JUDGMENT K.J. Thaker, J. 1. This is an appeal by the original accused No. 1-appellant, herein, challenging the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge, Court No. 16, Ahmedabad (for short, 'the Trial Court'), Dated : 01.05.2000, whereby, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as under: (1) For the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short) to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-; (2) For the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(ii) & (iii) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short) to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution, as set out before the trial Court, are that the original complainant approached accused No. 1, who was, at the relevant point of time, serving as Jr. Clerk in Tax Office of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, in connection with excess assessment of property tax and it is alleged that for reducing the tax, the accused allegedly demanded Rs. 2,000/-. The matter was, however, settled at Rs. 1600/-, out of which Rs. 300/- were paid on 11.03.1996 and the remaining Rs. 1300/- were agreed to be paid on 14.03.1996. It is also alleged that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had agreed to bring the card with reduced tax at the STD, PCO of the complainant and accordingly they went there in the evening, very next day. It is alleged that the accused Nos. 1 and 2, then, gave the card with reduced tax effect to the complainant and accepted Rs. 1300/- given by him. At that point of time, the ACB officials apprehended both the accused. On finding sufficient evidence, charge-sheet was filed against both the accused. 2. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the following witnesses: PROSECUTION WITNESS NUMBER NAME OF THE WITNESS EXHIBIT NO. 1 Bhavninbhai Jaswantlal Shah 20 2 Hasmukhbhai Dahyabhai Patel 22 3 Pratapsingh Udharam Asnani 32 4 Hussain Khan Abdul Khan Pathan 36 5 Kirankumar Manubhai Rathod 37 3. Over and above the oral evidences, the prosecution also produced the following documentary evidences in support of its case: SR NO. PARTICULARS OF THE DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT NO. 1 Bhavninbhai Jaswantlal Shah 20 2 Hasmukhbhai Dahyabhai Patel 22 3 Pratapsingh Udharam Asnani 32 4 Hussain Khan Abdul Khan Pathan 36 5 Kirankumar Manubhai Rathod 37 3. Over and above the oral evidences, the prosecution also produced the following documentary evidences in support of its case: SR NO. PARTICULARS OF THE DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT NO. 1 Complaint Mark ‘A’ 2 Panchnama 49 3 O/c. of seizure memo issued in favour of accused No.1 24 4 O/c. of seizure memo issued in favour of accused No.2 25 5 Sanction 33 4. At the end of the trial, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. came to be recorded, and then, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order, as referred to herein above. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Mr. Anandjiwala, learned Sr. Advocate for the accused No. 1, submitted that the trial Court committed a grave error in convicting the accused No. 1, inasmuch as it failed to appreciate the material on record in its proper perspective. He submitted that the trial Court ought to have appreciated that there was no demand on the part of the accused No. 1. He, further, submitted that the trial Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the prosecution failed to prove beyond doubt that the complainant had given Rs. 300/- on the earlier occasion. He, hence, prayed that the appeal be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Pandya, learned APP for the Respondent-State, herein, opposed the appeal and submitted that the trial Court convicted the accused after perusing the entire material on record, and hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court and the appeal be dismissed. 7. Heard the learned Advocate for the original accused No. 1 as well as the learned APP for the Respondent-State and perused the material on record with their assistance. 8. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties and having perused the material on record, now, this Court has to examine as to whether, the prosecution can be said to have succeeded in proving its case beyond doubt. 9. In order to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution examined the original complainant as PW-1. PW-1, in his examination-in-chief (Exhibit-20), stated that the house of his uncle, Kaushikbhai Vadilal Shah, is situated near his own house. 9. In order to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution examined the original complainant as PW-1. PW-1, in his examination-in-chief (Exhibit-20), stated that the house of his uncle, Kaushikbhai Vadilal Shah, is situated near his own house. PW-1 stated that in the year 1994, the Property Tax in respect of the house of his uncle was assessed more than usual, on the ground that there was change of ownership. PW-1, hence, gave an application in AMC along with a photocopy of the tax bill, but, no reply was received by him from AMC in that regard. Next year also same thing happened and the tax was assessed with interest and penalty on the ground of change of ownership. PW-1, hence, again made an application, but, said application was also not replied by AMC. Then, in the third year another bill was issued by AMC, which was more than the earlier two bills. PW-1, hence, approached the appellate Tribunal, but, appellate Tribunal dismissed the application of PW-1. At that point of time, accused Nos. 1 and 2 allegedly approached PW-1 and told that his tax can be reduced, if, he is willing to spend Rs. 2,000/-. PW-1 stated that after the aforesaid incident, accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to his phone booth and told him that his tax assessment is about Rs. 12,000/- and if, he does not pay now, warrant for attachment shall be issued against him and they also told that matter can be settled, if, PW-1 is willing to make some expenses. Hence, PW-1 asked them to reduce the amount and finally the matter was settled at Rs. 1600/-. PW-1, hence, gave Rs. 300/- to accused No. 1 near Flat No. 130/1555 on the same day. PW-1 stated that one day prior to the alleged incident, accused No. 1 came to his house and told him that his work was done, and hence, pay the remaining amount tomorrow. PW-1, hence, approached the ACB officials and his complaint came to be recorded. Thereafter, necessary procedure was done on the currency notes of Rs. 1300/- and same were placed in the left shirt pocket of PW-1 and he was instructed not to touch the currency notes, till the occasion to give the same; arises. Then, ACB officials, panchas and PW-1 came to his telephone booth and at about 06:10 p.m., accused Nos. 1 and 2 came there. 1300/- and same were placed in the left shirt pocket of PW-1 and he was instructed not to touch the currency notes, till the occasion to give the same; arises. Then, ACB officials, panchas and PW-1 came to his telephone booth and at about 06:10 p.m., accused Nos. 1 and 2 came there. PW-1 received them and they gave a Card, showing the assessment at 'Nil', to PW-1. The accused No. 1, then, asked PW-1 to give the amount, hence, PW-1 gave the amount to accused No. 2, who in turn gave it to accused No. 1, who put same in his shirt pocket. Then, signal was given to the ACB officials and the accused were apprehended. PW-1, then, stated that the officials, then, did the necessary procedure with the help of lamp on their own. PW-1 stated that he does not know exactly what they did, as he had gone inside. This witness, then, identified the muddamal articles and accused before the Court. 10. Now, if, the cross-examination of the complainant-PW-1 is seen, then, this witness stated that at the time of giving complaint he had produced all the evidence. He does not remember, as to whether in his complaint and his statement before the police he had stated that he waited for the reply from the Corporation, but, no reply was received from them, and hence, he let the matter go and did not pay the tax. PW-1, further, stated that he does not remember, whether in his complaint or his statement before the police he had stated that next year bill came and the assessment therein was doubled than the year 1994, which included interest and penalty. Then, PW-1 stated that he does not remember, whether in his complaint or his statement before the police he had stated that he again gave an application in the Corporation and stated that he has earlier given an application and in that regard no reply is received by him, and hence, if his assessment is done as per the old assessment, he could pay the tax regularly and that I received no reply to my application and the third bill was issued, which was more than the earlier two bills. PW-1, then, stated that he does not remember, whether in his complaint or his statement before the police he had stated that when he again gave application, one official told him to give his application before the appellate authority, and hence, he gave application before the appellate authority and the time for hearing was fixed in reply to the same and that, though, he showed original papers showing the name of the possessor as Kaushikbhai, no order was passed for changing the assessment and he was informed through letter that the assessment is confirmed and if, you have any grievance against the same, then, to approach the Court within 30 days. PW-1 also stated that he does not remember, whether in his complaint or his statement before the police he had stated that after sometime he went to the municipal office and met one Manubhai, accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 three-four times. Admittedly, if, the complaint given by the complainant-PW-1 is perused, then, it clearly transpires that there is no mention of any Manubhai or accused No. 2 and accused No. 1 only is mentioned, therein. Further, the details stated, as above, also find no mention in his complaint. 11. PW-1, in his complaint, stated that accused No. 1 came to his telephone booth on 11.03.1996 and told PW-1 that the assessment is made at Rs. 12,000/- and he would get the work of the complainant done, but, the complainant has to pay Rs. 2000/- and the matter was settled at Rs. 1600/- and at that time, according to PW-1, accused No. 1 told him to give the amount, but, as the complain-ant-PW-1 was having only Rs. 300/-, he gave it to the accused No. 1 and he stated that accused No. 1 had told him that his work shall be done in three-four days. In this regard, if, the deposition of PW-1 is seen, then, PW-1, in his deposition, stated that after he received the letter of Municipality assessing tax at Rs. 12,000/-, accused No. 1 and one Manubhai came to his booth and informed him that attachment warrant shall be issued and penalty shall be levied, and since, our superior is coming, if, you are agreeing, then, I may fix. In reply to the same, PW-1 told accused No. 1 to reduce the amount or he shall fight it out in the Court. In reply to the same, PW-1 told accused No. 1 to reduce the amount or he shall fight it out in the Court. Then, the matter was settled at Rs. 1600/- and PW-1 gave Rs. 300/- to accused No. 1 in the presence of his superior near Flat No. 130/1555. Thus, if, the above aspect is seen, then, there are material contradictions. Since, in the complaint, PW-1 stated that only accused No. 1 had come to his telephone booth and he had given money to him, whereas, in his deposition he stated that accused No. 1 had come along with one Manubhai and he gave money in the presence of superior of accused No. 1 near Flat No. 130/1555. Thus, in his deposition, the complainant-PW-1 not only mentions presence of one Manubhai and superior officer of accused No. 1 at the time of giving money, but, he also changes the place, where he had given money, from his telephone booth to Flat No. 130/1555. 12. Further, the original complainant-PW-1 in his deposition (Exhibit-20) stated that on the date of the alleged incident, after he went to ACB office and the first part of panchnama was drawn in the presence of Panch No. 1, i.e. PW-2, and Panch No. 2, they left for the place of the complainant and reached there before 06:00 p.m., as the accused had told him that he would come after 06:00 p.m. The evidence of PW-4-IO are also to the same effect, who in his deposition (Exhibit-36), stated that they reached Sola Municipal bus stop at about 17:35 p.m. and at about 06:10 p.m. two persons on a scooter at the telephone booth of the complainant. Now, if, the evidence of Panch No. 1-PW-2 is examined, then, this witness stated that they reached the telephone booth of the complainant at about 06:35 to 06:40 p.m. Thus, if, the evidence of PW-2 is to be believed, then, the evidence of PW-1 that they waited for accused and at about 06:10 p.m., accused Nos. 1 and 2 came there and the trap was carried out cannot be believed. 13. Now, Coming to aspect of demand and acceptance, according to complainant-PW-1, after the accused Nos. 1 and 2 came there and the trap was carried out cannot be believed. 13. Now, Coming to aspect of demand and acceptance, according to complainant-PW-1, after the accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to his telephone booth, he welcomed them and asked them to sit inquired as to whether his work was done and the accused gave him a card, showing the assessment at 'Nil'. PW-1 stated that then accused No. 1 told him to give money, and hence, he took out the tainted currency notes from his shirt pocket and gave it to accused No. 2, who, in turn, gave it to accused No. 1 and the accused No. 1 accepted the same and put in his shirt pocket. However, as per the evidence of Panch No. 1-PW-2, after accused No. 1 gave card to the complainant-PW-1, the complainant-PW-1 asked him is everything clear? To which accused No. 1 replied that everything was cleared. PW-1, then; asked accused No. 1 to reduce the amount to which accused No. 1 replied that give as agreed earlier. You have given Rs. 300/- and now pay Rs. 1300/-, and hence, PW-1 gave money to accused No. 1 and while the accused No. 1 was putting it in his shirt pocket, the complainant asked him to count the same, and hence, accused No. 1 counted the money and while he was putting it in his shirt pocket, the signal was given and the ACB officials rushed in and the accused were apprehended. Thus, if, the evidence of PW-1 vis-a-vis PW-2 are examined, then, there are material contradictions, omissions and improvements. Admittedly, PW-1, in his evidence, states that he gave money to accused No. 2, who gave the same to accused No. 1, who put it in his shirt pocket, and there is no mention of any last minute negotiation and telling him to accused No. 1 to count the money, whereas, PW-2 does not mention accused No. 2 and he states that PW-1, firstly, tried to negotiate the amount with accused No. 1, and then, directly gave it to accused No. 1, which is contrary to the evidence of PW-1 that he gave money to accused No. 1 through accused No. 2. From the evidence of PW-2 it transpires that while the alleged transaction took place between the complainant-PW-1 and accused No. 1, he was attending a phone call, and therefore, there is every possibility that he might not have actually seen the passing of money, but, he deposed to that effect only with a view to save himself from the rigours of departmental proceedings, which could be initiated against a government employee, acting as a panch in a trap and not supporting the case of the prosecution. Further, PW-1 states that after the accused were apprehended, he did not see as to what procedure was carried out by the ACB officials, as he had gone into his house, whereas, PW-2 states that after the accused were apprehended and U.V. Lamp experiment was done, the presence of anthracene was found on the hands and shirt of accused No. 1, but, nothing was found on accused No. 2. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 so, here again, the complainant-PW-1 appears to be involving accused Nos. 1 and 2, whereas, PW-2 attributes no role to accused No. 2 in his evidence. In above view of the matter, if, the judgment of the Apex Court in "Suraj Mal v. State of (Delhi Administration)", 1979 Cri. L.J. 1087, is seen, then, it is laid down that where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witness becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses. 14. Further, the Bombay High Court in "Manvarkha Rasoolkha Pathan v. State of Maharashtra", 1986 Cri LR (Mah) 100 is seen, then, it is laid down, therein, that initial burden of proof does not shift and in the event of several untenable statements and events falsely created by prosecution, accused deserves to be exonerated. 15. So far as the aspect of trap panchnama is concerned, PW-1 stated that after the accused were apprehended, the officials carried out necessary procedure, but, he did not see the same, as he went into his house. Meaning thereby, when the experiment of U.V. Lamp etc. 15. So far as the aspect of trap panchnama is concerned, PW-1 stated that after the accused were apprehended, the officials carried out necessary procedure, but, he did not see the same, as he went into his house. Meaning thereby, when the experiment of U.V. Lamp etc. was being done on the accused persons, the complainant was in his house, and therefore, the procedure of trap panchnama must have been carried out in the telephone booth, whereas, PW-2, in his evidence, stated that panchnama was not done at the place of incident. PW-2, in his cross-examination, stated that panchnama was dictated by the police and after recording of the same, they were told that panchnama was dictated as stated by you, and hence, sign it. Now, if this piece of evidence of PW-2 is to be believed, then, the panchnama of trap cannot be believed, since, PW-1, in his evidence, clearly stated that he did not witness the panchanama, as he went into his house, whereas, PW-2 states that they were asked to sign the panchnama after recording of the same, and hence, they signed the same. This Court in "Kanubhai Kantibhai Patel v. The State of Gujarat", 1998 (1) GLH 924 (H.R. Shelat, J.), hold that if, the panchnama was not dictated by panchas and the same had been signed mechanically, such panchnama cannot be accepted as supporting piece of evidence. In the case on hand, PW-2 clearly stated that panchnama was dictated by the ACB officer and he had asked them to sign the same, stating that it was dictated as stated by them. Thus, from the evidence of PW-2, it becomes clear that trap panchnama was not properly prepared and it was signed by the panchas mechanically. 16. Thus, the judgments cited before the learned trial Judge by the prosecution and the principles enunciated, therein, cannot be questioned. Thus, from the evidence of PW-2, it becomes clear that trap panchnama was not properly prepared and it was signed by the panchas mechanically. 16. Thus, the judgments cited before the learned trial Judge by the prosecution and the principles enunciated, therein, cannot be questioned. However, the main focal point after the judgments of the Apex Court in (1) "Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana", (2015) 3 SCC 138 : AIR 2015 SC 1032 ), (2) In "M.R. Purushotham v. State of Karnataka", (2015) 3 SCC 247 : (2014 AIR SCW 5740), and (3) "Satvir Singh v. State of Delhi Through CBI", AIR 2014 SC 3798 , should be, can the conviction of the accused can be sustained, which is now have to be seen on the touchstone of the principles enunciated in the aforesaid three judgments. 17. In "Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana ( AIR 2015 SC 1032 )" (supra), wherein, the Apex Court observed that it is well settled in law that minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case or not going to the root of the matter could not result in rejection of the evidence as a whole and it is also well accepted principle of law that no true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details, but the court should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that it would be justified in jettisoning his evidence, and therefore, it is expected of the courts to ignore the discrepancies which do not shed the basic version of the prosecution, for the court has to call into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases to evaluate the entire material on record. 18. In "M.R. Purushotham v. State of Karnataka (2014 AIR SCW 5740)" (supra), the allegation against the accused-appellant, who was discharging duties as Second Division Surveyor, was that he demanded and accepted Rs. 500/- from complainant for issuance of survey sketch and the Apex Court, while setting aside the conviction of the accused, held that the complainant himself not supporting prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned, mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from accused without proof of demand would not attract offence under Section 13(1)(d). 19. 500/- from complainant for issuance of survey sketch and the Apex Court, while setting aside the conviction of the accused, held that the complainant himself not supporting prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned, mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from accused without proof of demand would not attract offence under Section 13(1)(d). 19. In "Satvir Singh v. State of Delhi Through CBI ( AIR 2014 SC 3798 )" (supra), the trial Court found that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance on the part of the original accused, and thereby, acquitted the accused of the charges of corruption levelled against him. However, on an appeal, the Delhi High Court reversed the judgment and order of the trial Court and convicted the accused for the charges under Prevention of Corruption Act. Being aggrieved with the same, the original accused moved the Apex Court and Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court. While setting aside the order of the Delhi High Court, the Apex Court observed as under in Paragraph-37, thereof: "37. The High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction has exceeded its parameters laid down by this Court in reversing the acquittal order of the trial court. Therefore, the findings are not only erroneous in law but also vitiated in law. The relevant paragraphs from the Cri. A. No. 920 of 2011 judgment in State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao (AIR 2012 SC (Cri) 911) (supra) are extracted hereunder: "13. In coming to this conclusion, we are reminded of the well-settled principle that when the Court has to exercise its discretion in an appeal arising against an order of acquittal, the Court must remember that the innocence of the accused is further re-established by the judgment of acquittal rendered by the High Court. Against such decision of the High Court, the scope of interference by this Court in an order of acquittal has been very succinctly laid down by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan. At SCR p. 129, Subba Rao, J. (as His Lordship then was) culled out the principles as follows: "9. Against such decision of the High Court, the scope of interference by this Court in an order of acquittal has been very succinctly laid down by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan. At SCR p. 129, Subba Rao, J. (as His Lordship then was) culled out the principles as follows: "9. The forgoing discussion yields the following results: (1) an appellate court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) the principles laid down in Sheo Swamp case, afford a correct guide for the appellate court's approach to a case in disposing of such an appeal; and (3) the different phraseology used in the judgments of this Court, such as, (i) 'substantial and compelling reasons', (ii) 'good and sufficiently cogent reasons', and (iii) 'strong reasons', are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion; but in doing so it should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal in its arriving at a conclusion on those facts, but should also express those reasons in its judgment, which lead it to hold that the acquittal was not justified." 20. In this case, the main king-pin, who had demanded the bribe is acquitted and against him, the State has conveniently filed no appeal. While going through the evidence, it is pertinent to note that there is not a whisper of demand. Once, the term coupled with illegal gratification falls, what would be the consequences of Section 13(1) will have to be looked into. Section 13 of the Act reads as under: "13. While going through the evidence, it is pertinent to note that there is not a whisper of demand. Once, the term coupled with illegal gratification falls, what would be the consequences of Section 13(1) will have to be looked into. Section 13 of the Act reads as under: "13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.--(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-- (a) if he habitually accepts or obtains to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7; or (b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business' transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or (c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or (d) if he-- (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or (e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession of has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot be satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may be extended to seven years and shall also be liable to fine." 21. The second main ingredient of the said section is that he had obtained or had made an attempt to obtain illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration. Thus, from the above it becomes clear that the learned trial Judge not only failed in appreciating the judgments cited by the defence before her, but, she also misinterpreted the same. In the facts of the case, it cannot be said that accused No. 1 had obtained illegal gratification, and hence, the judgment of the trial Court requires to be upturned. In the result, this appeal is ALLOWED. The judgment and order of the trial Court, Dated: 01.05.2000, convicting the original accused No. 1-appellant, herein, for the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(2)(3) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is QUASHED and set aside and the accused is ACQUITTED. The amount of fine, if any paid by him, be refunded to him. R&P be sent back to the concerned Court, forthwith.