JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 25.1.2001 rendered by learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Gandhinagar in Special Case No. 5 of 1994. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that complainant - Hemtuji Shivaji Makwana is residing at village Navapura, Taluka District Gandhinagar and is giving honorary services as Preacher in Jan Shikshan Kendra and this Jan Shikshan Kendra is being run in Primary School at Vankanerda village. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant is being paid Rs. 200/- per month towards honorarium and the complainant was discharged after office hours on 30.6.1993 as the tenure of his services was over. Thereafter, again the complainant was to be given the appointment order, but the same was not received by the complainant and hence he approached the office of Adult Education, Sector 30, Gandhinagar along with Ranjitsinh Lilaji, Preacher of Dabhoda where he met the accused and asked them to give the new appointment order and in turn, the accused demanded Rs. 500/- (Rs. 250/- for each person). It is alleged that thereafter accused No. 2 demanded the money at the house of Ranjitsinh at Dabhoda and in the presence of complainant, Ranjitsinh gave Rs. 250/- to accused No. 1 and in turn, accused No. 1 gave the said amount to accused No. 2. It is alleged that thereafter the complainant went at the office at Gandhinagar for inquiring regarding his appointment order, but the accused were not found there. It is alleged that thereafter accused No. 1 again demanded Rs. 250/- from the complainant. As the complainant did not want to give the said amount of illegal gratification, he lodged the complaint before the ACB office. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the appellants 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 witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the appellants 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 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 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 appellants have preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, 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. 6. Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Vishal Anandjiwala, learned advocate for the appellants has taken this Court through the evidence of the witnesses as well as impugned order and argued that oral evidence of complainant - PW 1, co-complainant Ranjitsinh - PW 2 and Bhikhabhai Tabhabhai - PW 3 suffers from lots of improvements and omissions and during the course of their depositions, they have improved their versions and their improvements and omissions have been brought on record during the course of examination of the Investigating Officer - PW 5 entirely different scenario as regards to raising predemand as well as demand and acceptance at the time of trap had been brought on record by both the aforesaid witnesses. He, therefore, submitted that improvements made by PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 have not been consideration by learned trial Court and disregarding the same, the appellants have been convicted as if their evidence is cogent and reliable. He, therefore, submitted that improvements made by PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 have not been consideration by learned trial Court and disregarding the same, the appellants have been convicted as if their evidence is cogent and reliable. He submitted that even otherwise, the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 is also not in consonance with the complaint came to be lodged and altogether they have given new evidence before learned trial Court and tried to implicate the accused in crime in question. He submitted that due to lack of uniformity in the complaint as well as previous statements of the aforesaid witnesses before the police, their evidence is required to be disregarded as such in toto. He submitted that the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses whose evidence is crucial for deciding the case in question suffers from the vice of material improvements which goes to the root of the case itself wherein all the three witnesses have tried to implicate the accused in crime in question by way of making improvements during the course of trial though they did not state the said things in the complaint or in the statements recorded by the police during the course of their interrogation. Lastly, Mr. Anandjiwala requested this Court to allow the present appeal. 7. On the other-hand, Mr. K.P. Rawal, learned APP has supported the judgment rendered by learned trial Court. He submitted 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 further submitted that finding recorded by learned trial Court is based upon the concrete and clinching evidence. He submitted that learned trial Court has recorded ample reasons based on the evidence on record for convicting the appellant accused and ingredients as regards to demand, acceptance and recovery are proved in accordance with law and, therefore, this Court may dismiss the appeal filed by the appellants - original accused. He, therefore, submitted that this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction in view of the cogent and clinching evidence on record. 8. This Court has heard Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Vishal Anandjiwala, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. Rawal, learned APP for the respondent State. 9. He, therefore, submitted that this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction in view of the cogent and clinching evidence on record. 8. This Court has heard Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Vishal Anandjiwala, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. Rawal, 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, as stated above, complainant - Hemtuji Shivaji Makwana is residing at village Navapura, Taluka District Gandhinagar and is giving honorary services as Preacher in Jan Shikshan Kendra and this Jan Shikshan Kendra is being run in Primary School at Vankanerda village. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant is being paid Rs. 200/- per month towards honorarium and the complainant was discharged after office hours on 30.6.1993 as the tenure of his services was over. Thereafter, again the complainant was to be given the appointment order, but the same was not received by the complainant and hence he approached the office of Adult Education, Sector 30, Gandhinagar along with Ranjitsinh Lilaji, Preacher of Dabhoda where he met the accused and asked them to give the new appointment order and in turn, the accused demanded Rs. 500/- (Rs. 250/- for each person). It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter accused No. 2 demanded the money at the house of Ranjitsinh at Dabhoda and in the presence of complainant, Ranjitsinh gave Rs. 250/- to accused No. 1 and in turn, accused No. 1 gave the said amount to accused No. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter the complainant went at the office at Gandhinagar for inquiring regarding his appointment order, but the accused were not found there. It is alleged that thereafter accused No. 1 again demanded Rs. 250/- from the complainant. As the complainant did not want to give the said amount of illegal gratification, he lodged the complaint before the ACB office and thereby the accused has committed the offence, as alleged. 10. PW 1 - Remtuji Shivaji Makwana has been examined at Exh. 42. It is alleged that thereafter accused No. 1 again demanded Rs. 250/- from the complainant. As the complainant did not want to give the said amount of illegal gratification, he lodged the complaint before the ACB office and thereby the accused has committed the offence, as alleged. 10. PW 1 - Remtuji Shivaji Makwana has been examined at Exh. 42. The witness has deposed that he was discharging his duty as honorary preacher and he wanted renewal order and hence, for the first time, he alone visited the office of the accused and on the second time, Ranjitsinh was accompanied with him. The witness has deposed that when he visited the office of the accused along with Ranjitsinh, he heard murmuring as regards to paying Rs. 250/- per head for getting appointment order. The witness has deposed that after about four - five days, one boy came saying that accused are calling at the house of Pujaji where the accused were present and the witness paid the amount to accused No. 1 but he stated that he paid the amount to accused No. 2 and thereafter he lodged the complaint. Actually, on the day of trap, when the complainant visited the office of the accused, at that time, accused No. 2 told that accused No. 1 is the concerned person and therefore he met to accused No. 1, at that time, accused No. 1 told that "do you come to receive the order" and again the accused told that "have you brought anything, then give". Thereafter, the witness gave the money and in turn, the accused gave the order and thereafter prearranged signal was raised. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that the accused are not concerned with the services of preacher and for that services, they are not required to be seen, as such. 11. The defence has also challenged as regards to predemand as well as instant demand though they did not admit the same. 12. PW 2 - Ranjitsinh Lilaji Solanki has been examined at Exh. 44. The witness has deposed that he is having acquaintance with the complainant and for getting the fresh appointment order, he met the accused along with the complainant, at that time, the accused demanded Rs. 250/- from each of them. 12. PW 2 - Ranjitsinh Lilaji Solanki has been examined at Exh. 44. The witness has deposed that he is having acquaintance with the complainant and for getting the fresh appointment order, he met the accused along with the complainant, at that time, the accused demanded Rs. 250/- from each of them. The witness has deposed that accused No. 1 told the complainant to hand over the money and hence the complainant has handed over Rs. 250/- to the accused, at that time, he also accompanied the complainant and thereafter the complaint was lodged. The witness has deposed that on one hand, the complainant handed over the money to accused No. 1 and on the other hand, the accused handed over the order of appointment to the complainant. The version of this witness has also been challenged by the defence as regards to demand and acceptance, but he did not accept it. 13. PW 3 - Bhikhabhai Tabhabhai Dabhda - Panch No. 1 has been examined at Exh. 45. The witness has deposed that he was requisitioned as panch and at the time of trap, he accompanied the complainant, at that time, the accused No. 1 has asked the complainant as to whether he has brought the money and in turn, the complainant said "yes". The witness has deposed that thereafter the complainant has handed over the money and accused No. 1 gave the appointment order and thereafter the money was placed over the table. The witness has deposed that thereafter the signal was raised and hence the members of the raiding party arrived there. 14. 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. 15. 15. 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. 16. 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. 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. 17. 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. 17. 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 recovery was made, the conviction cannot be sustained as the onus lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 18. It is the contention of Mr. Anandjiwala, learned senior advocate for the appellants that all the aforesaid witnesses have made material improvements which have been brought on record in the deposition of PW 5 - Investigating Officer i.e. in cross examination, more particularly, in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7. This Court has perused the improvements made therein which go to the root of the case itself. So far as the factum as regards to predemand which has been mentioned in the complaint as well as in the deposition, both are different and even the version made in the depositions of all the three witnesses is not confirming their previous statements made before the police during the course of investigation. 19. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual position and on overall analysis of the evidence on record, it appears that all the three witnesses, as aforesaid, have made material improvements in their depositions during the course of trial and even they went to the extent of making material contradiction as regards to the contents of the complaint which came to be lodged by PW 1. Even, the deposition of the complainant is not in consonance with his previous complaint lodged before the ACB official and therefore, there appears no uniformity in the evidence of all the three witnesses, as aforesaid. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence of all the three witnesses, as stated above, suffers from material contradiction as well as material improvements and hence taking into consideration their material improvements made during the course of their depositions in its entirety, nothing is getting proved against the present accused. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence of all the three witnesses, as stated above, suffers from material contradiction as well as material improvements and hence taking into consideration their material improvements made during the course of their depositions in its entirety, nothing is getting proved against the present accused. Learned trial Judge has disregarded the aforesaid point by evaluating the evidence on record and learned trial Judge ought to have taken into consideration paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the cross examination of the Investigating Officer - PW 5 before recording any finding thereon. Under the circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the vital ingredients, i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery and taking into consideration the material improvements which have been brought on record, no iota of evidence is available against the present accused to link with the crime in question. 20. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, when demand and acceptance is not proved which are vital ingredients so far as establishing the guilt of accepting illegal gratification is concerned and in consequence whereof, recovery of tainted currency notes from the table has become meaningless. In this view of the matter, finding recorded by learned trial Court is not in consonance with the evidence available on record. It is by now well settled that demand has to be proved by adducing clinching evidence. Under the circumstances, in absence of specific and clinching evidence to prove all such acts by the appellants accused, conviction recorded by learned trial Judge is not sustainable. 21. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 25.1.2001 rendered by learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Gandhinagar in Special Case No. 5 of 1994 is quashed and set aside. The appellants accused are acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Fine, if any, paid by the appellants accused be refunded. R & P be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith. Appeal Allowed