JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 19.2.2003 rendered by learned Special Judge, Kachchh – Bhuj in Special Case No.6 of 1989. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant accused was serving as Unarmed Head Constable. It is alleged that on 28.3.1988, the appellant accused demanded Rs.1400/- from complainant – Vishrambhai Naranbhai Gorasiya as illegal gratification for immediate production of him before the Magistrate as well as for not seeking any remand. It is alleged that out of Rs.1400/-, the complainant paid Rs.800/- on the spot and remaining Rs.600/- was to be paid on 30.3.1988 and as agreed, the appellant accused went for collection of said amount of bribe at the house of the complainant at village Sukhpar and while accepting the said amount of bribe, the appellant was caught red handed along with tainted currency notes of Rs.600/- and, thereby the appellant committed the offence. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the appellant accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the appellant accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined three witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of conviction. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is required to be reversed, as such. 6. Mr. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is required to be reversed, as such. 6. Mr. Dipak Sindhi, learned advocate for the appellant has argued that since the complainant has expired prior to recording of deposition, he could not be examined and the complaint came to be accepted though defence objected to it. He, therefore, submitted that the complaint is not proved and in absence of examination of the complainant, vital ingredient as regards to demand as well as acceptance is not proved in accordance with law. He further argued that recovery of tainted currency notes valuing at Rs.600/- (in all six currency notes of Rs.100/-) came to be recovered from the possession of Panch No.1 and not from the appellant accused and, therefore, vital ingredient as regards to acceptance is not proved in accordance with law. He argued that the complaint came to be recorded by ACB Police Inspector Mr. R.V. Puvar and thereafter he arranged for raid and he was also a member of raiding party; thereafter, he carried out entire investigation and after conclusion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet. He, therefore, submitted that Mr. Puvar assumed, as such, all roles, i.e. member of raiding party, investigating officer as well as filing of the chargesheet and, therefore, entire investigation is vitiated as he was interested from the beginning in the matter and therefore, the appellant is required to be acquitted. He further argued that sanctioning authority i.e. District Superintendent of Police who accorded sanction has not been examined, but the same has been brought on record from the evidence of the concerned clerk and hence, the sanction is not proved in accordance with law. Lastly, Mr. Sindhi requested this Court to allow the present appeal. 7. On the other-hand, Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP has supported the judgment rendered by learned trial Court. Lastly, Mr. Sindhi requested this Court to allow the present appeal. 7. On the other-hand, Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP has supported the judgment rendered by learned trial Court. She argued that learned trial Court has rightly believed the evidence of the panchas as well as investigating officer and when the appellant accused himself has visited the house of the complainant which is far away from the district head quarter, his presence itself is indicative of the fact that he had gone for collecting remaining amount which was yet to be paid to him as illegal gratification as such. She, therefore, submitted that the said fact is proved from the evidence of not only the investigating officer but from the evidence of the panchas as well as other evidence on record. She argued that learned trial Court has recorded ample reasons based on the evidence on record for convicting the appellant and ingredients as regards to demand, acceptance and recovery are proved in accordance with law and, therefore, this Court should not disturb the finding recorded by learned trial Court, as such. 8. This Court has heard Mr. Dipak Sindhi, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms. Bhatt, learned APP for the respondent State. 9. This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment rendered by learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper book. As per the prosecution version, appellant accused was serving as Unarmed Head Constable. It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.3.1988, the appellant accused demanded Rs.1400/- from complainant – Vishrambhai Naranbhai Gorasiya as illegal gratification for immediate production of him before the Magistrate as well as for not seeking any remand. It is the case of the prosecution that out of Rs.1400/-, the complainant paid Rs.800/- on the spot and remaining Rs.600/- was to be paid on 30.3.1988 and as agreed, the appellant accused went for collection of said amount of bribe at the house of the complainant at village Sukhpar and while accepting the said amount of bribe, the appellant was caught red handed along with tainted currency notes of Rs.600/- and, thereby the appellant committed the offence, as alleged. 10. 10. PW 1 – Kirtisinh Vanaji Jadeja who was serving as Junior Clerk in the office of the Water and Sewage Board in the Public Works Department has deposed that preliminary panchnama was carried out and thereafter he remained present while the raid was carried out. The witness has deposed that he along with members of raiding party were present, at that time, Rs.600/- was placed in the pocket of the complainant by Mr. Puvar and thereafter they went to the house of the appellant. The witness deposed that they remained in secluded position and thereafter the appellant accused arrived at his house, at that time, the accused asked as to why the complainant is sleeping on the cot; in turn, the complainant said that he has brought Rs.600/- and he delivered the same to the accused and while the accused was trying to place Rs.600/- in the pocket of shirt, Mr. Dalal directed him to take over tainted currency notes and, therefore, the witness took over the said currency notes. The witness has deposed that thereafter the panchnama was completed and shirt was recovered and necessary procedure was followed. 11. PW 2 – Kaivalya J.Dholakia who was serving as Clerk in the office of the DSP has deposed that sanction for prosecution was accorded at Exh.33 though defence objected to it. 12. PW 3 – Ranvirsinh Vadansinh Puvar who was serving as Police Inspector, ACB, Bhuj has deposed that he recorded the complaint of Vishrambhai and thereafter he arranged for trap and raid. The witness has deposed that the entire procedure for raid as well as trap was carried out in his presence. The witness has deposed that the complainant took out tainted currency notes and delivered to the accused and the accused counted currency notes and thereafter the accused has stated that amount is less, at that time, the complainant stated that it is sufficient and thereafter the accused accepted it; at that time, the member of the raiding party arrived and instructed the appellant not to move and the name of the accused was asked in the presence of the raiding party, recovered tainted currency notes of Rs.600/- were recovered from the hand of Panch No.1 and thereafter the shirt and spectacle of the accused were recovered. 13. 13. In the present case, this Court is required to scrutinize the evidence to ascertain whether there is proper, reliable and cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt to confirm the judgment and sentence awarded by learned trial Court. If there is no such evidence on record, in that event, irrespective of the fact that the raid was carried out and sanction was accorded by the competent authority to prosecute the accused, the conviction cannot be sustained as the onus lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 14. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual position and on overall analysis of the evidence on record, it appears that the prosecution has examined only aforesaid three witnesses, i.e. one panch, Clerk on behalf of the DSP from his office and Investigating Officer Mr. Puvar. The contention raised by Ms. Bhatt, learned APP that as to why the accused had gone to the distance place of the complainant who was residing far away from Bhuj appears to be attractive, but the evidence on record clearly indicates that previously, the complainant was arrested and he was produced before the Executive Magistrate and thereafter enlarged on bail and again on 28.3.1988 Police Inspector Mr. Chudasama directed the appellant to arrest the complainant and therefore even if the appellant accused visited the house of the complainant, in that event also, the said fact is getting corroboration from Exh.28 page 156 of the paper book. Even otherwise also, while carrying out raid, tainted currency notes were not recovered from the pocket or from the person or belonging of the accused, but the same were recovered from the hand of Panch No.1 i.e. PW 1 as per the say of the PW 1 and PW 3. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that recovery was made from the person of the accused. On that count also, one of the vital ingredients as regards to recovery from the accused is missing, as such. 15. It is also pertinent to note that from the stage of recording the complaint, arranging for trap, becoming member of raiding party and thereafter carrying out the investigation and filing of the chargesheet by Police Inspector Mr. Puvar who has assumed all the roles itself goes against the basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence and fair investigation. 15. It is also pertinent to note that from the stage of recording the complaint, arranging for trap, becoming member of raiding party and thereafter carrying out the investigation and filing of the chargesheet by Police Inspector Mr. Puvar who has assumed all the roles itself goes against the basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence and fair investigation. Under the circumstances, the credibility of the case of the prosecution becomes suspicious on this count only. The said view is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1976 SC 985 , followed by this Court in the case of Kanubhai Kantibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1998(1) GLH 924 . In this view of the matter, considering the evidence on record wherein no independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the case of the prosecution hinges on the evidence of the police official only, the judgment and order of conviction calls for interference by this Court. 16. Moreover, in the instant case, the complainant has died prior to recording of deposition, he could not be examined and the complaint came to be accepted though the same is objected by the defence. As such, the complainant was not available for cross examination with respect to the facts which were in his knowledge as to the demand of bribe and its acceptance by the appellant accused. In absence of the complainant, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to place on record the credible evidence and to prove the guilt beyond the reasonable doubt. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, it is clear that there is no clinching cogent and reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt to confirm the conviction and as result, learned trial Court has committed error in relying upon the version put forth by the prosecution. This Court has also gone through the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of (i) P. Satyanarayana Murty Vs District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2016) 1 SCC (Cri.) 11, (ii) Selvaraj Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 19 and (iii) Krishan Chander Vs. State of Delhi, reported in AIR 2016 SC 299. State of Karnataka, reported in (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 19 and (iii) Krishan Chander Vs. State of Delhi, reported in AIR 2016 SC 299. Therefore, as stated above, in absence of specific and clinching evidence to prove all such acts by the accused, conviction recorded by learned trial Judge is not sustainable. 17. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated 19.2.2003 passed by learned Special Judge, Kachchh – Bhuj in Special Case No.6 of 1989 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith. Appeal allowed.