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 25.7.2006 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Surendranagar, in Special (ACB) Case No. 6 of 2004, whereby the original accused was convicted for the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 ("the Act" for short) and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment and also convicted under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that complainant-Hamabhai Sagrambhai Rabari and his two brothers were residing at Village Moti Morsal, Taluka Sayla, District Surendranagar. The father of the complainant passed away six years prior from the date of complaint, due to which, the complainant and his brothers wanted to mutate their names in the revenue record in place of their father. Thereafter, for the purpose of mutating their names in the revenue record, they approached the office of Talati-cum-Mantri-accused-Kiritkumar Harihar Bhatt. It is alleged that thereafter, accused-Talati-cum-Matri demanded Rs. 6,000/-from the complainant for entering their names in revenue record which came to be scaled down to Rs. 3,000/-. It is alleged that at that time, the complainant gave Rs. 1000/- to the accused and he further assured the accused to give the remaining amount of Rs. 2,000/- later on. As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he filed a complaint on 30th July 2004, before Anti Corruption Bureau, Surendranagar. Thereafter, a trap was arranged and ultimately, the accused was caught red handed. Thereafter, seizure memo and other procedure in relation to the trap was carried out in presence of the panchas. Hence, a complaint came to be lodged against the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) 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 appellant-accused. Hence, a complaint came to be lodged against the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) 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 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 several 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 -accused has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the 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. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the appellant-accused has taken this Court through the evidence of the witnesses as well as impugned judgment and order and argued that there is no evidence to prove the involvement of the present accused in the crime in question. He has further argued that in the present case, the vital ingredients regarding demand, acceptance and recovery are required to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He has further argued that if the evidence of panch No. 1 who at the relevant time accompanied the complainant, is appreciated in its proper perspective, then there appears no clear conversation regarding demand and acceptance between the complainant and accused and, therefore, the main vital ingredients of illegal gratification, namely demand, acceptance and recovery are itself missing in the present case and so far as the recovery of tainted currency notes are concerned, the notes which were recovered from the possession of the accused becomes meaningless. He has further argued that on going through the revenue record which was produced by the prosecution at Exh:25, clearly reveals that on 2nd May, 2004, the entries were already mutated in the names of the complainant and his brothers, whereas the complaint was lodged on 30th July, 2004 and therefore, as the names of the complainant and his brothers were already entered in the revenue record, there is no question of demanding any amount as illegal gratification from the complainant. He has further argued that the prosecution produced several documentary evidences commencing from page Nos. 144 to 173 in the form of applications made by the complainant and his brothers for mutating their names in the revenue record, death certificate of their father and notice under Section 135 (d) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code which was served upon the complainant and some other documents are clearly indicating of the fact that the entries were already mutated on 2nd May, 2004. He has further argued that as per the version of complainant, initially, the accused raised demand of Rs. 6,000/-, which was scaled down to Rs. 3,000/-. However, in his oral depositions, the complainant deposed that the accused demanded Rs. 10,000/- as the illegal gratification and at that time, he handed over Rs. 8,000/- to the accused and hence, the complainant made a lots of improvements and contradictions in his depositions and there appears no uniformity regarding pre-demand. He has further argued that in the cross-examination, panch No. 1 has admitted that earlier, the complainant purchased cement from the accused and the amount of Rs. 2000/- which was handed over to the accused by the complainant was towards price of cement and not as illegal gratification. 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 appellant-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. He has further argued that there is no evidence to prove the involvement of the present appellant-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 of such presumption and surmises is not in accordance with the law. He has further argued that, therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove vital ingredients as regards to demand and acceptance. Lastly, he has requested this Court to allow the present appeal. 7. On other-hand, Mr. K.L. Pandya, 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 the finding recorded by the 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 argued that the 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. He has further argued that seizure memo is not only signed by the Investigating Officer, but the signature of the accused has also been obtained and therefore, presumption raised by learned trial Court is in accordance with law and this Court may not interfere with the judgment and order of conviction, as such. 8. This Court has heard Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the appellant-accused and Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for the respondent-State. 9. At this juncture, it would be fruitful to refer to some decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court. 8. This Court has heard Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the appellant-accused and Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for the respondent-State. 9. At this juncture, it would be fruitful to refer to some decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case of A. Subair v. State of Kerala reported in (2009) 6 SCC 587 , while dwelling on the purport of the statutory prescription of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court 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. 10. In the case of State of Kerala and another v. C.P. Rao reported in (2011) 6 SCC 450 , the Hon'ble 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. 11. In a recent enunciation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to discern the imperative pre-requisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. Reported in AIR 2014 SC(Supp) 1837, 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)&(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 essentially and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentially 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)&(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. 12. In reiteration of the golden principle which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, reported in (2013)12 SCC 406 had held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of "may be" true but has to upgrade it in the domain of "must be" true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It was held, that the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. 13. In the light of the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and taking into consideration the statutory provisions contained under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, evidence of the present case is required to be appreciated as such. 14. 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, complainant-Hamabhai Sagrambhai Rabari and his two brothers were residing at Village Moti Morsal, Taluka Sayla, District Surendranagar. The father of the complainant passed away six years prior from the date of complaint, due to which, the complainant and his brothers wanted to mutate their names in the revenue record in place of their father. As per the prosecution version, complainant-Hamabhai Sagrambhai Rabari and his two brothers were residing at Village Moti Morsal, Taluka Sayla, District Surendranagar. The father of the complainant passed away six years prior from the date of complaint, due to which, the complainant and his brothers wanted to mutate their names in the revenue record in place of their father. Thereafter, for the purpose of mutating their names in the revenue record, they approached the office of Talati-cum-Mantri-accused-Kiritkumar Harihar Bhatt. It is alleged that thereafter, accused-Talati-cum-Matri demanded Rs. 6,000/- from the complainant for entering their names in revenue record which came to be scaled down to Rs. 3,000/-. It is alleged that at that time, the complainant gave Rs. 1000/- to the accused and he further assured the accused to give the remaining amount of Rs. 2,000/- later on. As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he filed a complaint on 30th July 2004, before Anti Corruption Bureau, Surendranagar. Thereafter, a trap was arranged and ultimately, the accused was caught red handed. Thereafter, seizure memo and other procedure in relation to the trap was carried out in presence of the panchas and whereby the accused committed offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 15. PW1.-Hamabhai Sagrambhai-complainant has deposed that he and his two brothers were residing at Village Moti Morsal, Taluka Sayla, District Surendranagar and they were doing agricultural work. He has further deposed that his father was having 14 acres agricultural land at Village Ratadki, Taluka Sayla, District Surendranagar and his father passed away six years prior from the date of complaint, due to which, the complainant and his brothers wanted to mutate their names in the revenue record in place of their father. He has further deposed that thereafter, on 15th July, 2004, for the purpose of mutating their names in the revenue record, he and his cousin approached the office of Talati-cum-Mantri-accused-Kiritkumar Harihar Bhatt and requested him for mutating their names in the revenue record. He has further deposed that thereafter, accused-Talati-cum-Matri demanded Rs. 10,000/-from the complainant for entering their names in revenue record and thereafter, the complainant gave Rs. 8000/- to the accused and he further assured the accused to give the remaining amount of Rs. 2,000/- later on and thereafter their thumb marks were obtained in the applications. He has further deposed that thereafter, accused-Talati-cum-Matri demanded Rs. 10,000/-from the complainant for entering their names in revenue record and thereafter, the complainant gave Rs. 8000/- to the accused and he further assured the accused to give the remaining amount of Rs. 2,000/- later on and thereafter their thumb marks were obtained in the applications. He has further deposed that his sister-in-law told him on 29.7.2004 i.e. a day prior from lodging of the complaint that accused was demanding his unpaid amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 2000/-. He has further deposed that thereafter he told the accused on telephone that he would pay remaining amount of illegal gratification within eight days. He has further deposed that the accused told him to pay the remaining amount of illegal gratification at Alankar hotel which was situated in the way of residence of accused. However, on the next day i.e. 30.7.2004, as complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he filed a complaint before Anti Corruption Bureau, Surendranagar. He has further deposed that the ACB officials lodged the complaint and after reading the contents of the complaint, the complainant signed in the complaint and thereafter the ACB requisitioned panchas for the trap. Prior to holding the raid, the ACB officials gave detailed information as to how the raid was going to be conducted and as to how the anthracene powder is to be applied and as to how the experiment of ultra-violet lamp is to be carried out. He has further deposed that on the day of trap i.e. 30.7.2004, he accompanied with the panchas and other members of the ACB reached Alankar hotel where the accused was already present. He has further deposed that after taking tea, accused asked him about the remaining amount to which, the complainant asked the accused about his papers. He has further deposed that thereafter, the accused told him that if he may hand over the remaining amount, then remaining work would be proceeded further to which, the complainant took out the tainted currency notes from his pocket and handed over the same to the accused. Thereafter, as decided earlier, prearranged signal was given and hence, other members of the raiding party and the ACB personnel came there and caught hold of the accused-appellant red handed. Thereafter, as decided earlier, prearranged signal was given and hence, other members of the raiding party and the ACB personnel came there and caught hold of the accused-appellant red handed. In the cross-examination, the complainant has admitted that papers at Exh: 27, 29, 30 and 31 signed by him and Sarpanch were executed two months prior from the date of lodging of the complaint and at that time, there was no demand on the part of the accused. He has further admitted that neither he mentioned anything before the police about demanded amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/- and nor he mentioned that he had already paid Rs. 8000/- as illegal gratification to the accused. He has further admitted that at the time of trap, he asked the accused only about the work and he did not specify which type of work, he wanted to proceed further, to which, the accused told him without money how the goods would be brought. He has further admitted that his brother-Hajabhai requested the accused for buying the cement for which, accused demanded Rs. 2,000/-. He further admitted that the amount which was handed over to the accused on the day of the trap was towards the price of cement and not for the bribe amount. 16. PW-2-Devisinh Jemalji Rathod-Panch No. 1 has deposed that he was serving as mechanic in S.T. Corporation for about 27 years and he was requisitioned by the ACB to act as panch in the trap prior to holding the raid. He has further deposed that he went to the ACB Office and there he was introduced to the complainant and was also given to understand detailed information as to how the raid was going to be conducted and as to how the anthracene powder is to be applied and as to how the experiment of ultra-violet lamp is to be carried out. He has further deposed that he was instructed to accompany complainant and to hear as to what conversation took place between them and rest of the members were directed to see the incident outside the place of trap. He has further deposed that at the day of trap, he along with complainant and other members reached at the place of the accused i.e. Alankar hotel. He has further deposed that at the day of trap, he along with complainant and other members reached at the place of the accused i.e. Alankar hotel. He has further deposed that thereafter, the complainant asked the accused how much time would spend for completing his work to which, the accused replied as and when the goods would arrive. Thereafter, the complainant handed over Rs. 2,000/- to the accused and the accused took the same and put it into his pocket without counting the tainted currency notes. Thereafter, as decided earlier, pre-arranged signal was given and hence, other members of the raiding party and the ACB personnel came there and caught hold of the accused-appellant red handed. In the cross-examination, the panch No. 1 has admitted that the complainant handed over the aforesaid tainted currency notes to the accused towards the price of goods and not as a bribe. 17. PW-3-Bodidas Chimandas Dave has deposed that he was serving as Police Inspector in ACB, Surendranagar. He has further deposed that on 30.7.2004, the complainant told him regarding demand of illegal gratification from the accused person and further he recorded the complaint and thereafter, he arranged for the trap and requisitioned the panchas. He has further deposed on 30.7.2004, they reached Alankar hotel for the purpose of carrying out the raid and conducted the raid successfully. Thereafter search and seizure was carried out. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that at the time of trap, the accused told him that the amount which was handed over to him was towards the price of cement and not as an illegal gratification. 18. PW-4-Devabhai Hamabhai-son of the complainant has deposed that he heard that his father lodged a complaint against the accused alleging that the accused demanded illegal gratification from his father. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that his uncle Hajabhai told him that as the construction work of his house was going on, he requested the accused for procuring cement for which accused demanded price of cement. 19. PW-5-Hajabhai Sagrambhai complainant has been declared hostile during the course of trial and he did not support the case of the prosecution. Even in his evidence, he has clearly and categorically accepted that the amount which was demanded by the accused was in the form of price of cement and not as illegal gratification. 19. PW-5-Hajabhai Sagrambhai complainant has been declared hostile during the course of trial and he did not support the case of the prosecution. Even in his evidence, he has clearly and categorically accepted that the amount which was demanded by the accused was in the form of price of cement and not as illegal gratification. He has also admitted that the accused never demanded any illegal gratification from the complainant. 20. PW-6-Kiritsinh Zala has deposed that he was serving as Police Inspector in ACB, Surendranagar and he has carried out some part of the investigation and also filed the charge sheet. 21. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record more particularly, complaint lodged by the complainant on 30.7.2004, clearly indicates that the complainant lodged the complaint, inter alia, alleging that his father was having 14 acres of agricultural land at Village Ratadki, Taluka Sayla, District Surendranagar and his father passed away six years prior from the date of complaint, due to which, the complainant and his brothers wanted to mutate their names in the revenue record in place of their father. Thereafter, for the purpose of mutating their names in the revenue record, the complainant and his cousin approached the office of Talati-cum-Mantri-accused-Kiritkumar Harihar Bhatt. It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter, accused-Talati-cum-Matri demanded Rs. 6,000/- from the complainant for entering their names in revenue record and thereafter, it was scaled down to Rs. 3,000/- from Rs. 6,000/- and at that time, the complainant gave Rs. 1000/- to the accused and he further assured the accused to give remaining amount of Rs. 2,000/- later on and thereafter their thumb marks were obtained in the applications. It is the case of the prosecution that as complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he filed a complaint on 30th July 2004, before Anti Corruption Bureau, Surendranagar. Thereafter, a trap was arranged and ultimately, the accused was caught red handed. 22. On overall analysis of the oral evidences and documentary evidence on record, it can be noticed that there appears no uniformity in the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence on record. As per the charge framed against the present appellant-accused, the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 22. On overall analysis of the oral evidences and documentary evidence on record, it can be noticed that there appears no uniformity in the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence on record. As per the charge framed against the present appellant-accused, the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 3,000/- for completing the mutation work in favour of the complainant and his brothers and that demand was raised on 15th July, 2004 whereas as per the depositions of complainant, the accused demanded Rs. 10,000/- to the accused and at that time, the complainant handed over Rs. 8,000/- to the accused and Rs. 2,000/- was remained to be unpaid. In that view of the matter, so far as the main ingredient i.e. demand is concerned, as per the complaint recorded by the ACB at Exh:22, the accused demanded Rs. 3000/- as illegal gratification, whereas, as per the complainant, the accused demanded Rs. 10,000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant. Similarly, on going through Revenue Entry No. 990 which was produced by the prosecution at Exh:25, clearly reveals that on 2nd May, 2004, the entry was already mutated in the names of the complainant and his brothers, whereas the complaint was lodged on 30th July, 2004. In that view of the matter, as the names of the complainant and his brothers were already entered in the revenue record, there is no question of demanding any amount as illegal gratification from the complainant. As per the prosecution version, the accused demanded illegal gratification for mutating the names of the complainant and his brothers in revenue record in place of deceased-father whereas, as per the documentary evidence which was produced on record at Exh:25, clearly indicates that the names of the complainant and his brothers were already mutated in the revenue record two months prior from the date of complaint. 23. On overall evaluation of the evidences on record, so far as establishment of pre-demand is concerned, as per the version of complainant, initially the accused raised demand of Rs. 6,000/-, which was scaled down to Rs. 3,000/-. However, in his oral depositions, the complainant deposed that the accused demanded Rs. 10,000/- as the illegal gratification and at that time, he handed over Rs. 8,000/- to the accused. In that view of the matter, the complainant made lots of improvements and contradictions in his version and there appears no uniformity regarding pre-demand. 3,000/-. However, in his oral depositions, the complainant deposed that the accused demanded Rs. 10,000/- as the illegal gratification and at that time, he handed over Rs. 8,000/- to the accused. In that view of the matter, the complainant made lots of improvements and contradictions in his version and there appears no uniformity regarding pre-demand. Though in the complaint it is clearly mentioned by the complainant that the accused demanded Rs. 6,000/- and the same came to be scaled down to Rs. 3,000/-, but there was nothing stated by the complainant about the figure of Rs. 10,000/-. In that view of the matter, there appears no uniformity between oral evidence of the complainant and charge framed by the Investigating Officer regarding demand. 24. So far as the evidences of panch No. 1 and PW-5-Hajabhai are concerned, they have clearly and categorically admitted in their cross-examinations that the amount which was handed over at the time of trap to the accused, was towards the price of cement which was purchased for construction of the house of the brother of the complainant and not as the illegal gratification. 25. On overall analysis of the evidences on record, indisputably, the complaint was lodged on 30th July, 2004 and the demand was made 15th July, 2004 i.e. 15 days prior from the date of complaint, whereas the documentary evidence on record clearly indicates that Entries No. 989 and 990 were already mutated on 2.5.2004 in favour of the complainant and his brothers, therefore, nothing left to do towards mutating their names. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, the prosecution miserably failed to establish main ingredients i.e. demand and acceptance and therefore, so far as the recovery of tainted currency notes are concerned, the notes which were recovered from the possession of the accused becomes meaningless. On going through the entries of Revenue Record No. 989 and 990, wherein it is mentioned that the names of the complainant and his brother were entered on 2.5.2004 in favour of the complainant and his brothers. Consequently therefore, the entire procedure of mutation was completed on 2.5.2004, whereas the complaint was lodged on 30.7.2004 alleging that the accused demanded Rs. 3,000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant for entering the names of the complainant and his brothers in revenue records. Consequently therefore, the entire procedure of mutation was completed on 2.5.2004, whereas the complaint was lodged on 30.7.2004 alleging that the accused demanded Rs. 3,000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant for entering the names of the complainant and his brothers in revenue records. In this view of the matter, the contents of the complaint dated 30.7.2004 for mutating the name of the complainant and his brothers in the revenue record becomes unbelievable as it appears to be fabricated and concocted. 26. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, when demand and acceptance are 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 which was found in the trap from the appellant-accused becomes meaningless. In this view of the matter, finding recorded by learned trial Court is not in consonance with the evidence available on record. Therefore, as stated above, in absence of any specific and clinching evidence to prove all such acts by the appellant accused, conviction recorded by learned trial Judge is not sustainable. 27. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the accused, offence under Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. 28. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 25.7.2006 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Surendranagar, in Special (ACB) Case No. 6 of 2004 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the appellant. Surety, if any shall stands discharged. R & P be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith. Appeal Allowed