JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant – original accused against the judgment and order dated 3.11.2003 passed by learned Special Judge, Rajkot in Special Criminal Case No.15 of 1994 whereby the appellant accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (“the Act” for short) and also convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present case are that the complainant was allotted plot No.114 in Survey No.125 of village Raiya, Rajkot as he was Government servant, whereas the accused was serving as Planning Assistant in the office of Rajkot Urban Development Authority. It is alleged that the complainant wanted occupancy certificate as he constructed the house over the said allotted plot by the Government as he being Government servant and therefore, he approached the accused on 9.5.1994 and thereafter on 13.5.1994 while the accused came for checking his house, at that time, the accused found out foul water and foul waste coming out from the toilet sock pit which was constructed on the street instead of varandah of the house and for screening the said infirmity, the accused demanded Rs.500/- as the amount of illegal gratification. As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he lodged the complaint and hence, the trap was carried out wherein the accused was caught red handed along with tainted currency notes and thereby the accused has committed the offence, as alleged. 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 witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 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 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 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. 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 – 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. 6. Mr.Umesh Trivedi, learned advocate for Mr.Paresh Darji, learned advocate for the appellant – original accused has taken this Court through the entire judgment and record and argued that the entire case is totally got up since the accused visited house of the complainant on 10.5.1994 and at the relevant time, during the course of checking, it was found that the house was constructed in accordance with the permission for construction given by the local authority and there was no question of foul water coming out of the house. He further submitted that ultimately, the accused recommended for issuance of occupancy certificate, whereas the complainant alleged that on 13.5.1994 the accused visited his house and during the course of checking, it was noticed that sock pit for foul water and disposal of foul water of toilet was constructed on the street and for screening such dispute, the accused demanded Rs.500/- as the amount of illegal gratification for issuance of occupancy certificate was not in accordance with the contemporaneous record produced at Exh.40. He further submitted that on going through the evidence of the complainant as well as shadow panch, no demand is emerging out in clear terms. He further submitted that on going through the evidence of the complainant as well as shadow panch, no demand is emerging out in clear terms. On the contrary, the complainant voluntarily asked that he has brought money and handed over and that such sort of conversation is revealed and therefore, in absence of raising demand in clear terms, the case in hand is also squarely covered by the celebrated decision in the case of Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) through his L.R. Vs State of Punjab, reported in AIR 2017 SC 3382 . He further submitted that demand raised for issuance of occupancy certificate for which even the accused is not competent but his higher up Mr.Doshi, Assistant Town Planner is competent to issue such certificate and on that ground also, the allegation levelled against the appellant accused is baseless. He, therefore, submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish demand, acceptance and recovery and, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction is required to be reversed, as such. Lastly, Mr.Trivedi requested this Court to allow the present appeal. 7. On the other-hand, Ms.Punani, learned APP has supported the judgment rendered by learned trial Court so far as it relates to conviction of the appellant - original accused. She submitted that this is a fit case wherein learned trial Court has considered voluminous evidence in its proper perspective and rightly convicted the accused. She further submitted that finding recorded by learned trial Court is based upon the concrete and clinching evidence and, therefore, punishment inflicted upon the accused does not call for any interference. She submitted that learned trial Court has recorded ample reasons based on the evidence on record for convicting the accused and ingredients as regards to demand, acceptance and recovery are proved in accordance with law. 8. This Court has heard Mr.Umesh Trivedi, learned advocate for the appellant - accused and Ms.Punani, learned APP for the 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, as stated above, the complainant was allotted plot No.114 in Survey No.125 of village Raiya, Rajkot as he was Government servant, whereas the accused was serving as Planning Assistant in the office of Rajkot Urban Development Authority. As per the prosecution version, as stated above, the complainant was allotted plot No.114 in Survey No.125 of village Raiya, Rajkot as he was Government servant, whereas the accused was serving as Planning Assistant in the office of Rajkot Urban Development Authority. It is alleged that the complainant wanted occupancy certificate as he constructed the house over the said allotted plot by the Government as he being Government servant and therefore, he approached the accused on 9.5.1994 and thereafter on 13.5.1994 while the accused came for checking his house, at that time, the accused found out foul water and foul waste coming out from the toilet sock pit which was constructed on the street instead of varandah of the house and for screening the said infirmity, the accused demanded Rs.500/- as the amount of illegal gratification. As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he lodged the complaint and hence, the trap was carried out wherein the accused was caught red handed along with tainted currency notes and thereby the accused has committed the offence, as alleged. 10. PW 1 – Ashutoshbhai Madhusudanbhai Vasavada has been examined at Exh.20. The witness has deposed that he being the shadow panch accompanied the complainant at the time of trap and while he visited the office of the accused, at that time, the accused was found present there and there was some conversations between them as regards to completion certificate to which the accused told that it is already prepared and lying for signature of Mr.Doshi and thereafter the complainant voluntarily stated that he had brought Rs.500/- for taking the certificate as previously agreed. The witness has deposed that thereafter the complainant placed the said amount on the table and thereafter flag signal, due to which, other members of raiding party arrived there and seized the said amount from the table. At that time, the accused explained that he had not demanded and accepted any amount of illegal gratification. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that the complainant, without knowledge of the accused, placed the money over the table. At that time, the accused explained that he had not demanded and accepted any amount of illegal gratification. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that the complainant, without knowledge of the accused, placed the money over the table. The witness has admitted that the accused had not demanded any amount from the complainant and though the complainant was instructed by the ACB to hand over the amount upon raising demand by the accused, the complainant voluntarily placed the amount over the table without raising such demand by the accused. 11. PW 2 – Kishorbhai Raghavjibhai Parmar has been examined at Exh.33 The witness has deposed that he was working as Assistant Engineer in Quality Control Department and he was allotted the plot in the year 1988-1989 as he was Government servant. The said plot was situated in Raiya at Rajkot in Survey No.125, Plot No.114. Upon completion of construction in January 1994, the witness asked for occupancy certificate from the office of the Town Planning where the accused was serving and he met personally to the accused. The witness has deposed that on 13.5.1994 the accused came for inspection and he found that construction was in accordance with the permission, but he objected for making disposal of foul water of toilet on the street by constructing sock pit and demanded Rs.500/- for screening the said issue and for issuance of occupancy certificate and the complainant was directed to pay the said amount on 16.5.1994 in the office. The witness has deposed that as he was not willing to pay the said amount of illegal gratification, he lodged the complaint before the ACB and in pursuance thereof, trap was laid. On the day of trap, while the witness visited office of the accused, at that time, he asked the accused that he has brought Rs.500/- as asked by him and thereafter handed over to him but the accused by making gesture asked the complainant to place the said amount over the table and hence, he placed the said amount over the table and thereafter flag signal, due to which, other members of raiding party arrived there. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that during conversation with the accused, he had not demanded any amount of illegal gratification, but the accused has asked him to pay for renewal fees. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that during conversation with the accused, he had not demanded any amount of illegal gratification, but the accused has asked him to pay for renewal fees. The witness has also admitted that he had outstanding renewal fees and that as he had grievance against the accused as the accused was not issuing completion as well as occupancy certificate. The witness has admitted that nothing was turned out over the clothes and person of the accused in ultra violate lamp test. 12. PW 3 – Govindlal Jethalal Yadav has been examined at Exh.37. The witness has deposed that he was working as Police Inspector at the relevant time and he carried out trap. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that the complainant met to Mr.Subhash Trivedi, Assistant Director and upto noon hours and till 8.00 O’clock, he was unaware as to where the trap is to be laid. The witness has admitted that the accused was demanding the amount of illegal gratification for constructing sock pit over the street. 13. Over and above the aforesaid oral evidence, the contents of complaint at Exh.21 are also essential wherein the complainant, inter alia, alleged that upon allotment of plot No.114, he constructed the house in the year 1994-1995 and after completion of construction, he was in need of completion as well as occupancy certificate and therefore, the complainant approached the accused and also visited his office on 9.5.1994. At that time, the accused told the complainant that he issued notice to him and thereafter the accused visited the house of the complainant on 13.5.1994. At that time, the accused noticed construction of sock pit on the street and on noticing the same, he demanded Rs.500/- as the amount of illegal gratification for screening such act on the part of the complainant. That is the precise case of the prosecution. Whereas, the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution itself at Exh.40 which is check list for development permission runs into for about 48 pages pertaining to the present complainant and his plot No.114. That is the precise case of the prosecution. Whereas, the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution itself at Exh.40 which is check list for development permission runs into for about 48 pages pertaining to the present complainant and his plot No.114. It can be seen from page 131 of the paper book that the accused prepared note for issuance of occupancy certificate in favour of the complainant wherein he, inter alia, narrated that completion certificate as well as development permission were kept in file and thereafter upon personal checking on 10.5.1994 at the place, he found that construction is carried out in accordance with the development plan sanctioned by the local authority and sock pit was also in order and therefore, there was no question of flowing foul water and therefore, there appears no objection for issuing certificate of occupancy and further also opined for realization of one year renewal fees and that the accused signed the said note on 13.5.1994. 14. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, the important question arises for determination of this Court, as to whether the prosecution has established the three ingredients i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification or not ? 15. At this stage, it would be fruitful to make reference to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in A.Subair Vs 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. 16. In State of Kerala and another Vs 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. 17. 17. 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 v. State of A.p., (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. 18. 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. 19. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual 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. 19. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual 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. 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. Recently, the Honourable Apex Court has made it clear that the proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. Precisely, failure of the prosecution to prove demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of amount from the person of the accused of the offence under sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. On overall scrutiny of the aforesaid oral evidence and on conjoint reading with the FIR at Exh.21 and the inspection note at Exh.40, it became very difficult to reconcile amongst the contradictory evidence available on record which came to be produced by the prosecution itself. 20. As per the prosecution case, there was simple case of demand of illegal gratification of Rs.500/- for screening the misdeed on the part of the complainant for constructing sock pit over the street, whereas the documentary evidence at Exh.40 clearly indicates that on 10.5.1994 the accused himself carried out checking wherein he found everything in order and even he opined and recommended to the Assistant Town Planner for issuance of such sort of certificate which the complainant was in need, as such. In the complaint, it was, inter alia, stated that while the complainant visited the accused on 9.5.1994, he was issued with the notice for remaining present, while the checking may take place. In the complaint, it was, inter alia, stated that while the complainant visited the accused on 9.5.1994, he was issued with the notice for remaining present, while the checking may take place. No such sort of notice was produced by the prosecution on record, but Exh.40 clearly indicates that on 10.5.1994 the accused visited the house of the complainant and detailed checking was carried out wherein no infirmity as regards to placing sock pit over the street was found, whereas in the complaint, it is, inter alia, alleged that during the course of checking, the accused found out such sort of infirmity and that the complainant had constructed sock pit over the street and for screening the same, the accused demanded Rs.500/- as illegal gratification. Precisely, checking note dated 10.5.1994 as well as complaint dated 16.5.1994 are totally contradictory to each other and therefore, taking into consideration the fact that neither the complainant nor even the shadow panch had deposed that the accused had made any instant demand at the time of trap and even the said amount was not accepted by the accused by hand and not placed into his pocket and the said amount came to be recovered from the table. Under the circumstances, it is a clear admission on the part of the complainant as well as shadow panch that the accused had not demanded any amount of illegal gratification. This is a clear case of concoction. Though, during the checking, the accused had not found any infirmity, the same came to be mentioned in the complaint and the accused was roped in the crime in question which is not supported by the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution itself at Exh.40. 21. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the vital ingredients i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of learned trial Court recording conviction of the appellant accused is not in accordance with the evidence available on record and it clearly appears that learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its true perspective and based his findings upon surmises and conjectures which have no place in the eye of law. 22. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. 22. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned the judgment and order dated 3.11.2003 passed by learned Special Judge, Rajkot in Special Criminal Case No.15 of 1994 is quashed and set aside. The appellant - accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Fine, if any, paid by him be refunded to him. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith. APPEAL ALLOWED.