JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The appellant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 24.05.2000, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Court No.10, Ahmedabad City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Special Case No.23 of 1997, whereby the appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default, to undergo fifteen days rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 13 (1) (d) (1) (2) (3) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that the appellant was serving as a Woman P.S.I. at Mahila Police Station, Karanj at the relevant point of time. The complainant - Jiviben Harshadbhai Thakor was residing at Narol, Ahmedabad. Harshadbhai - husband of the complainant had love affair with one Sajanben of village Thaltej and he started living with Sajanben. Harshadbhai - husband of the complainant took away the house hold articles belonging to the complainant. In connection with the same, the complainant approached before Karanj Mahila Police Station. Her complaint was registered on blank paper and she was told to come with Rs. 2,000/- on the next day so that the present appellant - accused can manage to bring her household articles from her husband's house. As the complainant did not desire to give any amount to the accused, the complainant approached the ACB office and lodged the complaint on 20.02.1997. After following necessary formalities in respect of trap, the trap was conducted on 20.02.1997. The accused was caught red-handed while accepting the amount towards illegal gratification. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the appellant accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) (1) (2) (3) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the accused person. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the accused person. 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 four 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 has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, Mr. D.R. Bhatt, learned advocate for the present appellant-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 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 conviction is required to be reversed, as such. 6. Mr. D.R. Bhatt, learned advocate for the present appellant-accused has taken this Court through the entire evidence on record and argued that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the vital ingredients as regards the demand, acceptance and recovery as the complainant herself disowned her complaint itself. As she did not support the prosecution case, she was declared hostile. He has further argued that the shadow witness - panch No. 1 who accompanied the complainant at the time of trap, had also admitted in his cross examination that the present appellant - accused did not demand anything from the complainant and therefore, there appears no evidence on record to establish the demand and acceptance. He has further argued that this case is squarely covered by the celebrated decisions in the cases of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55 and M.R. Purushottam v. State of Karnataka, 2015 (3) SCC 247 . He has further argued that this case is squarely covered by the celebrated decisions in the cases of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55 and M.R. Purushottam v. State of Karnataka, 2015 (3) SCC 247 . He has further argued that even if relying upon the evidence of panch No. 1 as well as the Investigating Officer, recovery may be believed to be proved, then also it renders meaningless in absence of the vital ingredients as regards demand and acceptance. 7. On the other hand, Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP has taken this Court to the entire materials available on record as well as entire paper book and impugned judgment. He has also supported the judgment rendered by the learned Special Judge. He has further argued that the vital ingredients as regards demand, acceptance and recovery are established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and the finding recorded by the learned Special Judge is based upon the evidence available on record and therefore, this Court should not interfere with the judgment of conviction. He has further argued that learned trial Court has recorded ample reasons based on the evidence on record for convicting the appellant and ingredients as regards demand, acceptance and recovery are proved in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court may not disturb the findings recorded by learned trial Court. 8. This Court has heard Mr. D.R. Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. K.L. Pandya, 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. 10. 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. 11. 11. 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. 12. In a recent enunciation by the Honourable Apex Court to discern the imperative prerequisites 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 expendable 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 14. Keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid series of decisions in light of the rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the question arises for determination of this Court whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the vital ingredients as regards demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000/- or not. 15. P.W. No. 1 - Jiviben Harshadbhai Thakor has been examined vide Exhibit 14. She has deposed that she got married with Harshadbhai before about 15 years. She was residing with Harshad at Narol in the year 1997. She has no child out of the wedlock with him. Thereafter, her husband - Harshadbhai developed illicit relationship with one lady namely Sajanben and started living with her at Shahwadi. Her husband also took away household articles belonging to her. Therefore, she approached Karanj Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad for getting her household articles returned from her husband. She met Hansaben there and Hansaben told her that she would help her to get her household articles returned. Thereafter, she returned to her home. Thereafter, one lady constable namely Hameedaben residing nearby her house, prompted her to lodge the complaint and she was directed to handover money to her forcefully. Thereafter, she was taken to Shahibaug Police Station. When she visited Karanj Police Station on the day of trap, six persons were there. At that time, the appellant - accused did not demand any amount of illegal gratification from her. Thereafter, one Anishbhai took money from her and then, other person also took money. Her signature was obtained on the paper. She identified the accused before the Court but she denied that the accused had ever demanded any amount of illegal gratification from her for helping her to get returned her household articles. She also denied that she lodged the complaint before the ACB Office as the present appellant - accused demanded money from her. Therefore, she was declared hostile. In the cross examination carried out by the learned APP, she did not support the prosecution case at all. She also denied that she lodged the complaint before the ACB Office as the present appellant - accused demanded money from her. Therefore, she was declared hostile. In the cross examination carried out by the learned APP, she did not support the prosecution case at all. In the cross examination carried out on behalf of the accused, she admitted that Police Constable - Hameedaben grabbed her house where her mother was residing at Jamalpur Pagathiya and said Hameedaben showed her ACB Police Station, Shahibaug for lodging the complaint. She also admitted that when she went to Mahila Police Station, accused - Hansaben told her to sit in the vehicle and also to help her to get her household articles returned, but she refused as her husband - Harshad might not be available there. Therefore, accused - Hansaben told her to come on the next day. 16. P.W. No. 2 - Sureshkumar Manilal Vaghela has been examined vide exhibit 16. He has deposed that he is serving as a Junior Clerk in the Superintendent of Stamp Office at the relevant time. He was called by the ACB Official on 19.02.1997 as an official panch. He was directed to report on the next day. One another lady panch was also present there. Thereafter, they were introduced to complainant - Jiviben. He was made to understand as to how the trap is to be conducted and he was directed to view the incident and hear the conversation which may take place between the complainant and the accused. He has further deposed that the necessary procedure in respect of trap was carried out in the ACB Office in his presence. On the day of trap, he visited Mahila Police Station with complainant - Jiviben and inquired about Geetaben. As Geetaben came in her cabin, they went inside her cabin and took their seat in front of accused - Geetaben and thereafter, complainant asked her about further investigation pertaining to her application. At that time, accused - Geetaben told her to visit Narol. On the same day, after one hour and thirty minutes, they visited the said police station. At that time, the complainant told that nobody would be available at Narol and further told that she had brought as per the earlier talk. At that time, accused - Geetaben told her to visit Narol. On the same day, after one hour and thirty minutes, they visited the said police station. At that time, the complainant told that nobody would be available at Narol and further told that she had brought as per the earlier talk. Thereafter, the complainant told the accused to reduce some amount and thereafter, she handed over Rs.1,500/- to the accused and then, accused - Geetaben accepted and placed the same into her purse. Thereafter, the complainant gave pre - arranged signal, due to which, other members of raiding party arrived there. The test of anthracene powder was found to be positive so far as hands of the accused as well as her purse are concerned. Panchnama in respect of seizure was also carried out and tainted currency notes which were lying on the floor were recovered through him. He also identified the accused before the Court. However, he admitted in the cross examination that when they visited the chamber of the accused on the day of trap, the accused did not demand any amount of illegal gratification from the complainant. He further admitted that the accused had not initiated to raise the demand from the complainant. He also admitted that the complainant voluntarily handed over the amount to the accused. He also admitted that due to suspicion, the accused threw away the amount. 17. The prosecution has also examined P.W. No. 3 -Mr. K.M. Rathod vide Exhibit 19 as a Raiding Officer who arranged the trap and P.W. No. 4-Mr. H.P. Agrawat vide Exhibit 21. 18. So far as the establishment of vital ingredients such as demand and acceptance are concerned, the prosecution examined P.W. Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the complainant and shadow witness. Admittedly, the complainant has disowned her own complaint and she went to saying to the extent that the accused had never demanded any amount of illegal gratification from her and Police Constable - Hameedaben prompted her to lodge the complaint and she was taken to ACB Office, Shahibaug, therefore she lodged the complaint. In this way, the complainant had not at all supported the prosecution case. In this way, the complainant had not at all supported the prosecution case. So far as the establishment of vital ingredients such as demand and acceptance are concerned, P.W. No. 2 who accompanied the complainant had deposed to some extent that while they visited the chamber of the accused, the complainant told the accused that she had brought money and thereafter, she handed over money to the accused and the accused accepted the said amount and placed into her purse and thereafter, as she gave pre-arranged signal, other members of raiding party arrived. Due to suspicion, the accused threw away the said amount on the floor and thereafter, tainted currency notes were recovered from the floor. In the cross examination, the shadow witness clearly admitted that the accused did not initiate any demand, but the complainant voluntarily handed over the said amount to the accused. 19. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, though the evidence on the record is indicating that the complainant handed over tainted currency notes to the accused, but, no evidence is available on the record as to whether the complainant handed over the amount in response to any demand made by the accused or not. The complainant herself had disowned her statement made in her initial complaint at Exhibit 20 before the Investigating Officer and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand. The evidence of P.W. No. 1 and the contents of Exhibit 20 cannot be relied upon and it is difficult for this Court to come to conclusion that the above material establishes the alleged demand was made by the accused and therefore, the learned Special Judge rightly held that the demand allegedly made by the accused had not been proved. 20. This Court has gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant - accused and finds that the present case is squarely covered by the celebrated decisions in the cases of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55 and M.R. Purushottam v. State of Karnataka, 2015 (3) SCC 247 as the complainant disowned her own complaint and no other evidence for establishing the vital ingredients like demand and acceptance is available on record. Therefore, in absence of any clinching evidence on record, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court cannot sustain. 21. Therefore, in absence of any clinching evidence on record, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court cannot sustain. 21. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 24.05.2000, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Court No. 10, Ahmedabad City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Special Case No.23 of 1997, is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith. Appeal Allowed.