JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. Both these appeals arise out of the same incident and involve common questions of law and facts and hence, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2004 is preferred by appellant -Kiritbhai Thakorelal Shah who is original accused No. 1 and Criminal Appeal No. 1020 of 2004 is preferred by appellant-Muljibhai Dahyabhai who is original accused No. 2 against the judgment and order dated 26.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad Camp at Anand, in Special (ACB) Case No. 13 of 1999 whereby the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (the Act for short) and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo one year imprisonment and for the offence under Section 12 of the Act, they were sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo one year imprisonment and for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, they were sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. 3. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that complainant-Mangabhai Mohanbhai Parmar was residing at Ratanji-Ni-Muvadi, Dhabe Mithapur. Before one year from the date of complaint, Gram Sewak-Ratansingh Amarsingh informed the complainant that a farmer who is below poverty line can get subsidy of Rs. 42,000/- for constructing well under the Jivan Dhara Scheme issued by the Government of Gujarat and for that scheme, he can contact the District Development Officer, Kheda. As the complainant agreed to take benefit of scheme/subsidy, he filled up a prescribed form of the scheme and completed all formalities of getting subsidy. Thereafter, the Taluka Development Officer verified the said form and application of the complainant was approved. After approving application, he informed to begin the construction of well and payment of subsidy of digging well would be given in installments to which, the complainant started construction of well and during the construction of well, he got installments of the subsidy amount and in total he got Rs. 37,000/- towards the subsidy. After approving application, he informed to begin the construction of well and payment of subsidy of digging well would be given in installments to which, the complainant started construction of well and during the construction of well, he got installments of the subsidy amount and in total he got Rs. 37,000/- towards the subsidy. It is further the case of the prosecution that the complainant went to Small Irrigation Sub-division Panchayat, Dakor for the purpose of clearing his last installment amount and met original accused No. 1-K.T. Shah who was working as Additional Assistant Engineer but he demanded Rs. 1000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification for clearing the last installment. As complainant was not willing to pay bribe amount, he filed a complaint before Anti Corruption Bureau, Nadiad. A trap was arranged and at the time of trap, accused No. 2-Muljibhai Dahyabhai was working as peon in the same department and he took the illegal gratification from the complainant upon instruction from his superior officer-original accused No. 1 and was caught red handed. Hence, a complaint came to be lodged against the appellants-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. 4. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against both the appellants accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 4.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced several documentary evidences. 4.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeals before this Court. 6. By way of preferring the present appeals, the appellants have mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of conviction. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeals before this Court. 6. By way of preferring the present appeals, the appellants have 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. 7. Mr. Vijay Patel, learned advocate for H.L. Patel Advocates for appellant-accused No. 1 has taken this Court through the entire judgment and record and argued that so far as the original accused No. 1 is concerned, no iota of evidence is available on record to connect the present appellant-accused with the crime in question. He has further argued that so far as the complainant is concerned, he himself has admitted in his cross-examination that neither he met accused No. 1 prior to the trap nor accused No. 1 demanded any bribe from him. He has further argued that the complainant also admitted in his cross examination that he lodged the complaint against Mr. Shah who had mustache and his age was about 32 to 40 years but the accused who was present during the trial did not appear to look like him. He has further argued that as per the evidence, the complainant as well as panch who accompanied the complainant have not deposed before the learned trial Court as to whether any demand was raised by the accused and even though recovery of tainted currency notes came to be recovered from the possession of accused, nothing reveals against the accused as regards to any demand raised by them nor that they have accepted any illegal gratification. He has further submitted that the evidence of both the aforesaid witnesses, more particularly in the cross-examination, both the aforesaid witnesses have clearly and categorically admitted that there was neither any demand made by the accused nor acceptance and therefore conviction recorded against the accused persons are required to be set aside as such. He has further submitted that the evidence of both the aforesaid witnesses, more particularly in the cross-examination, both the aforesaid witnesses have clearly and categorically admitted that there was neither any demand made by the accused nor acceptance and therefore conviction recorded against the accused persons are required to be set aside as such. He has further argued that original accused No. 1 was serving as Additional Assistant Engineer in Small Irrigation Sub-division Panchayat, Dakor whereas, the complainant himself has admitted in his cross-examination that he handed over the alleged amount of illegal gratification at the panchayat office at Thasra which is different place. He has further argued that this is a clear case wherein vital ingredients of demand and acceptance are missing and recovery of tainted currency notes is not believable. He has further argued that there is no evidence to prove the involvement of the present appellants-accused in the crime in question. He has further argued that in the 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. The learned trial Court has relied upon the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is in the nature of raising presumption in case of recovery of tainted currency notes and raising such presumption and surmises is not in accordance with the law. Lastly, he has requested this Court to allow the present appeals filed by the appellants-accused. 8. Mr. M.M. Tirmizi, learned advocate for appellant-original accused No. 2 has taken this Court through the entire judgment and record and argued that there is no iota of evidence available on record to link the present appellant-accused No. 2 with the crime in question. He has further argued that this is a clear case wherein vital ingredients of demand and acceptance are missing and recovery of tainted currency notes is not believable so far as the original accused No. 2 is concerned. He has further argued that the prosecution could not prove any pre-demand on the part of the accused No. 2 and it is fortuitous circumstances that when the complainant visited the office, he was serving as peon in Dakor Irrigation Department and at the time of trap he was found in the Panchayat Office at Thasra which is different place. He has further argued that the prosecution could not prove any pre-demand on the part of the accused No. 2 and it is fortuitous circumstances that when the complainant visited the office, he was serving as peon in Dakor Irrigation Department and at the time of trap he was found in the Panchayat Office at Thasra which is different place. He has further argued that when the complainant reached at the Panchayat Office, Thasra he found that accused No. 1 was not present, thereafter the complainant asked whereabout of accused No. 1 from accused No. 2 and in absence of accused No. 1, he handed over the said amount of illegal gratification to accused No. 2. He has further argued that in that view of the matter, the accused No. 2 neither raised any demand nor he has knowledge regarding any amount of illegal gratification, however, the complainant gave him some amount voluntarily whereas accused No. 2 had no instruction on behalf of the accused No. 1 for obtaining any amount from anyone. He has further argued that in that view of the matter, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the main ingredients i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery. He has further argued that the prosecution has failed to establish that accused No. 2 accepted the said amount with clear intention and knowledge that he received illegal gratification which was demanded by the accused No. 1, therefore, accused No. 2 may not be held guilty for causing any abetment. He has further placed the reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sadashiv Mahadeo Yavaluje & Gajanan Shripatrao Salokhe v. State of Maharashtra, reported in Cr.L.R. (SC) 1990. Lastly, he has requested this Court to allow the present appeal filed by the appellants. Over and above, Mr. Tirmizi, learned advocate for the appellant-original accused No. 2 has adopted the arguments made by Mr. Vijay Patel, learned Advocate. 9. On other-hand, Mr. K.P. Raval, learned APP has supported the judgment rendered by learned trial Court. He has argued that this is a fit case wherein learned trial Court has considered voluminous evidence in its proper perspective and rightly convicted the accused which calls for no interference. He has further argued that finding recorded by learned trial Court is based upon concrete and clinching evidence and therefore, punishment inflicted upon the accused does not call for any interference. He has further argued that finding recorded by learned trial Court is based upon concrete and clinching evidence and therefore, punishment inflicted upon the accused does not call for any interference. He has further argued that the learned trial Court has recorded ample reasons based on the evidence on record for convicting the appellants and ingredients as regards to demand, acceptance and recovery are proved in accordance with law and this Court may not interfere with the judgment and order of conviction, as such. 10. This Court has heard Mr. Vijay Patel, learned advocate for H.L. Patel Advocates for appellant-original accused No. 1, Mr. M.M. Tirmizi, learned advocate for appellant-original accused No. 2 and Mr.K.P. Raval, learned APP for the State. 11. This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment rendered by the learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper book. 12. As per the prosecution version, more particularly, as per the charge, complainant-Mangabhai Mohanbhai Parmar was residing at Ratanji-Ni-Muvadi, Dhabe Mithapur. Before one year from the date of complaint, Gram Sewak-Ratansingh Amarsingh informed the complainant that a farmer who is below poverty line can get subsidy of Rs. 42,000/- for constructing well under the Jivan Dhara Scheme issued by the Government of Gujarat and for that scheme he can contact the District Development Officer, Kheda. As the complainant agreed to take benefit of scheme/subsidy, he filled up a prescribed form of the scheme and completed all formalities for getting subsidy. Thereafter, the Taluka Development Officer verified the said form and application of the complainant was approved. After approving application, he informed the complainant to begin the construction of well and payment of subsidy of digging well would be given in installments to which, the complainant started construction of well and during the construction of well, he got installments of the subsidy amount and in total he got Rs. 37,000/- towards the subsidy. It is further the case of the prosecution that the complainant went to Small Irrigation Sub-division Panchayat, Dakor for the purpose of clearing his last installment amount and met accused No. 1-K.T. Shah who was working as Additional Assistant Engineer but he demanded Rs. 1000/- from the accused as illegal gratification for clearing the last installment. As complainant was not willing to pay bribe amount, he filed a complaint before Anti Corruption Bureau, Nadiad. 1000/- from the accused as illegal gratification for clearing the last installment. As complainant was not willing to pay bribe amount, he filed a complaint before Anti Corruption Bureau, Nadiad. A trap was arranged and at the time of trap, accused No. 2-Muljibhai Dahyabhai who was working as peon in the same department, took illegal gratification from the complainant upon instruction from his senior officer-original accused No. 1 and was caught red handed, thereby they have committed offence punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 13. At this stage, it would be fruitful to make reference to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in A. Subair v. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587 : (2009 AIR SCW 3994), while dwelling on the purport of the statutory prescription of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act 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. 14. In State of Kerala and another v. C.P. Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450 : (AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 393), the Honourable 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. 15. In a recent enunciation by the Honourable Apex Court to discern the imperative pre-requisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined in B. Jayraj (AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 1837) (supra) 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) and (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. 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 essentiality 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) and (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. 16. 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, the conviction cannot be sustained as the onus lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 17. PW-1- complainant-Mangabhai Mohanbhai Parmar has deposed that he was residing at Ratanji-Ni-Muvadi, Dhabe Mithapur. Before one year from the date of complaint, Gram Sewak-Ratansingh Amarsingh informed the complainant that a farmer who is below poverty line can get subsidy of Rs. 42,000/- for constructing well under the Jivan Dhara Scheme, issued by the Government of Gujarat and for that scheme, he can contact the District Development Officer, Kheda. As the complainant agreed to take benefit of scheme/subsidy, he filled up a prescribed form of the scheme and completed all formalities for getting subsidy. Thereafter, the Taluka Development Officer verified the said form and application of the complainant was approved. As the complainant agreed to take benefit of scheme/subsidy, he filled up a prescribed form of the scheme and completed all formalities for getting subsidy. Thereafter, the Taluka Development Officer verified the said form and application of the complainant was approved. After approving application, he informed the complainant to begin the construction of well and payment of subsidy of digging well would be given in installments to which, the complainant started construction of well and during the construction of well, he got installments of the subsidy amount and in total he got Rs. 37,000/- towards the subsidy. He has further deposed that he went to Small Irrigation Sub-division Panchayat, Dakor for the purpose of clearing his last installment amount and met accused No. 1-K.T. Shah who was working as Additional Assistant Engineer but he demanded Rs. 1000/- from the accused as illegal gratification for clearing the last installment. As complainant was not willing to pay bribe amount, he filed a complaint before Anti Corruption Bureau, Nadiad. He has further deposed that upon lodging the complaint, the ACB arranged a trap after obtaining the service of independent panchas. He has further deposed that he, as well as 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 on the currency notes and the ACB Officials also arranged ten currency notes in denomination of Rs. 100/-. He has further deposed that he as well as panchas went to the office of the accused where they found that the accused was not present. Thereafter the complainant asked the peon-accused No. 2 about accused No. 1 to which accused No. 2 replied accused No. 1 has gone outside the office for some work and he would come within one and half hours and accused No. 2 suggested them to wait. He has further deposed that he told accused No. 2 that he had some work with the accused and he want to give some money to which accused No. 2 told the complainant that he can give him money and he would give the same to accused No. 1. He has further deposed that he told accused No. 2 that he had some work with the accused and he want to give some money to which accused No. 2 told the complainant that he can give him money and he would give the same to accused No. 1. Thereafter, the complainant gave tainted currency notes to the accused No. 2 and raised prearranged signal and hence, other members of the raiding party and the ACB personnel came there and caught hold of the accused red handed and tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of accused No. 2. In the cross-examination, the complainant has admitted that he had never seen the accused No. 1 before the trial and he had never gone to the office of irrigation at Dakor before lodging the complaint. He has further admitted that he visited the panchayat office at Thasra and he handed over the amount to accused No. 2. He has further admitted that he did not know accused No. 1 before the trap. He has further admitted that neither he met the accused persons before lodging the complaint nor the accused persons demanded any illegal gratification from him. He has further admitted that accused No. 1-Mr. Shah whose name the complainant mentioned in the complaint was having mustache and was aged about 35 to 40 years but the person who was standing in the trial Court was not the same person. He has further admitted that neither he knew the name of accused No. 2 nor he knew about the occupation of accused No. 2 and the accused No. 2 did not demand any illegal gratification. He has further admitted that as directed by Police Inspector-Mr. Upadhyay, he gave tainted currency notes to accused No. 2. 18. PW-2-Dhirubhai Kanjibhai has deposed that he was working as Talati in Nadiad City and he was requisitioned to act as panch in the trap prior to holding the raid. He has further deposed that he was called by the ACB on 24th December, 1998 and when he went to ACB Office, The ACB officials introduced him with the complainant and the ACB provided the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,000/- in denomination of Rs. 100/-. He has further deposed that he was called by the ACB on 24th December, 1998 and when he went to ACB Office, The ACB officials introduced him with the complainant and the ACB provided the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,000/- in denomination of Rs. 100/-. He has further deposed that 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 has to be applied on the currency notes and as to how the experiment of ultra-violet lamp is to be carried out. He has further deposed that after carrying out all formalities, they proceeded towards the Panchayat Irrigation Office at Thasra where accused No. 1 was not present. He has further deposed that the complainant asked whereabout of accused No. 1 from accused No. 2 to which accused No. 2 told that accused No. 1 has gone outside the office for some work. He has further deposed that thereafter the complainant asked accused No. 2 about his bill of installment and also told accused No. 2 that his deal was done with accused No. 1 and he has brought the demanded amount and handed over the said amount of Rs. 1000/- in denomination of Rs. 100/- to accused No. 2. He has further deposed that thereafter, accused No. 2 accepted the said tainted currency notes and counted it and placed the same in the pocket of his shirt. Thereafter, as decided earlier, prearranged signal was given to the other members of the raiding party and the ACB personnel came there and caught hold of the accused-appellant red handed and tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused No. 2. Thereafter, second part of the panchnama was carried out in the presence of accused-appellant and the said tainted currency notes were recovered. However, in the cross-examination, PW-2-panch has admitted that the test of the ultraviolet was found to be negative. He has further admitted that he was unaware as to why the currency notes were given to the accused No. 2 whereas the amount was demanded by accused No. 1. He has further deposed that when the raid was carried out at the office of accused No. 1, the complainant did not know accused No. 2. 19. He has further admitted that he was unaware as to why the currency notes were given to the accused No. 2 whereas the amount was demanded by accused No. 1. He has further deposed that when the raid was carried out at the office of accused No. 1, the complainant did not know accused No. 2. 19. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual position, this Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment and order as well as the depositions of the witnesses in light of the rival submissions made by learned advocates for both the sides. 20. In corruption cases, as laid down in the series of judgments by the Honourable Apex Court as well as by this Court, three vital ingredients are required to be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in order to prove the offence as alleged. Recently, the Honourable Apex Court has made it clear that the proof of demand of illegal gratification, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. Precisely, failure of the prosecution to prove demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of amount from the person of the accused of the offence under sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. In view of the aforesaid principle laid down by the Honourable Apex Court, so far as the proof of demand is concerned, upon examination of the evidence on record as regards to the demand in the present case, as per the charge framed against the accused and as per the prosecution case, the accused No. 2 raised demand by making gesture by hand to deliver Rs. 1000/- and hence, the complainant handed over Rs. 1000/- to accused No. 2 and that is the precise case of the prosecution. 1000/- and hence, the complainant handed over Rs. 1000/- to accused No. 2 and that is the precise case of the prosecution. So far as the demand is concerned, the same is revealing from the complaint which has been lodged by the complainant and the same is also revealing from the panchnama of trap arranged as well as from the police statements of complainant and panch who have narrated in the recital of the panchnama that the demand was raised by way of making gesture by raising hand and to deliver Rs. 1000/- as illegal gratification to the accused. However, during the course of leading evidence before learned trial Court, the complainant as well as panch who were witnesses in whose presence, the transaction as regards to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification took place have tried to develop the case by way of making improvements in their examination-in-chief as if accused No. 2 demanded by making oral request to deliver Rs. 1000/- to accused No. 1 as illegal gratification. However, in their cross examination, both the witnesses have admitted that there was no conversation between complainant and accused No. 2 and, therefore, entire factum as regards to demand itself falls on the ground. Under the circumstances, even though tainted currency notes of Rs. 1000/- which were indisputably not seized or recovered from the accused No. 1, but the same has been recovered from the possession of the accused No. 2 may be believed to be true, then also mere recovery of tainted currency notes which were used in trap would not prove the vital ingredients as regards to demand and acceptance. 21. This Court has minutely gone through the evidence of the aforesaid two crucial witnesses and on examination of their evidence, it appears that they have tried to improve upon their version as if accused No. 2 demanded the amount of Rs. 1000/- by making oral request and thereafter in the cross examination, both the witnesses have admitted that there was no conversation between the complainant and accused No. 2. In this view of the matter, very factum as to demand and acceptance is not proved. 1000/- by making oral request and thereafter in the cross examination, both the witnesses have admitted that there was no conversation between the complainant and accused No. 2. In this view of the matter, very factum as to demand and acceptance is not proved. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, though learned trial Court has recorded the finding that when tainted currency notes were found and test of ultra-violate lamp was found to be positive in the evidence as well as in muddamal shirt which was worn by the accused No. 2 and therefore, invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the offence as regards to demand and acceptance is held to be proved is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in series of decisions. The factum of demand can only be established in the oral evidence of demander as well as giver of illegal gratification and in order to corroborate the said transaction, the evidence of panch is also essential as corroborative evidence but the evidence of demander as well as giver is direct evidence. If the said evidence is not available, in that case, even though recovery of tainted currency notes which came to be recovered from the accused No. 2, the case of the prosecution would fall on the ground. 22. On overall evaluation of the evidences on record, as per complainant-Mangalbhai, illegal gratification of Rs. 1000/- was demanded by Mr. Shah-accused No. 1 who was serving as Additional Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department at Dakor for preparing his bill and he was directed to handover the said demanded amount of illegal gratification to him in his office at Dakor on 24th December, 1998, between 11:00 and 12:00 a.m. in pursuance of the aforesaid pre-demand by accused No. 1, the trap was arranged on 24th December, 1998 and the complainant went along with panch to the Panchayat Office Thasra but at that time, accused No. 1 was not present at his office to which, the complainant asked whereabouts of accused No. 1 from accused No. 2. Upon asking about accused No. 1, accused No. 2 told that accused No. 1 has gone outside the office and he would come within one and half hours thereafter some causal talks were going on between accused No. 2 and complainant and during the discussion, the complainant asked regarding his bill to which accused No. 2 told him that the bill is lying in his office. Thereafter, the complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to accused No. 2 and as decided earlier, pre-arranged signal was given by the complainant to the other members of the raiding party and the ACB personnel came there and caught hold of the accused-appellant red handed and tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused No. 2. Thereafter, second part of the panchnama was carried out in the presence of accused-appellant and the said tainted currency notes were recovered. In the present case, indisputably, the pre-demand alleged to have been made by accused No. 1 but at the time of trap, accused No. 1 was found to be absent and demanded amount could not be accepted by accused No. 1. 23. On going through the evidence of the complainant as well as panch No. 1, it revels that neither accused No. 2 had knowledge regarding the pre-demand nor he had knowledge that accused No. 1 demanded any amount from the complainant. In that view of the matter, no concrete evidence comes out from the evidence of the complainant and panch regarding main ingredients i.e. demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. 24. On overall analysis of the evidence on record, it neither proves that accused No. 2 was acting at the behest of accused No. 1 nor it proves that accused No. 2 accepted the tainted currency notes as an illegal gratification nor it proves that he had knowledge regarding any illegal gratification was demanded by accused No. 1. In that view of the matter, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the vital ingredients as regards demand of illegal gratification and acceptance. It also reveals from the evidence of the complainant wherein he has admitted that he did not know whereabouts of accused No. 1 till the date of recording evidence and whatever identity, he mentioned to P.I.-Upadhayay was not matching when he saw the accused No. 1 during the trial. It also reveals from the evidence of the complainant wherein he has admitted that he did not know whereabouts of accused No. 1 till the date of recording evidence and whatever identity, he mentioned to P.I.-Upadhayay was not matching when he saw the accused No. 1 during the trial. The complainant has also admitted that accused No. 2 had never demanded any illegal gratification from him and he had never met accused No. 2 prior to the trap. In that view of the matter, so far as accused No. 2 is concerned, if it is believed to be true that the tainted currency notes were accepted by accused No. 2, the same has been accepted by accused No. 2 without knowledge that the said currency notes were demanded as a bribe by accused No. 1. Therefore, the said fact clearly reveals that accused No. 2 had no intention to commit any offence and hence, accused No. 2 cannot be said to have abetted the commission of offence. So far as accused No. 1 is concerned, at the time of trap he was not present at the place of trap and the amount of illegal gratification was not handed over to accused No. 1. However, accused No. 2 was present at the place of trap and he took the amount of illegal gratification from the complainant, but the prosecution has not brought on record as to how accused No. 2 had abetted in commissioning the aforesaid crime in question and prosecution has also failed to brought on record that accused No. 2 had full knowledge that the said amount was demanded as illegal gratification by the accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 demanded the said amount on behalf of accused No. 1. 25. In view of the above discussion, the following final order is passed: "(i) Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2004 preferred by the appellant -Kiritbhai Thakorelal Shah- original accused No. 1 and (ii) Criminal Appeal No. 1020 of 2004 preferred by the appellant-Muljibhai Dahyabhai-original accused No. 2 are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 26.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad Camp at Anand, in Special (ACB) Case No. 13 of 1999 is quashed and set aside. Both the appellants - accused are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Bail bond stands discharged. The impugned judgment and order dated 26.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad Camp at Anand, in Special (ACB) Case No. 13 of 1999 is quashed and set aside. Both the appellants - accused are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Bail bond stands discharged. Fine, if any, paid by them be refunded to them. R & P be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith."