JUDGMENT : 1. Judgment and order dated 19.02.2005 rendered by the learned Special Judge, 5th Fast Track Court, NadiadKheda recording acquittal for the opponents for the offence punishable under sections 7, 12, 13(1(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) in Special (A.C.B.) Case No. 01 of 1999 is sought to be assailed in this appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short ‘Cr.P.C’). 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that P.W. 3- Exh. 21 Police Inspector Popatlal Parshottambhai Kanani arranged for a decoy trap on the basis of the information disclosing the abuse of powers by police officials of different departments including the traffic police, by forbearing the registration of the traffic offence for the bribe money. It is the prosecution case that the racket was going on in connivance with the police officials under which, the traffic official would compel the drivers of the vehicle to pay the bribe money after pointing out to them the traffic or other violations concerning the vehicle or its movement. He decided to arrange for the trap on 08.07.1998 with the assistance of two panch witnesses and a decoy victim. Necessary procedure like recording of preliminary panchnama, tainting of currency notes with anthracene powder, recording their serial numbers in the panchnama etc. was carried out and then the trap party left for the mission. Truck driver P.W. 1 after being apprised with the plan of the trap party by Kanani- P.W. 3, consented for being a decoy victim and the part of trap. Some of the members of the trap party including P.W.1 who is driver, occupied their seats in the truck bearing registration number RJ 24 G453 and moved from one place to another. The truck was followed by other members of the party including panch witness no.2 by metador. It is alleged that when the truck reached at Vadtal cross roads at a distance of 50 and 100 meters southwards, accused no.2 and 4 (accused no. 4 is reportedly dead) stopped the truck and opponent no.2- accused no.2 then made gesture towards accused no.4 who was a non official and instructed the driver to pay the bribe money. The driver entered into arguments to avoid the payment of bribe money and bribe was allegedly taken by accused no.4 at the instance of accused no.2. Accused no. 4 is reportedly dead) stopped the truck and opponent no.2- accused no.2 then made gesture towards accused no.4 who was a non official and instructed the driver to pay the bribe money. The driver entered into arguments to avoid the payment of bribe money and bribe was allegedly taken by accused no.4 at the instance of accused no.2. Accused no. 1 and accused no. 3 were allegedly abettor, at the offence. 3. In the aforesaid background, FIR was registered at the instance of P.W.3 and upon investigation, charge-sheet was laid for trial of the accused. To a charge framed against them, the opponents opted for trial rather than pleading guilty when asked to exercise the option. The case was tried and eventually acquittal was recorded as above stated. 4. The impugned judgment and order is required to be examined in light of the settled legal position pointed out in Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka – (2007) 4 SCC 415 ; thus: Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court Held: The following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”', “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. [para 42] (5) If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate court. [Para 44] 5. Bearing in mind the above said principles, this court would proceed to examine the reasons recorded by the court below for acquittal, with an endeavour to find out whether the case falls within the above principles of law for this court to interfere in an appeal against acquittal under section 378 of the Cr.P.C. 6. Before adverting to the reasons assigned by the court below, the material evidence in the nutshell is required to be glared through. Evidence of P.W.3- informant would go to show that one Bhupatsinh intended to register the case under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and therefore, two panchas were by issuing written request to the Executive Engineer; produced at Exh. 23. Accordingly, the panchas reported on 08.07.1998 but Bhupatsinh did not. The informant thereafter received information regarding obtaining of the bribe money as above stated. P.W. 3 formed a trap party and after following necessary procedure, arranged for the trap; successfully. He also explained the role to be discharged by each of the members constituting the trap party. Preliminary panchanama and panchnama of part two was drawn and then he proceeded with the trap party and the incident occurred at about 19.30 hours near Vadtal cross road on National Highway No.8. He had occupied the seat in the truck along with panch witness 1 and police constable Dilip Kavalkar. The truck was being driven by P.W.1- Muradkhan Faijukhan. The metador boarded by panch witness 2 and other members of the trap party was following the truck. He had occupied the seat in the truck along with panch witness 1 and police constable Dilip Kavalkar. The truck was being driven by P.W.1- Muradkhan Faijukhan. The metador boarded by panch witness 2 and other members of the trap party was following the truck. It is his case that one man with white shirt and khakhi pants holding stick in his hands accompanied by a non official (accused No.4) signaled to stop the truck which was driven by P.W. 1. There were other persons in the police uniforms ( accused no.1 and accused no.3). After the truck was stopped, both of them approached the truck driver and the man in traffic police uniform made a gesture to P.W. 1 asking him to pay entry fee to deceased accused no.4. The driver pleaded for innocence and the accused no.2 went on pointing out certain defects in the vehicle or its load i.e the truck was overloaded, the goods were not properly tied, that the door of truck was hanging, the headlight lacked the yellow mark on its focus. According to him, accused no. 2 allegedly told the truck driver that in absence of the entry fee, he may have to be taken to the senior officer. Meanwhile, the metador with trap laying officer arrived and his evidence would show that accused no. 2 allegedly directed it to move towards Vadodara City. His testimony would show that at that point of time, the driver inquired with accused no.4 the charges for the entry and he quoted Rs. 50/, in reply and accordingly Rs. 50/- tainted with anthracene powder was also paid by P.W.1 -driver to accused no.4 at the instance of accused no.2, who pocketed it in his left pocket of his shirt by his right hand. Thereafter P.W. 3- informant and police constable Dilip Kavalkar and panch witness 1 disembarked the truck, followed the accused no.2 and 4 who were proceeding towards the metador. He held accused no. 2 and Dilip Kavalkar held accused no.4. From the metador, panch no.2 and other members of the trap party disembarked and they were directed by P.W. 3 to apprehend the two police officials who were standing near the jeep of traffic police. Accordingly they were apprehended and P.W.3 introduced himself as also the other members of the trap party to the accused persons and he also sought introduction from accused persons. Accordingly they were apprehended and P.W.3 introduced himself as also the other members of the trap party to the accused persons and he also sought introduction from accused persons. He then proceeded to record the occurrences as dictated by panch witness 1 which was confirmed by P.W. 1 decoy victim and police constable Dilip Kavalkar also confirmed the fact that P.W. 3 had witnessed the whole incident. P.W. 3 then carried out the test with the aid of ultraviolet rays initially on the witnesses who had not come in contact with the anthracene powder to ensue that they did not have the traces of anthracene powder; his evidence would also show that he pointed out to all the accused persons that no anthracene powder traces were found on the hands of the above referred persons. He then repeated the experiment with ultraviolet lamp on accused no.4 on whose right hand and right thumb, the presence of anthracene powder was confirmed as also in the outer shirt pocket as also inside and on the currency notes. His evidence would further show that the currency notes were drawn from the pocket of the accused no.4 by panch witness no.2 at his instance and were checked as above stated under the ultraviolet rays. The test also confirmed the presence of anthracene powder on both the hands of panch witness no.2. The serial number of the currency notes recovered from the accused no.4 also matched with those already recorded in first part of panchanama. He then followed further necessary procedure, collected the muddamals after carried out the test by ultraviolet lamp confirming the presence of anthracene powder on both the hands and shirt pocket of decoy victim P.W.1. P.W. 1- the decoy victim has fully corroborated the testimony of P.W. 3 and P.W 2. 7. Learned counsel for the opponents has not been able to point out any circumstance favourable to the opponents, establishing their innocence, from the evidence. 8. Bearing in mind the aforementioned testimony, this court would advert to the reasons for acquittal recorded by the court below. It transpires from the crossexamination of the P.W.1 and P.W. 3 that police constable Dilip Kavalkar and other members of the raiding party were not happy with the manner of arrangement of the trap and were apprehensive of its failure for that reason. It transpires from the crossexamination of the P.W.1 and P.W. 3 that police constable Dilip Kavalkar and other members of the raiding party were not happy with the manner of arrangement of the trap and were apprehensive of its failure for that reason. They were also quoted discussing that to make the trap successful somebody will have to be victimized. This conversation amongst the members of the raiding party had nothing to do with the actual occurrence but unfortunately the trial court was swayed by the same and doubted the prosecution story while ignoring the vital facts emerging from the evidence of eyewitnesses. The evidence establishing the demand, acceptance and recovery of tainted money from the pocket of the deceased accused no. 4 could not have been brushed aside on the basis of irrelevant conversation aforestated. 9. Other reason which weighed with the court below was non production of the prior information. In the opinion of this court, mere non production of the prior information would not vitiate the trial. 10. The court below found a serious doubt in the prosecution story while relying upon the evidence of panch witness 1 who did not state reasons for his coming from village Baman. This court fails to understand as to how such an insignificant lapse would constitute a serious doubt in the prosecution story. 11. The trial court again committed serious error in its reasonings that only presence of accused at the scene of offence was insufficient to implicate them in the offence while ignoring the incriminating circumstance against accused no.2 and 4 emerging in the evidence as discussed above. 12. The court below also committed serious error in appreciation of evidence implicating accused no.4 in the offence. As noticed above, accused no. 4 participated in demand and acceptance of bribe money at the instance of accused no.2. He therefore, was the conduit for accused no.2 and aided the offence. Accused no.4 had aided the offence by accepting “entry fee” quoting the price for the same, at the instance of accused no.2. The person aiding the offence punishable under section 7 or 11 need not be a public servant and commission of main offence is also not necessary by the person aiding the offence. The trial court under the legal misconception held that only public servant could be punished. 13. The person aiding the offence punishable under section 7 or 11 need not be a public servant and commission of main offence is also not necessary by the person aiding the offence. The trial court under the legal misconception held that only public servant could be punished. 13. It appears that a second driver namely Chunalal Garasiya and cleaner Mustaqkhan also accompanied decoy victim who was also a driver of the truck in question. Chunalal and Mustaqkhan were not examined; their statements were recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. For non-examination of the said two persons, the court below drew adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act and held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. This was again, in the opinion of this court, a misconception of law. T he presumption under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act is discretionary and can be raised only when the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is merely a rule of evidence. Withholding of the evidence which ought to be on record is the justification for invocation of the presumption; however where the evidence is not withheld and only its duplication is avoided, presumption under section 114(g) cannot be raised. Said is the purport of section 114 (g) which was unfortunately misconceived by the court below resulting into miscarriage of justice. 14. It was perverse for the court below to record that accused no. 2 did not make a demand of bribe money. The uncontroverted evidence of P.W. 1, 2 and 3 would show that gesture was made by accused no.2 indicating to P.W.1 to pay the bribe money to accused no.4. The evidence also shows that when P.W.1 entered into arguments with accused no.2 in a bid to avoid the payment, he pointed out various defects as discussed above and eventually told that in absence of payment, he may be taken to the senior officer. This evidence could not have been ignored. At the cost of repetition, learned counsel for the opponents has not been in a position to lay a finger on any of the evidence leading to the inference of the innocence or doubt on the material particulars of the case. 15. This evidence could not have been ignored. At the cost of repetition, learned counsel for the opponents has not been in a position to lay a finger on any of the evidence leading to the inference of the innocence or doubt on the material particulars of the case. 15. The only submission of the learned counsel for the opponents is that the prior information received by P.W. 3 pointing out the commission of similar offence in general before laying the trap was not reduced to writing by him. This according to the learned counsel for the opponents vitiated the trial. This court is unable to accede to such submission in light of the credible evidence of demand, acceptance and recovery of the illegal gratification as above stated. At the cost of repetition, it appears that initially, one Bhupatsinh intended to make a complaint but did not report on the next day when he was called. P.W. 3 therefore seems to have proceeded either on the basis of the information or on his own. There was nothing wrong for him to proceed in that manner. 16. Learned counsel submitted that the information was as vague as can be and therefore, the trial was vitiated. In the opinion of this court, assuming that the information was vague and general, it was hardly material when the evidence of the nature above referred came to be adduced implicating accused no. 2 and 4 in the offence. 17. It is also misconception of the fact by the learned counsel for the opponents that P.W. 1 was offered a lunch by trap party in Hotel Sahyog. Said submission proceeds on the premise that P.W. 1 was found outside Hotel Sahyog. In the opinion of this court, in absence of cogent evidence to show that P.W. 1 infact had lunch with other members of the raiding party and therefore, was loyal to them, no adverse inference can be drawn against his testimony. 18. Learned APP is however unable to point out any iota of evidence implicating accused nos. 1 and 3 in the offence in question. The evidence does not demonstrate their participation or aiding the offence. They were arrested from near the traffic police van parked in the vicinity. No incriminating circumstance emerged against them and therefore, accused no. 1 and 3 are entitled to be acquitted of the charges. 19. 1 and 3 in the offence in question. The evidence does not demonstrate their participation or aiding the offence. They were arrested from near the traffic police van parked in the vicinity. No incriminating circumstance emerged against them and therefore, accused no. 1 and 3 are entitled to be acquitted of the charges. 19. So far as accused no.4 is concerned, he is reportedly dead and the learned counsel for the opponents has placed on record zerox copy of his death certificate. Thus this appeal against accused no. 4 opponent no. 4 herein abates. It be accordingly recorded. 20. So far as accused no. 2 is concerned, learned counsel for the opponents urged for lenient view on the premise that he has been suffering from heart disease since 2014. To buttress the said fact the zerox copy of the medical certificate issued by Bankers Heart Institute is produced on record. 21. So far as offence under section 7 is concerned, the minimum punishment is six months . Therefore, even if the court were to take lenient view, the minimum sentence of six months should follow. Similarly for the offence under section 13, the minimum prescribed punishment was one year at the relevant point of time and therefore, minimum sentence must follow even if this court were to take lenient view. 22. In the light of the above discussion, accused no. 2 is required to be held guilty for his demand and accepting the illegal gratification in the sum of Rs. 50/- through deceased accused no.4 as a motive or reward of not registering the traffic offence or other related offence against the decoy victim, in absence of dispelling the presumption under section 20 of the Act as regards motive or reward as also the purpose contemplated in section 7 of the Act. Similarly accused no. 2 can be said to have employed corrupt and illegal means and abused his position as a public servant for obtaining the valuable thing or pecuniary advantage i.e. the cash by compelling P.W.1 to pay Rs.50/- though he was not willing to pay the same. He thus can be said to have obtained for himself the valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. 23. In the light of the findings above referred, the impugned judgment and order is not sustained qua accused no.2- Asgarali Kasamali Saiyed To that extent, the same is quashed and set aside. He thus can be said to have obtained for himself the valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. 23. In the light of the findings above referred, the impugned judgment and order is not sustained qua accused no.2- Asgarali Kasamali Saiyed To that extent, the same is quashed and set aside. Acquittal of accused no. 1 and 3 is confirmed. 24. Having regard to the fact that accused no. 2 has suffered a heart attack and according to the learned counsel for the opponents, he has not fully recovered, this court by taking lenient view, proceeds to impose the sentence of one year for the offence punishable under section 13(1) (d) of the Act, read with section 13(2), with fine of Rs. 5000/-( Rupees Five Thousand Only) in default thereof, a simple imprisonment of three months shall further be suffered by accused no. 2. For the offence punishable under section 7, the accused no.2 is ordered to suffer sentence of six months with fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) in default thereof, he shall suffer additional sentence of three months simple imprisonment. Both the sentence shall run concurrently. The opponent no.2 accused no.2 Asgarali Kasamali Saiyed would surrender within eight weeks henceforth. 25. The appeal partly succeeds.