JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.1.2005 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Surendranagar, in Special (ACB) Case No.3 of 2001, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present case are that the complainant who is Police Inspector, ACB had arranged a decoy trap on getting secret information that employees of the Toll Naka of Surendranagar Nagarpalika and Wadhwan Nagarpalika are demanding illegal gratification from the vehicles entering into their areas. It is alleged that when the rickshaw of the decoy was passing towards Wadhwan Toll Naka, new bridge, respondent-accused working as Octroi clerk stopped the vehicle and asked the driver about the goods which were lying in the rickshaw to which, the driver replied that he was carrying furniture in rickshaw. Thereafter, for giving entry of the vehicle, the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.30/- and then the said driver delivered tainted currency notes which was later recovered from the respondent-accused. 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 respondents-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 several witnesses and also produced several 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-State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant-State has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant-State has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. It is further contended that the 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 acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 6. Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for the State has argued that vital ingredient i.e. demand is clearly coming out from the complaint itself and at the time of raid also, the complainant delivered tainted currency notes to the accused and therefore, demand itself is required to be inferred as the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused and hence, finding recorded by learned trial Court is against the provisions of law and against the evidence available on record. He has further argued that as the trap was running trap, the ACB Officials and panchas have fully supported the case of the prosecution and learned Special Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and wrongfully acquitted the accused as such. Lastly, he has submitted that in view of the evidence on record, this Criminal Appeal is required to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order delivered by the learned Trial Court is required to be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. Hardik Shah, learned advocate for the respondents-accused has supported the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court and has taken this Court through the evidence of the witnesses as well as impugned judgment and order and argued that there is no evidence to prove the involvement of the present accused in the crime in question. He has further argued that in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the vital ingredients i.e., demand, acceptance and recovery beyond reasonable doubt. He has further argued that neither decoy/punter nor panch No. 1 who accompanied the said punter/decoy at the time of trap has supported the case of the prosecution. He has further argued that in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the vital ingredients i.e., demand, acceptance and recovery beyond reasonable doubt. He has further argued that neither decoy/punter nor panch No. 1 who accompanied the said punter/decoy at the time of trap has supported the case of the prosecution. On the contrary, from their evidences it clearly reveals that the accused in fact demanded lum sum amount of octroi as the decoy was having no bills of the goods which he was carrying at that time. He has further submitted that after accepting the aforesaid amount, the accused was about to go to prepare the receipt for lum sum amount but raiding party did not allow him to prepare the bill. He has further argued that if the evidence of panch No. 1 who was at the relevant time, accompanying the punter, is appreciated in its proper perspective, then there appears no clear conversation regarding demand and acceptance between the complainant and accused. He has therefore has submitted that vital ingredients i.e., demand and acceptance itself are missing in the present case and so far as the recovery of tainted currency notes are concerned, the tainted currency notes which were recovered from the possession of the accused was towards the octroi of the goods and not as illegal gratification. Therefore, recovery becomes meaningless. He has further argued that in series of decisions, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that in absence of clear and cogent evidence of demand and acceptance, no conviction could be recorded as such. He, has therefore submitted that the present Criminal Appeal is required to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court is required to be confirmed. 8. This Court has heard Ms. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for the appellant-State and Mr. Hardik Shah, learned advocate for the respondent-accused. As per the prosecution version, complainant who was serving as Police Inspector in ACB, Surendranagar received secret information that officials of Surendranagar Nagarpalika and Wadhwan Nagarpalika used to accept illegal gratification from the persons who bring goods within their territory. Thereafter, the complainant arranged a trap on 9.1.2001 after appointing panch No. 1-Ramnigiri Hemantgiri Gosai and decoy-Mahadevbhai Jovabhai Agola. As per the prosecution version, complainant who was serving as Police Inspector in ACB, Surendranagar received secret information that officials of Surendranagar Nagarpalika and Wadhwan Nagarpalika used to accept illegal gratification from the persons who bring goods within their territory. Thereafter, the complainant arranged a trap on 9.1.2001 after appointing panch No. 1-Ramnigiri Hemantgiri Gosai and decoy-Mahadevbhai Jovabhai Agola. On the day of trap, when the rickshaw of the decoy-Mahadevbhai Jovabhai Agola was passing towards Wadhwan Toll Naka, new bridge, respondent-accused working as Octroi Clerk stopped the vehicle and asked the driver about the goods which were lying in the rickshaw, to which, the driver-punter replied that he is carrying furniture in rickshaw. Thereafter, for giving entry of the vehicle, the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 30/- and then the said driver-punter delivered the tainted currency notes and at time of receiving the said tainted currency notes, the accused was caught red handed and whereby the accused committed offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 9. PW-4-decoy-Mahadevbhai Jovabhai Agola has deposed that he was residing at Village Wadhwan near Milk Dairy, District Surendranagar. He has further deposed that he was plying rickshaw bearing registration No. GJ-13-T6674 and that he was requisitioned as decoy and he agreed to work as decoy/punter in the trap. He has further deposed that on 9.2.2001, he along with Ramnigiri Hemantgiri Gosai carried cupboard valued Rs. 4,000/- in his rickshaw and when his rickshaw reached within the vicinity of Wadhwan Toll Naka, at that time, official of Nagarpalika stopped his rickshaw and told him to pay a lum sum amount of octroi of Rs. 30/- and further he was told that in turn, the accused-respondent would issue payment receipt. He has further deposed that he handed over to him an amount of Rs. 30/- and thereafter as per pre-plan trap, a signal was given to the other members of the raiding party and thereafter, the ACB personnel came there and caught hold of the accused red handed and detailed panchnama was carried out in the presence of accused and the said tainted notes were seized. However, the witness turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. 10. However, the witness turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. 10. PW-2 - Ramnigiri Hemantgiri Gosai-panch No. 1 has deposed that he was serving as an officer in the District Industrial Centre, Surendranagar and he was requisitioned to act as panch in the trap. Prior to holding the raid, he as well as complainant and other panchas were given detailed information as to how the raid was going to be conducted and as to how the anthracene powder is to be applied and as to how the experiment of ultra-violet lamp is to be carried out. He has further deposed that he was instructed to accompany the complainant and to hear the conversation that may take place between the complainant and the accused and rest of the members were directed to see the incident outside the place of trap. He has further deposed on the day of trap i.e. 9.1.2001, when he along with punter reached within the vicinity of Wadhwan Toll Naka carrying cupboard valued Rs.4,000/- in the rickshaw, at that time, accused-official of Nagarpalika stopped his rickshaw and told the punter to pay the lum sum amount of octroi of Rs.30/-. He has further deposed that thereafter, the punter handed over an amount of Rs.30/- to the accused and thereafter, they left the place and at that time, other members of raiding party reached there and caught hold of the accused red handed and detailed panchnama was carried out in the presence of accused and the said tainted notes were recovered from the possession of the accused. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that as soon as the accused went to issue receipt of octroi, the ACB Officials arrived there and caught hold of the accused. 11. The prosecution has also examined other witnesses who were members of the raiding party but there evidence is not essential to be reproduced herein. 12. At this juncture, it would be fruitful to refer to some decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court. 11. The prosecution has also examined other witnesses who were members of the raiding party but there evidence is not essential to be reproduced herein. 12. At this juncture, it would be fruitful to refer to some decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case of A. Subair v. State of Kerala reported in (2009) 6 SCC 587 , while dwelling on the purport of the statutory prescription of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that the prosecution has to prove the charge thereunder beyond reasonable doubt like any other criminal offence and that the accused should be considered to be innocent till it is established otherwise by proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are vital ingredients necessary to be proved to record a conviction. 13. In the case of State of Kerala and another v. C.P. Rao reported in (2011) 6 SCC 450 , the Hon'ble Apex Court, reiterating its earlier dictum, vis-à-vis the same offences, held that mere recovery by itself, would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained. 14. In a recent enunciation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to discern the imperative pre-requisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. Reported in AIR 2014 SC(Supp) 1837, in unequivocal terms, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act. It has been propounded that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentially and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentially and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Qua Section 20 of the Act, which permits a presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that while it is extendable only to an offence under Section 7 and not to those under Section 13(1) (d)(i)&(ii) of the Act, it is contingent as well on the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, it was emphasized, could follow only if there was proof of demand. Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act would also not arise. 15. In reiteration of the golden principle which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, reported in (2013)12 SCC 406 had held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of "may be" true but has to upgrade it in the domain of "must be" true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It was held, that the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. 16. In the light of the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and taking into consideration the statutory provisions contained under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, evidence of the present case is required to be appreciated as such. 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. 17. On overall analysis of the evidence of record, indisputably, punter-decoy who handed over the illegal gratification to the accused in lieu of octroi amount has not supported the case of the prosecution, on the contrary, in his deposition, the punter-decoy has deposed that the lum sum amount demanded by the accused was towards the octroi and not towards illegal gratification. On overall analysis of the evidence of record, indisputably, punter-decoy who handed over the illegal gratification to the accused in lieu of octroi amount has not supported the case of the prosecution, on the contrary, in his deposition, the punter-decoy has deposed that the lum sum amount demanded by the accused was towards the octroi and not towards illegal gratification. The punter-decoy also deposed that as soon as the accused went to issue receipt of octroi, the ACB personnel reached there and caught him and recovered the tainted currency notes from his possession and did not allow him to issue any receipt towards octroi. 18. So far as the evidence of panch No. 1 is concerned, he has clearly and categorically deposed in his deposition that the accused demanded amount towards the octroi and not as an illegal gratification and as soon as the accused went to issue receipt of payment of octroi, the ACB personnel came there and stopped him from issuing any receipt towards octroi. In view of the aforesaid nature of the evidence on record, it appears that the complainant is an ACB Officer who received secret information and arranged the trap and lodged the complaint and after carrying out the trap, he supported the case of the prosecution, but when the decoy and panchas who were part of the of the trap have not supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, nothing is revealing to implicate the accused with the crime in question. 19. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, the prosecution miserably failed to establish main ingredients i.e. demand and acceptance. Therefore, so far as the recovery of tainted currency notes are concerned, the same have been handed over by the decoy/punter to the accused towards octroi not as an illegal gratification. 20. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the present case, demand, acceptance and recovery are not proved by the prosecution. In this view of the matter, finding recorded by learned trial Court is in consonance with the evidence available on record. Therefore, as stated above, in absence of any specific and clinching evidence to prove all such acts by the respondent-accused, the acquittal recorded by learned trial Judge is sustainable. 21. In this view of the matter, finding recorded by learned trial Court is in consonance with the evidence available on record. Therefore, as stated above, in absence of any specific and clinching evidence to prove all such acts by the respondent-accused, the acquittal recorded by learned trial Judge is sustainable. 21. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. 22. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent-accused of the charges leveled against them. This Court finds that the findings recorded by learned trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by learned court below and hence finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 23. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith. Fine any paid, be returned forthwith. No order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.