JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard Ld. A.P.P. Mr. K.P. Raval for the State and Ld. Advocate Mr. Nitin M. Amin for the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1 is reported to have died. His death certificate is on record which confirms that he died on 14.03.2014, therefore, the appeal stands abated against him. Perused the R&P so also the evidence adduced by the appellant State. The appellant State has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 24th February, 2005 by Special Judge of Surendranagar in Sessions Case No. 25/1994, whereby the Sessions Court has acquitted both the respondents from the offences punishable u/s. 7, 12, 10 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution as per charge-sheet is to the effect that, the respondents have demanded an amount of Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 500/-respectively from the complainant to clear his bills for the work done by him regarding pipeline for water tank of Jani Vadla village, therefore charges are framed pursuant to ACB Surendranagar Police Station C.R. No. 2/93 dtd. 5.5.93, for which after investigation charge sheet No. 1/1994 was filed on 18th March, 1994. 3. In such appeal, one need to scrutinize, considering the settled legal position that whether there is any cogent, reliable and sufficient evidence to prove following four issues only viz (1) prior demand of bribe, (2) express demand of bribe amount just before the raid, (3) passing of and thereby acceptance of tainted currency notes and (4) possession of tainted currency notes by the accused at the time of raid. 4. As aforesaid, there must be the disclosure regarding prior demand while filing the complaint, but the disclosure of demand in complaint is not sufficient unless there is cogent and reliable evidence to confirm such demand. 5. To prove his case, the appellant prosecuting agency has examined three witnesses and produced as many as 32 documentary evidences which include communication prior to and after the investigation, documentary evidence regarding work carried out by the complainant, complaint, panchnama, seizure memo, sanction letter, log-book and measurement of the work done by the complainant etc. 6. It is the case of the complainant that the accused No. 1 told the complainant that, two bills of Village Bambore of Rs. 21,000/- and Rs. 6. It is the case of the complainant that the accused No. 1 told the complainant that, two bills of Village Bambore of Rs. 21,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- had been sent to the office and therefore, if the complainant wants to get the payment of such bills at the earliest, he should pay in all Rs. 2000/- towards illegal gratification out of which Rs. 500/- is to be paid to the accused No. 2 and Rs. 1500/- is to be kept by the accused No. 1. The accused No. 1 is now no more and therefore, when prima-facie only evidence regarding involvement of the accused No. 2 is to the effect that, the accused No. 1 has demanded the bribe for the accused No. 2, more particularly, when the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused No. 1, there is no scope or reason to ascertain evidence against the accused No. 2 who was not in picture at all. However, though it can be said that irrespective of abatement or acquittal of respondent No. 1 if there is evidence to prove that the accused No. 2 has demanded the amount of bribe and accepted the same, he can certainly be punished and convicted. For the purpose, necessary evidence needs to be examined. 7. The P.W. No. 1 at Exhibit 90 is complainant Hussainbhai Rahemanbhai, it is his say on oath that when he met accused No. 2, the accused No. 2 has asked for bribe and as usual when he deemed it fit not to pay bribe, he lodged a complaint and after managing pre-trap requirement, he called the accused No. 2 at his house and on the date of the incident, when he was waiting for the accused No. 2, practically, the accused No. 2 has never turned up and did not reach to his house to accept the bribe, but accused No. 1 had come to his house and according to him, he has paid the amount to the accused No. 1 and accused No. 1 has accepted the amount and at that time, it is his say that, he has conveyed the accused No. 1 that this amount is to be paid to the accused No. 2. Though the witness in categorical terms alleged against both the accused, confirming that at initial stage both were together and have demanded the amount of bribe for both of them, he has an audacity to say that, at the time of passing of the bribe, he has conveyed that amount is for the accused No. 2 and therefore, the accused No. 1 has accepted the same; however, during the cross examination, he has no option but to admit that, practically, he has never disclosed about the accused No. 2 while lodging the complainant that the accused No. 2 has demanded the amount of bribe. On the contrary, in the complaint at Exhibit 104, the version is altogether different, wherein he has disclosed that, in fact the amount was demanded by the accused No. 1 though there is a reference that some amount is to be passed on to the accused No. 2. But this is material contradiction in evidence in as much as though in the complaint, it is stated that, demand was by the accused No. 1, may be in the name of the accused No. 2 but not by the accused No. 2 himself and though the complainant confirms that, when he met the accused No. 2, he had simply asked him to verify with the accused No. 1, who was dealing with the file of the complainant and thereby when accused No. 1 has, if at all, demanded the bribe, the complainant considered that, it is demanded by the accused No. 2 also. 8. However, it is settled legal position that, there cannot be conviction of a person on presumption and assumption, but there must be cogent and reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt to confirm particular fact so as to consider it as commission of crime. Therefore, if the petitioner changed his version so as to involve both the accused by one stroke then, it is not only material contradiction, but it is an attempt to take undue advantage of judicial proceedings so as to involve anybody at any time without any proper evidence against him. Whereas, the overall reading of depositions also makes it clear that, there is no sufficient and reliable evidence to confirm that, the accused No. 2 has demanded the amount of bribe in any manner whatsoever. 9. The P.W. No. 2 at Exhibit 99 - Pravinchandra Aanandbhai Dholkiya is a panch-witness. Whereas, the overall reading of depositions also makes it clear that, there is no sufficient and reliable evidence to confirm that, the accused No. 2 has demanded the amount of bribe in any manner whatsoever. 9. The P.W. No. 2 at Exhibit 99 - Pravinchandra Aanandbhai Dholkiya is a panch-witness. It is his say that, at the time of raid, the accused No. 1 has demanded the amount of bribe from the complainant and the complainant has paid it to the accused No. 1 but in none of the depositions, it has come out that, it was the accused No. 1 who has either disclosed that the amount of bribe is to be passed on to the accused No. 2 or that he is accepting such bribe on behalf of the accused No. 2. On the contrary, it is emphasized only by the witnesses that they have conveyed the accused No. 1 that the amount be paid to the accused No. 2. Therefore, prima-facie, there is no evidence regarding demand and acceptance of the amount of bribe by the respondent No. 2. 10. The remaining witness - P.W. No. 3 being Police Officer at Exhibit 103 is certainly narrating the story in verbatim as per activities carried out by him but in cross examination, he has to admit that, neither of the previous witnesses i.e. either the complainant or panch witness has ever disclosed in their statements before him that the amount was demanded by the accused No. 2 also or that they have ever conveyed the accused No. 1 that amount is to be paid to the respondent No. 2. Therefore, the only outcome of perusal of such evidence is that though there is reference of the respondent No. 2 also in the complaint, there is neither demand nor acceptance by the respondent No. 2 in any manner whatsoever. 11. In view of the above referred clear evidence, when the trial court has acquitted the accused, I do not see any substance or reason to interfere with such reasoned and detailed order of acquittal only because the prosecution has preferred an appeal. 12. 11. In view of the above referred clear evidence, when the trial court has acquitted the accused, I do not see any substance or reason to interfere with such reasoned and detailed order of acquittal only because the prosecution has preferred an appeal. 12. In view of above evidence, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment, more particularly, in view of settled legal position, as emerging from the following decisions; "(A) P. Satyanarayana Murty v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2016(1) SCC (Cri.) 11 (B) Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2016(1) SCC (Cri.) 19 (C) Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi, reported in AIR 2016 SC 299 That; in such cases for confirming conviction, all 3 actions are must and shall be proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt viz; (i) Prior demand (ii) Demand at the time of trap and (iii) Acceptance of the amount. In absence of specific clinching evidence to prove all such acts by the accused, there cannot be any conviction. Evidence of other witnesses may not be sufficient to prove demand even though recovery is proved. In that case, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Mere acceptance of any amount alone by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, reiterated, would not be sufficient to bring home the charge. Thereby, admission and acceptance of bribe is sine qua non for constituting offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. If complainant or witness turns hostile on point of admission and acceptance of bribe and when panch witness did not hear conversation between accused and complainant at the time when complainant had approached to give bribe money, it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that factum of demand cannot be considered as proof and, thereby conviction was set aside. 13. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and thereby the impugned judgment and order dated 24th February, 2005 in Special Case No. 25/1994 acquitting the appellant is hereby confirmed and thereby, the appellant is acquitted from all the charges leveled against him. Bail bond of the appellant shall stand canceled. R & P shall be sent back to the trial court.