JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Chetan Pandya for the appellant, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Ms. Chandarana for the State and learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. R.C Kodedkar for CBI the prosecuting agency. 2. Perused the record and proceeding. 3. The appellant has been convicted by the impugned judgment dated 20th December 2002 by Special Judge (CBI) Court No. 3 of Ahmedabad city in Special Case No. 24/96. By such impugned judgment the Special Judge has awarded sentence of one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of the fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment of 3 months for committing offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with further sentence under section13(2) of the Act for two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 4000/- and in default of payment of such fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The special Judge has also directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 4. The sum and substance of the prosecution case before the Special Judge was to the effect that the accused was working as Assistant Registrar in the office of the Registrar of Companies. 0n 19th December 1995 the complainant, clerk cum Accountant working with one M/s. Sapphire Pharmaceuticals Ltd. approached the complainant for making some inquiry about the probability of registration of different companies with specific names and to obtain name certificate. It is the case of the complainant that she contacted the accused on various dates when the accused had demanded an amount of Rs. 2000/- towards illegal gratification and hence the complaint was lodged by the complainant namely Vaishail Bhupendra Patel contending that first such demand was made on 19th December 1995 and because she was not having the facility and intention to pay such amount, she had lodged the complaint whereas the appellant-accused had called her again on 22nd December 1995. Thereafter, CBI had arranged the raid. According to the prosecution case, on 22nd December 1995 the appellant accused had accepted the amount of bribe and hence he was charge sheeted and after the trial Special Judge Court convicted him as recorded hereinabove. 5. Thereafter, CBI had arranged the raid. According to the prosecution case, on 22nd December 1995 the appellant accused had accepted the amount of bribe and hence he was charge sheeted and after the trial Special Judge Court convicted him as recorded hereinabove. 5. The appellant had challenged such order on various grounds, inter alia, contending that actually there was no demand at all either on 19th December or even on 22nd December when raid was conducted and that there was no evidence regarding acceptance of amount or possession of tainted currency notes from him, because at the time of raid he had never accepted the amount. The complainant had just thrown the amount on his desk and the raiding party immediately confirmed that the raid is successful. Therefore there is need to scrutinize the entire evidence thoroughly so as to verify if there is proper appreciation of evidence while convicting the appellant which would result into stigma in his life and career, since, he is in Government service. Otherwise also, the conviction cannot be awarded to anyone in absence of proper cogent and reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt to confirm that the offence has certainly been committed by the accused. 6. To prove its case, the prosecution had examined as many as 6 witnesses and produced several documentary evidences including panchnama, correspondences, communication and order of sanction to prosecute the appellant etc. 7. Kirankumar Manubhai Rathod, PW No. 1 at Exh. 24 who has conducted the raid and registered FIR from the complainant Vaishali Patel being raiding officer and investigating officer has deposed in confirmation of what he has done at the relevant time. However, it is to be noted that though the prosecution has to examine the complainant, the complaint has been pressed to prove and exhibited during the deposition of such raiding officer only, because the complaint is filed before him. However, it is to be noted that though the prosecution has to examine the complainant, the complaint has been pressed to prove and exhibited during the deposition of such raiding officer only, because the complaint is filed before him. So far as the history of details of complaint and raid is concerned for which there may not be any discrepancy in the deposition of Investigating officer, we have to scrutinize the relevant evidence to verify that whether there is reliable and cogent evidence without reasonable doubt to prove that (1) there is prior demand before raid (2) there is demand at the time of raid (3) there is acceptance of tainted currency notes by the accused just before raid (4) tainted currency notes were possessed by the accused at the relevant time of raid. So far as the first and second points are concerned, as the raiding officer, this witness does not have personal knowledge and therefore even if he says anything it is not much material except to confirm that he is corroborating the complainant and the panch witness who must have accompanied the complainant at the relevant time of raid. Thereby leaving the story and history about the preparation of pre-raid at the time of recording currency notes etc. if we go straight to the portion of raid in his deposition, the witness has categorically deposed that when the ultraviolet light was thrown on the hands of the accused, the presence of anthracene powder was confirmed and when he examined the accused, and his desk there was no presence of anthracene powder on the desk of the accused but tainted currency notes were found in the drawer of the table of accused which was taken out by panch witness and therefore presence of anthracene powder was confirmed on the hands of panch No. 1 also. However, the cross-examination of the witness confirms that he has examined the record of the office of the accused and that scrutiny shows that in fact requisite information sought by the complainant was already dispatched by the appellant-accused to the complainant and therefore there is no reason for the appellant-accused to ask for any amount and thereby there is no reason for the complainant to pay any amount to the accused, as alleged. The deposition and record shows that in fact the information requested by the complainant was already dispatched by the dispatch clerk at the office of the appellant and that fact has already been brought on record by different witnesses and accused-appellant. Even thereafter prosecution could not clarify that when requisite information was already forwarded and when it is disclosed to the complainant why she would agree to pay any amount to anybody. The appellant-accused has also cross-examined the witness to prove his credentials and even if it may not be the only issue either to confirm the conviction or acquittal, the fact remains that the witness had to admit several facts which prove that he is seasoned officer and he is able to conduct such raid since he has conducted several such raids and he denies suggestion that they are being awarded if more such cases are filed by them. The witness has also been cross-examined to prove several contradictions, in his oral deposition and documentary evidence on record and whenever there are contradictions being Investigating officer, witness had to admit it. He denied the suggestion that he initially asked the accused to take currency notes in his hands so as to show that the possession is proved. But one thing is certain that the amount was not recovered from the person but was recovered from the desk. 8. Merubhai Naranbhai Dodia PW No. 2 at Exh. 50 is a panch witness who was serving as a Junior Clerk with the State Government and therefore he has no option but to support the prosecution case. However, the scrutiny of his evidence discloses several discrepancies and contradictions from the evidence of complainant so also the raiding officer cum investigating officer being PW 1. When P.W. 1 has denied several facts suggested by the appellant-accused regarding conversation between the complainant with the accused, now this witness has come forward with specific admission and that too in his examination in chief itself, which shows that probably he had never witnessed the passing of currency notes from the hands of the complainant to the hands of the appellant-accused and therefore there is substance in the defence version that when there is no reason for him to ask for bribe and thereby there is no reason to pay any amount to him. The complainant and the investigating officer has wrongly confirmed that the raid is positive but even thereafter they could not show the possession of tainted currency notes directly or in personal possession of the appellant-accused. Therefore, there is a reason to believe that there is some substance in the defence plea that infact when the appellant was busy in his work, the accused had simply thrown the money on his desk and there upon the raiding party had shown that it is a positive raid. There is reason to determine as above because if we peruse the evidence of PW 2, it becomes clear that he has in categorical terms stated that when the complainant had enquired about the letter the accused had told her that she came late and the papers were posted and there by when the complainant had said that she has not received the papers, the appellant had asked her that he does not know about the actual dispatch which may be confirmed from outer clerk. Thereupon the complainant and witness had been to the outer clerk and thereupon when the outer clerk had conveyed that no letter has been dispatched, they again went to the chamber of the appellant and therefore the appellant had asked them to come after 1 1/2 hours. Therefore, again after 1 1/2 hours they had been to the chamber of the appellant and when the appellant had told that her letter has been sent and when the complainant had asked him to enquire about the actual dispatch, the appellant tried to call the peon by ringing the bell but when the peon did not turn up, on inquiry the appellant had asked them to meet one Dipak. After such story, the material evidence is now confirmed that this witness was not present at the time of actual raid when he admits that, thereupon the complainant has requested him to go to Dipak (outer clerk) and though initially the witness had refused to go there when the peon had not turned up for a long time, now the accused had asked him to go to Dipak though the witness had again refused to go because of the instructions of the Investigating officer to remain with the complainant only. Ultimately on the request made by the complainant he had gone downstairs to call Dipak and that after enquiring from other staff he and Dipak started towards the chamber of the appellant on the upper floor. Now there is categorical admission by the witness that in between the complainant Vaishali had already given sign to the raiding party which had reached there and thereafter he also narrated the manner in which the activity of raid was completed. So far as those activities are concerned, they are not much relevant because every witness is either tutored witness or may be because of the standard procedure narrated for the same story, but so far as crucial witness regarding acceptance and demand is concerned, now this witness states that he does not know that who has taken and removed the tainted currency notes from the drawer of the table of the accused, though the investigating officer states that it is the panch witness that is the present witness. Similarly most crucial statement by the witness is to the effect that though currency notes were found with positive evidence of presence anthracene powder under the ultraviolet rays when ultraviolet rays were thrown on different part of the table, the test was negative and that there was no presence of anthracene powder on any part of the table or any other place. This negates the deposition by the Investigating officer so also the case of the prosecution that tainted currency notes were found from the desk of the appellant. Therefore now there are two different statements by two different witnesses so far as the possession of tainted currency notes are concerned. This witness also admits several contradictions during his cross-examination which certainly negates the prosecuting case. 9. Vaishaliben Bhupendrabhai Patel PW 3 at exh 52 is the complainant. Though she has narrated the entire story as per the prosecution case, the crucial evidence has come on record whereby she admits that she had met the accused-appellant in his chamber on 18th December 1995 i.e. prior to the date of the complaint and she has got all the four letters regarding her requisite information and she has endorsed on an office copy of such letters confirming there receipt but she alleged that thereafter the appellant had taken two letters back and demanded Rs. 2000/- and said that two letters will be released only on receipt of such amount. Therefore, there are material contradictions in every version of the complaint and other evidence wherein she is claiming that she has never received any information. Thereafter she has narrated the history and details of preparation of raid and procedure of raid but so far as the acceptance part is concerned, she also admits that before the time of raid when she met the appellant and when she conveyed to the appellant that she has come with arrangement, the appellant had conveyed that she had been late and that he had already posted her letters. If it is so then when the complainant admits that the appellant accused had told her that the letters were posted, there is no reason for her to pass on the amount or for the accused to accept the same However, for the sake of argument even if we believe the story, it is now clear that there is corroboration that the evidence of previous witness being panch witness PW 2 that accused had asked them to verify with the outer clerk and to meet Dipak and when the attendant was not readily available, the complainant had requested the panch witness to go and call for Dipak. Hence, panch witness had gone downstairs and in between without waiting for Dipak and panch witness, the complainant had given a sign to the raiding party which in turn had reached the place before PW 2 to come with Dipak before the appellant, but procedure of raid was started. So far as this part is concerned there are material contradictions inasmuch as the complainant is saying that she had given the amount in presence of PW 2 Dipak, while PW 2 panch does not admit the same. The other material contradiction is with reference to such original letter for which the amount is alleged to have been demanded as a bribe by the appellant when the complainant categorically deposed that on inquiry such letters were found on the desk of the appellant, whereas when the investigating officer has seized office copies such letters and produce it on record at Exh. 38, 58, 59, 61, it confirms that such letters are already received by the complainant on 18 and 19th December and therefore it seems that there is no reason for the complainant to pass on the bribe amount on 22.12.1995. All such letters are admitted by the complainant but now she has further admitted that it is true that the name of L.G Export Pvt. Ltd. cannot be registered and that she has changed the name of some of the companies. This is also relevant consideration inasmuch as in fact it is a routine issue whereby the private companies are always seeking to get requisite information as per their wish. During cross-examination she has further deposed that such original letters were misplaced by her which negates her own admission in examination-in-chief that investigating officer has seized such letters. Therefore the possession of such original letter is a crucial evidence in such a case for which there is no cogent and reliable evidence. 10. In short, there are several irregularities and contradictions in the deposition of the complainant which shows that such deposition cannot be relied upon as gospel truth. More particularly, when she is not certain about the test of anthracene powder and ultraviolet rays at the time of raid, it seems that probably she was either not present at all or that she has tried to manipulate the story as per the wish of the Investigating Officer. Probably, because of her apprehension of delay in receipt of requisite information she felt that there was demand of bribe. But most crucial admission in her deposition is in para 34 wherein now she admits that in fact the accused was trying to search her letters at the time of raid but he had never demanded money from her. She also categorically admits in the same para that the accused has never demanded money in presence of panch witness and even in his absence. She also categorically admits in the same para that the accused has never demanded money in presence of panch witness and even in his absence. She also admits that she has paid the amount to the accused but the accused has never counted it but thereby probably she is trying to blow both hot and cold at the same time when she categorically admits that the accused has never demanded money and the money thrown was not found either in the hands or pocket of the accused benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused believing that it was the complainant who had thrown the amount on the desk or the drawer of the appellant's desk when the appellant was either busy in search of her letters or in calling the concerned person namely Dipak with outward register. She also admits several contradictions in her statement so also from other witnesses but she categorically admits that when she offered the money the accused has not given any response that is to accept the money though she does not admit that therefore she has dropped the money on the desk or in the drawer whereas unfortunately in further cross-examination after a couple of months she took a u-turn. Such contradictions creates an impression that this witnesses were not reliable. 11. Dipak Bhagwandas PW No. 4 at Exh. 65 is serving as a lower Division Clerk in the office of the accused. Now prosecution has failed to prove anything from this witness. On the contrary this witness confirms the defence version in his examination in chief itself and now it is to be believed that even the prosecution is supporting the defence version when he categorically confirms that original letter which is generally sent to the concerned parties and that he had handed over the letter to the concerned party on 19th December 1995. He categorically deposes that all the letters that is exh. 55, 58, 59, 60 were endorsed by the parties while accepting it on 18th and 19th December and on 19th December it was conveyed to the accused that the party wants other copy so xerox copy may be provided to them. Hence there is no reason for the complainant to approach the office of the accused on 22.12.1995 though she has approached the accused on 22.12.1995 since the raid was laid on that day. Hence there is no reason for the complainant to approach the office of the accused on 22.12.1995 though she has approached the accused on 22.12.1995 since the raid was laid on that day. It is uncertain that why the person would go to the office while she has already received the requisite letter. 12. Therefore, the deposition of this witness completely negates the prosecution case and supports the defence version. Thereupon now it is the duty of the prosecution to rebut this defence version whereas the prosecution has failed to do so and therefore benefit of doubt needs to be extended in favour of the accused and that the evidence on record is not so reliable and without any reasonable doubt to confirm the commission of offence by the appellant as alleged in the charge sheet. 13. Remaining two witnesses Jethabhai Mohanbhai Rathod PW No. 5 at exh. 68 and Rajendra Ramswaroop Pavar PW. No. 6 at Exh. 71 are connected and concerned with the investigating agency being police officers and panch witness of government office. Therefore, though they have narrated the story as per the charge sheet in support of the prosecution case, but the contradictions and non-disclosures of some facts by them confirms that they are chance witnesses, thereby saying only relevant information which prosecution wants to disclose through them, but they were not able to explain the contradictions. On the contrary, PW 5 has now come forward with altogether different story saying that when asked for by the raiding officer, the complainant told him that she had placed the amount in the drawer of the accused whereas the complainant has said that she had paid the amount directly to the accused and the accused has placed such money in the drawer. Therefore, the defence version is being proved by the accused but the witness admits that the complainant has placed tainted notes in the drawer of the desk of the appellant. Another material contradiction is regarding presence of anthracene powder on the currency notes recovered from the drawer in question, the panch witness admits that the test was negative that is the currency notes recovered from the drawer was not showing the presence of anthracene powder. Another material contradiction is regarding presence of anthracene powder on the currency notes recovered from the drawer in question, the panch witness admits that the test was negative that is the currency notes recovered from the drawer was not showing the presence of anthracene powder. Though he admits that number of the notes are the same as recorded in the first part of the panchnama, this deposition negates the panchas and even the panchnama cannot be relied upon. This witness is not aware that the test of anthracene powder was carried out at the time of raid and therefore it seems that an attempt was made to show that there is positive raid but probably there was no successful raid inasmuch as no currency notes were found in the possession of the appellant accused. Though the prosecution has failed to produce documents, this witness has admitted that some documentary evidence were recovered from the office of the appellant and non-production of documents would go against the prosecution case and in favour of the appellant to extend the benefit of doubt. 14. Whereas PW 6 Rajendra Ramswaroop Pavar admits about no knowledge regarding anthracene powder whereas Supreme Court has held that it is not a good test. 15. In view of above discussion of oral evidence now there is little scope to discuss the documentary evidence. So far as procedural part of raid is concerned, it is a stereotype detail which does not require any elaboration except to recollect that there are material contradiction by panch witness and the panchnama and therefore the panchnama cannot be solely relied upon to confirm the conviction. The relevant documents which are subject matter of the dispute are already discussed above. 16. In fact appellant has by an Application under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at Exh. 51 called upon the prosecution to produce such documents and only thereupon the prosecution had produced it on record which goes against the prosecution to confirm that in fact there is no reason either to demand or to offer any bribe to the accused. If it is so, there is no reason to conduct the raid. 51 called upon the prosecution to produce such documents and only thereupon the prosecution had produced it on record which goes against the prosecution to confirm that in fact there is no reason either to demand or to offer any bribe to the accused. If it is so, there is no reason to conduct the raid. Thereafter if the complainant admits that at the time of raid the accused has not demanded the amount then there is no reason to conclude that the evidence is sufficient to confirm the conviction of the appellant as done in the impugned judgment. 17. The application at exh. 74 by the prosecution is also material to be recollected here whereby now the prosecution has admitted that PW 3 Dipak resiled from his previous statement and therefore now they have prayed for recalling the witness. However if such application has been dismissed by a reasoned order dated 8th February 2002, therefore now atleast one thing is clear that PW 3 Dipak is not supporting the prosecution case and on the contrary he has negated the entire prosecution story. Now more surprising prayer was made by the prosecution before the trial court by filing application under section 76, claiming that the appellants is threatening the complainant and therefore his bail may be cancelled. However it is surprising to note that deposition of complainant was over in the month of February 2001 whereas such application is preferred only in the month of January 2002, therefore there is no reason for the accused to administer any threat upon the complainant when her deposition has already been recorded almost before a year. Therefore the trial court has dismissed such application by order dated 8th February 2002 observing that the complainant had already been examined and she never made a grievance that the threat was administered to her by the accused. During the course of the deposition or even in the past though conviction would be based upon the actual evidence to prove the case, both these applications atleast goes to show that there is something beyond the complaint, raid and evidence which dragged the prosecution to this extent. 18. During the course of the deposition or even in the past though conviction would be based upon the actual evidence to prove the case, both these applications atleast goes to show that there is something beyond the complaint, raid and evidence which dragged the prosecution to this extent. 18. The law relating to such cases is now well settled 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. 19. The perusal of the impugned judgment goes to show that the trial court has failed to rely on the contradictions and relied only upon the evidence of Investigating Officer and panch witness without appreciating that even panch witnesses have contradicted the version of the prosecution and therefore the trial court has committed an error in convicting the accused in absence of cogent and reliable evidence without any doubt. It cannot be ignored that while appreciating the evidence in cases where the accused is to be convicted, the entire evidence must be compared with each other to realise whether there is any sanctity to confirm the conviction or not, even if we consider that there may be minor contradictions, but in absence of prior demand or even no demand at the time of raid as admitted by the complainant herself and since there are contradictions regarding passing of the tainted currency notes from the complainant to the accused, with contradiction of acceptance and possession of tainted currency notes by the accused; the order and judgment of conviction cannot be sustained. 20. In view of above facts and circumstances, the impugned order convicting the appellant is quashed and set aside. Thereby the appeal is allowed and impugned judgment is quashed and set aside. The bail bond of the appellant shall stand cancelled. The record and proceedings be sent back to the trial court. 21. In view of above, the above Applications do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly.