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 28.7.2004 rendered by learned Special Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Surat in Special Case No. 13 of 1992. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant - Police Inspector received information that police personnel of traffic branch of Surat city, local police and the employees of octroi department of Municipal Corporation are collecting the amount illegal in the name of entry fee and on the basis of the same, he arranged for the trap wherein the appellant accused caught red handed along with the tainted currency notes. Therefore, the complainant lodged the complaint against the appellant accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the appellant 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 appellant has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant 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. 6. Mr. 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. Shakeel Qureshi, learned advocate for the appellant - original accused has argued that out of the three witnesses who alleged to have viewed the incident, two independent witnesses have turned hostile i.e. decoy punter and the cleaner and only the shadow panch has supported the case of the prosecution to some extent and since this is a decoy trap, the complaint was lodged by Mr. R.C. Rana, Police Inspector after seeking information from the punter, shadow witness as well as cleaner who accompanied at the time of running trap. He submitted that the said Police Inspector Mr. R.C. Rana had received secret information as regards to collection of illegal gratification by the traffic police officials and thereafter, he himself has arranged for the trap, carried out the trap and investigation and he himself lodged the complaint before himself and also filed the charge sheet. He, therefore, submitted that Police Inspector Mr. R.C. Rana has assumed all the roles and therefore entire investigation is tainted and relying upon such investigation, no conviction can be recorded as such. He submitted that PW 2 - Govindbhai Bhikhabhai Patel - punter and PW 3 - Vasantbhai Manjibhai Chaudhary - cleaner who were eye witnesses to the incident and who were independent witnesses were requisitioned by the trapping party had not supported the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile and therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to establish demand and acceptance. He submitted that another police official who was also being seated in the vehicle at the time of trap has not been examined and hence, learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the conviction which is required to be set aside. In support of his submissions, Mr. Qureshi has relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1976 SC 985 (Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan) and 1998 (1) GLH 924 (Kanubhai Kantibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat). Lastly, he submitted that the impugned judgment and order of conviction is required to be set aside so far as the present appellants are concerned. 7. On the other-hand, Mr. Qureshi has relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1976 SC 985 (Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan) and 1998 (1) GLH 924 (Kanubhai Kantibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat). Lastly, he submitted that the impugned judgment and order of conviction is required to be set aside so far as the present appellants are concerned. 7. On the other-hand, Mr. Hardik Soni, learned APP has supported the judgment rendered by learned trial Court. He has taken this Court through the entire Record and Proceedings and evidence of material witnesses on record and argued that demand as well as acceptance were proved and, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record. He further submitted that learned trial Court has recorded ample reasons based on the evidence on record for convicting the appellant and ingredients as regards to demand, acceptance and recovery are proved in accordance with law and therefore, this Court should not disturb the finding recorded by learned trial Court, as such. 8. This Court has heard Mr. Shakeel Qureshi, learned advocate for the appellant - accused and Mr. Soni, 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, the appellant accused was serving as Police Constable in the traffic branch. The complainant arranged the running trap on 25.11.1990 within the vicinity of Hop Pul. It is the case of the prosecution that while the punter decoy - PW 2 was passing along with his tempo No. GJ 5 T 0392 along with the cleaner and panchas, at that time, the present appellant accused demanded Rs. 100/- in lieu of disposal of memo issued by one another police official at the said traffic point and, thereby the appellant committed the offence, as alleged. 10. PW 2 - Govindbhai Bhikhabhai Patel has been examined at Exh. 11. The witness has deposed that he was requisitioned by Police Inspector Mr. R.C. Rana as decoy punter. The witness has deposed that while he was proceeding from Athwalines to Hop Pul, at that time, his tempo was intercepted by one police constable and thereafter nothing was happened and did not know as to what has happened, but thereafter police official as well as panchas were gathered there. R.C. Rana as decoy punter. The witness has deposed that while he was proceeding from Athwalines to Hop Pul, at that time, his tempo was intercepted by one police constable and thereafter nothing was happened and did not know as to what has happened, but thereafter police official as well as panchas were gathered there. He denied whether any amount of illegal gratification was demanded by the appellant accused and the trap was laid for the same. The panchnama was drawn in presence of the witness and thereafter he was declared hostile. 11. PW 3 - Vasantbhai Manjibhai Chaudhary has been examined at Exh. 12. The witness has deposed that he was working as cleaner upon the aforesaid tempo who was accompanied with the decoy. The witness has deposed that on 25.11.1990 while his tempo was proceeding from Athwalines gate to Hop Pul, at that time, it was intercepted by the police official but he did not know, as to what has happened thereafter, but the ACB official caught one police constable. Thereafter, the witness has been declared hostile. 12. PW 5 - Rameshchandra Chhaganlal Rana has been examined at Exh. 28. The witness has deposed that he was serving as Police Inspector, ACB, Surat at the relevant time and he received secret information that traffic police officials are collecting the amount of illegal gratification in lieu of not carrying out any legal proceedings for the traffic violation and therefore, he requisitioned punter decoy - PW 2, arranged for the trap, thereafter, he carried out the trap, the accused came to be caught red handed along with tainted currency notes, seizure memo was issued and thereafter on completion of successful running trap, he himself lodged the complaint, carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet. 13. 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. 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. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual as well as legal position and on overall analysis of the evidence on record, it appears that the trap in question was running trap wherein upon receipt of secret information by the complainant, trap was arranged and at the time of trap while the tempo reached nearby Hop Pul within vicinity of chok bazar, one another police official i.e. Mr. Rao issued the memo for violation of the traffic rule and signature of the punter was also obtained thereon. Thereafter, it is alleged that in lieu of disposal of the said memo, the present appellant accused demanded Rs. 100/- and as Rs. 100/- was not available with the decoy, he handed over Rs. 50/- as well as memo to the appellant accused. However, on going through the entire evidence on record, it reveals that though five to six memos were recovered from the pocket of the appellant accused, nothing is noticed as to what is the result of the investigation in respect of the said memos and whether that amount of Rs. 50/- accepted by the appellant accused was against the illegal gratification or for paying the amount in lieu of disposal of such memo issued for violation of traffic rule, no such investigation or inquiry is being carried out by the Investigating Officer. 50/- accepted by the appellant accused was against the illegal gratification or for paying the amount in lieu of disposal of such memo issued for violation of traffic rule, no such investigation or inquiry is being carried out by the Investigating Officer. Even otherwise also, it would be very difficult to comprehend by a person of ordinary prudence that once the memo was issued by the police official at the traffic point for violating the traffic rules and obtained the signature on the said memo of the punter and delivered memo to him and whether that memo can be disposed of by another police official without taking it to logical conclusion before the competent authority. If such an act is done by issuance of forged or duplicate memo then in that eventuality, it would be incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to investigate into the matter and it is surprising that it is nobody's case also. It is also very surprising to note that no such memo has been produced on record and proved and even nothing is revealing that what sort of action were taken by the competent authority for such memos issued by the concerned police official for violating the traffic rules and therefore also entire case of the prosecution weaken on that point. 18. On evaluation of the evidence of the independent witnesses i.e. PW 2 and PW 3, it appears that they have been declared hostile as they have not supported the case of the prosecution. However, PW 1 - panch has supported the case of the prosecution, but in his cross examination, he has clearly and categorically admitted that there was no conversation as regards to incident took place between Police Inspector Mr. Rana and him. Similarly, there was no such conversation with the police official Mr. Nandu who also accompanied with him. PW 1 also admitted that he has no idea as to whether any such conversation was taken place with the driver or not. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, the evidence of the shadow witness had become very doubtful and therefore the entire complaint becomes doubtful. 19. In the present case, it is the contention of Mr. Qureshi that PW 5 has assumed all the roles right from arranging the trap till filing of the charge-sheet. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, the evidence of the shadow witness had become very doubtful and therefore the entire complaint becomes doubtful. 19. In the present case, it is the contention of Mr. Qureshi that PW 5 has assumed all the roles right from arranging the trap till filing of the charge-sheet. On analysis of the evidence on record, there is some force in the contention raised by Mr. Qureshi. Admittedly, on receiving secret information that the police officials of traffic branch are indulging in corrupt practice, PW 5 has arranged for running trap, carried out the raid, lodged the complaint, carried out the investigation and then filed the charge-sheet. This course of action on the part of PW 5 goes against the basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence and fair investigation. The credibility of the case of the prosecution becomes suspicious on this count only. In the facts of the present case, the status of investigating officer could not be placed on any pedestal higher than of a complainant and the complainant himself cannot be the sole agency of investigation. There should be no occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation. Therefore, the case of the prosecution suffers from the basic infirmity which itself is sufficient to vitiate the whole investigation as per the judgments referred hereinabove. 20. In this view of the matter, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove vital ingredients as regards to demand and acceptance and therefore, the judgment and order of conviction calls for interference by this Court. Therefore, as stated above, in absence of specific and clinching evidence to prove all such acts by the 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 28.7.2004 rendered by learned Special Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Surat in Special Case No. 13 of 1992 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.