 : [2002 (3) GLR 2245 (SC)], the Apex Court setting aside the concurrent finding of conviction for the offences under Sec. 7 read with Secs. 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and allowing the appeal of the accused on the ground that mere acceptance of amount is not sufficient to attract Sec. 13, has held as under : "In the instant case, the complainant had not supported prosecution case or main ingredients of demand and acceptance, of amount. From the relevant part of evidence of Panch witness, it is difficult to find out any statement made by him that accused demanded any amount from the complainant. The relevant part of the evidence of this witness suggests that when the prosecution party went at the police chowki, accused asked the complainant as to why he had come there at that time? To that, complainant replied that he was waiting since one O'clock and that he has brought one witness to be examined. Accused informed him to come in the evening as his writer was not present. To that, complainant replied that he was waiting since one O'clock and that he has brought one witness to be examined. Accused informed him to come in the evening as his writer was not present. When the accused started to go towards toilet, the complainant followed him and he gave something from his pocket to the accused who took the same and put that in his pocket. From this evidence, it cannot be inferred that accused demanded any amount from the complainant or that he had obtained the same. It was unreasonable to hold that accused demanded money from the complainant. Complainant denied the said story and Panch witness had not stated so." 15. In the present case, the complainant and panch witness No. 1 had said to have gone to the office of the accused at about 11-00 a.m. The accused was not present. The complainant was informed that the accused would come within half an hour. The complainant and panch No. 1 had approached Police Inspector, - Head of the raiding party and P.I had said to have told them that they should wait for the accused. On arrival of the accused, nothing of the substance had taken place. An apology letter was said to have written by the complainant as directed by the accused. It was submitted that the complainant was made to write this letter by compulsion. Assuming it to be so, this is not of any consequence herein. Thereafter, it appears from the evidence that the complainant had told the accused that he had brought the amount as per the alleged previous talk. Accused did not respond by showing inclination. As it appeared to the complainant that the accused had not shown interest, the complainant had expressed fear that lest his work may be delayed on this count. To this, the accused had said to have replied that release of the complainant's increment is his (accused) responsibility. It is not only no case of acceptance, conduct of the complainant - as emerging from his examination-in-chief - comes very much close to the abetment of offence under Sec. 12 of the Act by offering bribe to the public servant. 16. This is an unfortunate case. On the day on which trap was arranged, jeep-car of I.O. had failed. The raiding party had to go to Palitana from Bhavnagar. 16. This is an unfortunate case. On the day on which trap was arranged, jeep-car of I.O. had failed. The raiding party had to go to Palitana from Bhavnagar. I.O. contacting his superior at Rajkot, had summoned jeep-car from Amreli. The complainant had gone from Bhavnagar to Palitana on his Hero Honda bike. The I.O. and other member of the raiding party reached Palitana in the jeep summoned from Amreli. The procession has said to have reached at the office of the accused at 11-00 a.m. The I.O. in his evidence claims that he had conducted 50 to 60 traps. The act of I.O. in rushing to the office of the accused and proceeding to undertake other formalities after giving his introduction, - despite the fact that no incident of acceptance has taken place, is deplorable. Validity of the act of I.O. is doubtful. It is a harassment. A well-experienced P.I. had hardly any justification to make a show and exhibition of his authority that has effect of lowering the image and dignity of a public servant (it may be stated that in case of successful trap - if necessary - P.I generally recovers bush-shirt/ pant and/or any wearing apparels of the concerned accused). Herein, rushing into the office of the accused was not called for, particularly when reaction of the accused to the complainant at that point of time was - "...it is my responsibility to see that increment is released". The act of the applicant-complainant also deserves some criticism. It appears from the cross-examination of the complainant that the complainant had lodged more than couple of cases of atrocity against different persons at different places. It was submitted by learned Advocate for applicant that complainant was also harassed for release of additional increment. Be that as it may, there is no substance in the revision. 17. The revision application must fail and it stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. (HSS) Application dismissed.