JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 28.4.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad in Special ACB Case No.2 of 1997 whereby original accused - appellant herein was convicted for the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months and also convicted her for the offence under section 13(1) (d) (1), (2) and (3) read with section 13(2) of the said Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. Today, when the matter is called out, it is pointed out by Mr. Kapadia, learned advocate that the appellant - original accused has died during the pendency of the appeal and his heirs and legal representatives have been brought on record vide order dated 28.10.2010 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.11796 of 2010 and hence, the present Criminal Appeal is pending for final disposal. 3. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that plot No.258/2 was running in the name of Daniben Bijalbhai who is grandmother of the complainant and she died without leaving any legal heir and therefore the complainant made the application to the Talaticum-Mantri of village Maflipur for entering the said plot in his name. It is alleged that the accused demanded Rs.1000/- from the complainant for entering the plot in his name. It is alleged that the complainant gave Rs.300/- to the accused in the presence of Ishwarbhai Parshottambhai Makwana and thereafter the complainant was called on 31.7.1996 in the panchayat office wherein the accused demanded Rs.700/-. As the complainant did not want to pay the said amount of illegal gratification, he filed the complainant before the ACB office on 3.8.1996. 4. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the original 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 the witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 4.2. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the original 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 the witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 4.2. At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant - original accused has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 6. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant-original accused has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of conviction. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is required to be reversed, as such. 7. Mr. N.M. Kapadia, learned advocate for the appellant - original accused has taken this Court through the evidence on record and argued that no traces of anthracene powder were found on the person of the accused though other articles were found from the pocket of the accused and therefore, recovery should not be believed. He submitted that though panchas were called on 2.8.1996, but the complaint came to be lodged on 3.8.1996 and therefore entire complaint and proceedings thereto stand vitiated. He submitted that as the sanctioning authority has not applied his mind as no requisite papers have been taken into consideration while granting sanction and in support this argument, Mr. Kapadia has read several judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court. He submitted that Ishwarbhai who accompanied with the complainant up to the office of the accused, but he has not been examined by the prosecution and therefore so far as the demand, acceptance and recovery are concerned, the Court should not believe the evidence of rest of the witnesses as independent person has not been examined. He submitted that Ishwarbhai who accompanied with the complainant up to the office of the accused, but he has not been examined by the prosecution and therefore so far as the demand, acceptance and recovery are concerned, the Court should not believe the evidence of rest of the witnesses as independent person has not been examined. He submitted that even taking into consideration the evidence of the complainant and shadow witness who accompanied with the complainant during the course of trap is also not sufficient to establish vital ingredients as regards to demand, acceptance and recovery. He submitted that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and wrongly recorded the conviction as such. Lastly, Mr. Kapadia submitted that the impugned judgment and order of conviction is required to be quashed and set aside. 8. On the other-hand, Mr. K.P. Raval, 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 original accused. 9. This Court has heard Mr. N.M. Kapadia, learned advocate for the appellant-original accused and Mr. Raval, learned APP for the State. 10. 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. 11. As per the prosecution version, the complainant was resident of village Maflipur and as his grandmother died without leaving any legal heir, he applied to the gram panchayat for mutating his name in her place and he met the accused wherein the accused demanded Rs.1000/- on 23.7.1996 and that the accused accepted Rs.300/- and the complainant was directed to pay rest of the amount of Rs.700/- on 3.8.1996 and thereby the accused committed the offence, as alleged. 12. PW 1 - Kiritkumar Jethabhai Makwana has been examined at Exh.30. 12. PW 1 - Kiritkumar Jethabhai Makwana has been examined at Exh.30. The witness has deposed that he was residing along with his parents and as his grandmother died without leaving any legal heir, he applied to the gram panchayat for mutating his name in place of her and the gram panchayat passed the resolution authorizing the Talati-cum-Mantri to carry out the procedure for mutating his name for which the accused demanded Rs.1000/- and also recovered Rs.300/- from the complainant and thereafter the accused directed the complainant to pay the rest of the amount on 3.8.1996. The witness has deposed that as he was not willing to pay the said amount, he approached the ACB office and lodged the complaint. The complaint was recorded and thereafter concerned Police Inspector arranged for the trap, requisitioned panchas. On the day of trap, the complainant was directed to remain with the shadow witness - panch No.1 and they proceeded to gram panchayat office where the member of panchayat Ishwarbhai Parshottambhai Makwana met him and he told that the Talati is present and therefore he proceeded to the office of the accused along with shadow witness. At that time, the accused asked about the shadow witness and he introduced him as one of the beneficiary of the plot and thereafter the accused told him that he was waiting since long for the complainant and thereafter the accused stood up from his chair and taken the complainant towards the door and asked as to whether he has brought money or not, to which the complainant said yes. Thereafter, the accused asked for the money and hence, the complainant took out tainted currency notes and handed over to him which the accused accepted and then put the same into the left side pocket of the shirt. Thereafter, the complainant gave signal and hence, the members of the raiding party arrived at the place of incident. Thereafter, personal search of the accused was carried out and it was found to be positive. Extensive cross examination of the witness was carried out, but nothing worth has come out. 13. PW 2 - Shanabhai Mohanbhai Raval has been examined at Exh.33. The witness has deposed that he was requisitioned by the ACB official and that on the day of trap, he reached at the office of the accused along with the complainant. Extensive cross examination of the witness was carried out, but nothing worth has come out. 13. PW 2 - Shanabhai Mohanbhai Raval has been examined at Exh.33. The witness has deposed that he was requisitioned by the ACB official and that on the day of trap, he reached at the office of the accused along with the complainant. The witness has deposed that at that time, the complainant asked regarding his work, at that time, the accused asked about the introduction of the panch and thereafter asked as to whether the complainant has brought money and thereafter when they reached nearby the door, the accused asked about the money. The witness has deposed that thereafter the complainant took out the tainted currency notes and handed over to the accused and thereafter prearranged signal was raised and hence the members of the raiding party arrived at the place of incident and recovered the tainted currency notes through panch No.2. The witness has deposed that test of anthracene powder was also found positive on the person of the accused. In the cross examination of this witness, nothing worth has come out. 14. PW 3 - Dhirendrasinh Lakhaji Dodiya has been examined at Exh.37. The witness has deposed that he was serving as Police Inspector in ACB office, Ahmedabad (Rural) at the relevant time and in his presence, the complaint was recorded which came to be proved in his evidence. The witness has deposed that the said complaint at Exh.31 was read over to the panchas and their signatures were also obtained. The witness has deposed that panchas were requisitioned and the entire trap was carried out. However, in his deposition, the witness has admitted that no traces of anthracene powder were noticed on other articles found from the place of incident. 15. PW 4 - Jagdishchandra Maneklal Trivedi has been examined at Exh.39. The witness has been examined as sanctioning authority who was disciplinary authority also. The witness has deposed that he received the papers for according sanction, he studied the material which was sent to him and thereafter he accorded sanction which came to be exhibited. However, at the time of recording his evidence before learned trial Court, learned advocate for the accused was absent and therefore, no cross examination was done of the said witness. 16. PW 6 - Shankerbhai Khatubhai Parmar has been examined at Exh.43. However, at the time of recording his evidence before learned trial Court, learned advocate for the accused was absent and therefore, no cross examination was done of the said witness. 16. PW 6 - Shankerbhai Khatubhai Parmar has been examined at Exh.43. The witness has deposed that he carried out rest of the investigation and thereafter filed the charge-sheet, recorded statements of other witnesses. However, in the cross examination, the witness has admitted that he did not seize any record of Maflipur Gram Panchayat and he has not studied any revenue record of the said Gram Panchayat. The witness has admitted that the Gram Panchayat did pass the resolution in favour of the complainant though other members of the Gram Panchayat objected to the said resolution. 17. 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. 18. 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-a-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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual as well as legal 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. 22. 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. 22. 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. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and having perused the impugned judgment as well as Record and Proceedings, the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 6 is consistent with regard to the instant demand at the time of trap as well as in pursuance of the said demand, tainted currency notes were handed over to the accused which came to be recovered during the course of search and seizure and that the numbers of the said tainted currency notes mentioned in the preliminary panchnama were also tallied with the currency notes recovered from the accused. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is consistent evidence available on record. 23. On the point of sanction, learned advocate for the accused has argued that sanction is without application of mind. This Court has minutely perused the Record and Proceedings which clearly indicates that the accused was totally negligent in prosecuting his case before the learned trial Judge as his learned advocate was absent and thereafter nothing on record indicates that he has taken any steps to recall the said witness who accorded sanction so as to carry out cross examination. On the contrary, after recording the evidence of the said witness, the evidence of other two witnesses was also recorded and thereafter arguments were advanced and, therefore, the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the appellant - accused at this stage cannot be accepted in absence of raising any such grievance before learned trial Court. Even otherwise also, on going through the evidence given by the sanctioning authority, this Court is satisfied that he accorded the sanction after studying the material made available to him and therefore there appears total application of mind. 24. Even otherwise also, on going through the evidence given by the sanctioning authority, this Court is satisfied that he accorded the sanction after studying the material made available to him and therefore there appears total application of mind. 24. The technical point raised by learned advocate for the appellant accused as regards to not finding traces over other articles which were also found from the pocket of the accused at the relevant time has no bearing with the facts and circumstances of the present case as over the cover of bidi and bidi box as well as tainted currency notes and over the outer part of the pocket traces were already found and that fact has been testified by the complainant, shadow witness as well as Investigating Officer. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that sufficient evidence is available on record. 25. The grievance as regards to non-examination of Ishwarbhai Makwana, member of the gram panchayat who also accompanied with the complainant upto the office of the gram panchayat is not at all relevant as the Record and Proceedings clearly indicate that at the time of trap, there were two persons only who went to the office of the accused and they were PW 1 and PW 2 i.e. complainant and shadow witness and that Record and Proceedings is not revealing that said Ishwarbhai Makwana accompanied with the complainant actually at the time of trap and therefore, his evidence is not at all relevant so far as actual incident of trap is concerned. 26. So far as the contention with regard to entering the name of the complainant in the record of the panchayat on 23.7.1996 is concerned, as narrated by learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment, more particularly, in paragraph 17, it clearly reveals that resolution No.27 was passed by the gram panchayat authorizing the accused to carry out rest of the procedure for transferring the plot in favour of the complainant and on the very same day, the accused demanded Rs.1000/- and actually he recovered Rs.300/- from the complainant and the complainant was further directed to pay rest of the amount of Rs.700/- and therefore, the contention that the name was already mutated and therefore there was no cause to lodge the complaint is not acceptable. 27. 27. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in convicting the appellant - original accused. 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 conviction recorded by learned court below and hence finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 28. In view of the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 28.4.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad in Special ACB Case No.2 of 1997 is hereby confirmed. R & P be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.