JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. R.D. Kinariwala for the appellant and learned APP Ms. Reeta Chandarana for the respondent - State and prosecuting agency. 2. The appellant has been convicted by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge of Dahod under Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by judgment and order dated 21.06.2013 whereby the Sessions Court has awarded sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2500/- with a condition that in case of non-payment of fine he has to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment for non payment of fine for the offences committed under Section 7 of the Act, whereas simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 2500/- with a condition that in case of non payment of fine he has to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment for non payment of fine for the offences committed under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act making, it clear that total fine would be Rs. 5000/- and all the sentence has to undergo concurrently. Therefore, petitioner has been convicted for 1 year only. 3. The appellant has challenged the judgment of such conviction inter alia on several grounds but mainly on the ground that when complainant is not supporting the prosecution case and when his evidence is not properly appreciated under Section 143 and 154 of the Evidence Act read with Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant cannot be held guilty. To that extent, appellant is relying upon the derision reported in 2016(3) SCC 108 between Krishan Chandar v. State of Delhi. 4. I have perused compilation of Record and Proceedings, which includes all relevant documents including depositions of witnesses and further statement of the accused. 5. The prosecution case is to the effect that, one Veljibhai Damor has filed an application for licence or permission to start Fair Price Shop and, therefore, he has applied to Collector, Dahod. Pursuant to such application, there was a meeting under the chairmanship of Collector, Dahod in the year 2005 wherein appellant was selected as a first choice but thereafter by an order dated 06.06.2005 the shop was allotted to one Tindor Nileshkumar. Pursuant to such application, there was a meeting under the chairmanship of Collector, Dahod in the year 2005 wherein appellant was selected as a first choice but thereafter by an order dated 06.06.2005 the shop was allotted to one Tindor Nileshkumar. Therefore, against such allocation - complainant Veljibhai Damor has filed an appeal before the Secretary and pursuant to such appeal, the order of the Collector, Dahod has been cancelled and an order was passed on 25.01.2007 to allocate such shop to the complainant. Therefore, to initiate such shop, complainant has applied before the Collector on 14.02.1997. In between, the person in whose favour licence was granted by the Collector namely Nileshkumar Tindor has filed an appeal before the High Court. However, when High Court has remanded the matter to competent authority by its order dated 08.05.2007, the competent authority has confirmed an order dated 25.01.2007 by rejecting the appeal of such Nileshkumar Tindor. 5.1 Therefore, complainant has requested the Collector on 15.05.2007 to execute an order dated 25.01.2007 but when they did not receive any reply, he went to the Collector office and met the appellant herein and requested him to provide him the permission for running Fair Price shop. At this juncture, it is alleged by the complainant that present appellant has told him that he has to understand and then he would get the permission. On inquiry by the applicant that how much is to be paid, it is the story of the prosecution that appellant has demanded Rs. 10,000/- and told that if you do not pay Rs. 10,000/-, your work will not be done. Therefore complainant has agreed to pay Rs. 10,000/-. But, since he does not want to pay such amount, he has been to the office of ACB, Godhra, where complaint was registered as ACB C.R. No. 5 of 2007, after the trap. 6. In support of its case, prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and produced 23 documentary evidence whereas appellant - accused has also produced as many as 10 documentary evidence to prove that he has not committed any offence. 6.1 In all the 9 witnesses examined by the prosecution, at least two of them are investigating officer whereas one is panch witness and rest are other witnesses. 6.1 In all the 9 witnesses examined by the prosecution, at least two of them are investigating officer whereas one is panch witness and rest are other witnesses. 6.2 Whereas so far as documents are concerned prosecution has produced in addition to FIR and relevant documents including panchnama, seizure memo and FSL report as well as other reports so also communication with reference to the prosecution, whereas appellant accused has produced several communication to prove that he has not committed any offence. 7. If we peruse the oral evidence, PW No. 1 i.e. complainant Veljibhai Damor at exhibit 14, which runs into 80 closed type pages, it seems that though he has tried to support the prosecution case and but did not declare in clear words about the involvement of the appellant in committing crime as alleged against him and ultimately he was declared hostile as requested by learned APP and, thereafter, cross - examined him to some extent but not in accordance with law so as to prove anything against appellant - accused. So far as such evidence of complainant is concerned, appellant is relying upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Krishan Chander (supra) wherein it is held that a previous statement of the witness when he was declared hostile needs strict proof in terms of Section 145 of the Evidence Act observing that whenever a prosecution witness turns hostile his testimony cannot be discarded altogether but if the complainant turned hostile on other aspects like demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant, which is sine qua non for constituting the alleged offence under the Act, such evidence cannot be considered as a substantial piece evidence for confirming the conviction. For the purpose, the appellant is relying upon the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in paras 9, 10, 14, 16, 25, 27, 29, 31 and 34 to 39. Whereby the Honourable Supreme Court has quashed and set aside the judgment and order of conviction by the trial Court which was confirmed by the High Court and released the appellant forthwith; considering that, prosecution has failed to prove the case of acceptance of bribe money and convicting him for such offence. To arrive at such conclusion, the Honourable Supreme Court has considered several previous decisions, so also the evidence on record which is to some extent comparable with the evidence on hand. To arrive at such conclusion, the Honourable Supreme Court has considered several previous decisions, so also the evidence on record which is to some extent comparable with the evidence on hand. 7.1 In above background, if we peruse the deposition of PW No. 1 at exhibit 14 being complainant, though his examination in chief runs into 9 pages, the learned APP himself has requested the trial Court to declare the complainant as hostile so far his evidence recorded on page 7 and 8 is concerned, wherein complainant has admitted that it has never happened that appellant has asked for the money or to place it on window of his house and thereupon they have placed it and that in fact though there was communication and transactions, practically there is no demand by the appellant. 8. To understand such part of the evidence, it would be necessary to recollect the story, which is not much material, since it is very well described in the evidence, except to recollect that after the preparation prior to trap when material evidence starts on page 5 onwards, witness has admitted that when he met appellant on 07.06.2007 in his office, practically appellant was not knowing him and he asked for his name and that when they had been in the chamber of the appellant, he has never conveyed the appellant that he has brought the money if any demanded by the appellant. So far as pending work of executing permission to start Fair Price shop is concerned, the witness has stated that appellant has told him to come on next day either at his house or at his office. Thereafter, though he admits the story of trap, again when material part starts, as arranged, when trap is to be confirmed by recording conversation between complainant and appellant to confirm that amount of bribe is demanded, appellant has to utter about taking mangoes from the market. When complainant reached to the house of the appellant, appellant was standing outside the house in the compound and his son brought chairs, where both of them sat. When complainant reached to the house of the appellant, appellant was standing outside the house in the compound and his son brought chairs, where both of them sat. After some conversation regarding work, though there is scope or reason to vouch about the commission of offence of demanding bribe and thereby corruption, witness has on the contrary specifically stated that appellant has never asked to place the money before him or near house or never conveyed the same by any sign or signature. He thereafter specifically confirms that appellant has never told him about placing money near the window and thereafter he also confirms that accused had not given a sign by inquiring that whether complainant has brought money or not. The complainant also confirms that he had not disclosed or told about money and that he had never conveyed the accused that he has brought Rs. 10,000/- on that day and additional Rs. 5000/- may be paid after shop starts. He reconfirms that it was never happened that thereafter accused has given a sign indicating the witness to place the money over the window and he also confirms that it is not true to say that thereupon he took the money from his pocket which was having anthracene powder by his right hand and place it on window. However, he confirms that he has given a proposed signal regarding uttering the words that he has brought the mango from the market and thereafter he remained seated at the place and thereafter raiding party has came. When raiding party has checked the hands of the appellant, test was negative. However, raiding party has considered that currency notes were placed near the window by the complainant and raid was shown to be successful. 9. Therefore, though witness being complainant is supporting the procedural part of the trap he does not depose about either prior demand or demand at the time of trap or even acceptance of bribe money by the appellant. Therefore, when he was cross - examined by the APP, he specifically denies that it is not correct to say that appellant has asked him by signed that whether he has brought money or not and that he does not recollect that whether he has conveyed the appellant that he will pay Rs. 5000/- once shop is started. Therefore, when he was cross - examined by the APP, he specifically denies that it is not correct to say that appellant has asked him by signed that whether he has brought money or not and that he does not recollect that whether he has conveyed the appellant that he will pay Rs. 5000/- once shop is started. He again categorically denies that appellant has conveyed him by sign to place the amount near his window. He also denies that he has tried to help the accused. He confirms that he does not know about trap and more particularly anthracene powder and its effect. 9.1 Thus when complainant himself is not speaking about prior demand or demand at the time of raid and acceptance by the accused and when it is admitted position that when test of the hands of the accused is negative and that the currency notes were never recovered from the person or possession from the accused but it is showing recovery of currency notes near the window, even if rest of the witnesses are supporting the prosecution case, it goes without saying that there is absolutely no evidence to prove the basic ingredients to confirm the commission of offence viz. "(1) Prior demand (2) demand at the time of trap (3) acceptance (4) possession of tainted currency notes" 10. In the present case, there is no evidence regarding prior demand, which can be proved only and only by the complainant and when complainant has not stated about prior demand by the appellant - accused, rest of the evidence cannot prove prior demand even if it may prove other ingredients of the offence. 10.1 So far as demand is concerned, now when prosecution has tried to lay trap with a single person and with the help of technical instrument to record conversation between complainant and accused and thereby at the time of actual incident of passing of bribe amount when only complainant and accused are present and, thereafter, if complainant did not confirm by saying that when he met the accused, accused has demanded the money or bribe as per previous demand and thereafter accepted it, there is little chance to prove such fact by rest of the witnesses, whoever they are and whenever they are before the Court. 10.2 Similarly so far as presence or possession of tainted currency notes are concerned, though rest of the witnesses being members of the raiding party, they can certainly prove it. Unfortunately, in the case on hand, there is no positive evidence from any one of them because the scientific test to confirm the presence of powder on hands or any part of the body or clothes of the appellant is negative and when prosecution case is quite clear that they found currency notes near the window of the house, which confirms that there is no positive evidence regarding possession of the tainted currency notes. Therefore, when tainted currency notes were found lying near the window only, it becomes clear that either complainant has; when realized that appellant has not demanded the money, thrown the amount or for the reasons best known to them, raiding party so also Investigating Officer showed the currency notes near the house of the appellant to complete paper work to make a show that raid is successful and lodged the FIR. It cannot be ignored that it is not coming on record that for such case the investigating officer are getting some monitory benefits 10.3 It cannot be ignored that initially Gujarat Vigilance Commission has refused to grant sanction to prosecute the appellant considering the fact that there is no evidence against the appellant and, therefore, also there is reason to believe that there is no case against appellant. 11. As against that, appellant has also produced several documentary evidence on record to show that, in fact, permission regarding Fair Price shop has already been confirmed well before such trap and, therefore, there is no reason for anyone to ask for any amount as bribe and practically nobody will pay such bribe when there is no scope for anything to do any favour. 12. However, perusal of impugned judgment makes it clear that the Sessions Court has relied upon the submission of the prosecution. Whereas so far as sanction is concerned, the trial court has considered that though initially permission was not granted, ultimately after reconsidering the request of prosecution agency, when Gujarat Vigilance Commission has issued the sanction to prosecute the appellant, it is to be believed that appellant has committed the offence as alleged. Whereas so far as sanction is concerned, the trial court has considered that though initially permission was not granted, ultimately after reconsidering the request of prosecution agency, when Gujarat Vigilance Commission has issued the sanction to prosecute the appellant, it is to be believed that appellant has committed the offence as alleged. Granting of sanction cannot be treated as cogent and reliable evidence to convict a person for which, there must be an evidence beyond reasonable doubt adduced before the Court to confirm that accused has committed an offence alleged in the charge-sheet. It is settled legal position for which, no decisions are required to be referred that in absence of cogent and reliable evidence without any doubt, benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the accused by acquitting him rather than confirming conviction as done by the Sessions Court in the impugned judgment. Therefore, impugned judgment cannot sustain when there is no cogent and reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt that there was specific prior demand of any amount as a bribe for which complainant has approached the investigating agency to lay trap and thereby again there is specific demand at the time of trap and thereafter confirmation of possession of tainted currency notes by the accused. 13. For the purpose of reference to the case of B. Jayraj v. State of A. P. reported in 2014 (2) GLH 149 and case of M.R. Purushotham v. State of Karnataka reported in 2015 (3) SCC 247 are material. In both the above referred cases, the Honourable Supreme Court has reconfirmed that mere possession of recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of admission, will not bring offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act and that presumption cannot be drawn for all the offences in absence of any proof of demand of illegal gratification and, thereby the Honourable Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of the accused, which was confirmed by the High Court. The Honourable Supreme Court has also confirmed that when complainant himself disowned, what he has stated in his initial complaint and when there is no evidence that accused has made any demand, evidence regarding mere possession of currency notes would not be sufficient to attract conviction and, therefore, conviction was set aside. 14. The Honourable Supreme Court has also confirmed that when complainant himself disowned, what he has stated in his initial complaint and when there is no evidence that accused has made any demand, evidence regarding mere possession of currency notes would not be sufficient to attract conviction and, therefore, conviction was set aside. 14. As aforesaid, none of the four ingredients are proved in the present case to confirm that appellant has committed an offence as alleged in the charge- sheet. 15. In view of such facts and circumstances, the impugned order cannot sustain. Therefore, appeal needs to be allowed by quashing and set aside the judgment and order of convicting the appellant. Therefore, appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Bail Bond shall stand cancelled. Records and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith. 16. In view of such decision in conviction appeal holding that there is no evidence to confirm the conviction, there is no reason or substance to allow the appeal by the State for the enhancement of sentence awarded to the appellant by impugned judgment. Therefore, Criminal Appeal 1793 of 2013 stands dismissed.