JUDGMENT R.P. Dholaria, J. The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant - original accused against the judgment and order dated 4.3.2006 passed by learned Presiding Officer and Special Judge, Vadodara in Special Case No.13 of 1994 whereby original accused was convicted for the offence under sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 ("the Act" for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo further three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present case are that upon secret information, complainant Mr.L.M.Vaghela, Police Inspector, ACB arranged for running trap on 17.2.1993 in the evening availing services of punter - Shyambhai Chhatarji Sirva and shadow panch - Dalpatsinh Himatsinh Parmar and while the said personnel proceeded at Octroi Naka, Chhotaudaipur, at that time, the accused was found present there and he first collected Rs. 100/- towards road tax and thereafter demanded Rs. 20/- as the amount of illegal gratification and thereby the accused committed the offence under sections 7, 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 ("the Act" for short). 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 appellants has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeals before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant - convicted 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. 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 appearing for Mr. Bharat K.Dave, learned advocate for the appellant - original accused has taken this Court through the entire Record and Proceedings as well as depositions of witnesses and argued that trap came to be laid upon secret information received by Mr. Vaghela, Police Inspector, ACB, Vadodara that police officials as well as officials of RTO used to demand and collect Rs. 20/- to Rs. 150/- as the amount of illegal gratification under the guise of entry fees from the pliers of vehicles who were coming from Rajasthan State and entering into Chhotaudepur city and therefore, in order to verify the same, Mr. Vaghela himself has requisitioned panchas and also formed the team for laying running trap and he proceeded to lay trap on 17.2.1993 and upon completion of such trap, he himself has lodged the complaint on 18.2.1993 before himself, inter alia, narrating entire episode as if he has viewed the incident of instant demand and acceptance on the part of the accused, as such and therefore, the investigation is vitiated. He submitted that detailed narration in the complaint indicates that Mr. Vaghela has witnessed the entire incident, but the contemporaneous record in the nature of panchnama as well as statements of punter and panchas are indicating that Mr. Vaghela was not present at the time of incident along with punter, but upon receiving the signal, Mr. Vaghela arrived there. He, therefore, submitted that accused is required to be acquitted, as such. In support of his submissions, Mr. Trivedi has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Gopal Lal Ghisulal Chhipa and Others Vs The State of Gujarat, (1998) 1 GLH 943 . He further submitted that punter - PW 1 has turned hostile and he had not at all supported the case of the prosecution, but on the contrary, he went to the extent that official of ACB threatened him to thrust money upon any official found at the octroi naka and therefore, he first paid tax and though the accused was not accepting Rs. 20/- and had not demanded any amount of illegal gratification, but due to threat of official of ACB, he handed over tainted currency note of Rs. 20/-. PW 1 - punter was declared hostile and thereafter extensive cross examination was undertaken by learned APP, but he did not support the case of the prosecution. On the contrary, in his voluntary narration, PW 1 deposed that except him, no other person was present at the time of actual trap when he visited the accused. He further submitted that nothing is clearly spelling out from the deposition of PW 1 - punter as regards to instant demand and in pursuance thereof, PW 1 had handed over tainted currency note of Rs. 20/-. He, therefore, submitted that on conjoint reading of the evidence of punter, nothing is clearly establishing that there was any demand and in pursuance thereof, the amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 20/- was handed over and therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the case against the accused. 7. On the other-hand, Ms. H.B. Punani, learned APP has supported the judgment rendered by learned trial Court so far as it relates to conviction of 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 further submitted that learned trial Court has elaborately dealt with the evidence on record and rightly relied upon the evidence of shadow panch and deposition of shadow panch is fully getting corroboration from contemporaneous panchnama and therefore the prosecution has successfully established all the three ingredients and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction. 8. This Court has heard Mr. Umesh Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Bharat K.Dave, 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. 10. As per the prosecution version, as stated above, upon secret information, complainant Mr. Bharat K.Dave, 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. 10. As per the prosecution version, as stated above, upon secret information, complainant Mr. L.M. Vaghela, Police Inspector, ACB arranged for running trap on 17.2.1993 in the evening availing services of punter - Shyambhai Chhatarji Sirva and shadow panch - Dalpatsinh Himatsinh Parmar and while the said personnel proceeded at Octroi Naka, Chhotaudaipur, at that time, the accused was found present there and he first collected Rs. 100/- towards road tax and thereafter demanded Rs. 20/- as the amount of illegal gratification and thereby the accused committed the offence under sections 7, 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Act. 11. P.W.1 - Shyambhai Chhatarji Sirva has been examined at Exh.9. The witness has deposed that he was driver and he was plying his truck from Madhya Pradesh to Gujarat. On the day of trap, ACB official intercepted his truck and he was asked to do some work at his instructions and thereafter, the witness was instructed by the said official of ACB that he would have to hand over tainted currency note of Rs. 20/-. The witness has deposed that while his truck was proceeding within vicinity of octroi naka Chhotaudepur, at that time, there was queue of trucks and when his turn came, he first paid Rs. 100/- towards road tax, receipt was issued by the person who was official of RTO, at that time, when the said person did not accept Rs. 20/- from the witness, so he asked the official of ACB and again he was directed by the official of ACB to hand over the said amount by any means to the said official of RTO. So, the witness went again and thereafter he thrust money into the window, at that time, RTO official asked him not to throw currency note and thereafter members of raiding party arrived and recovered the said amount. Though extensive cross examination was carried out, he did not at all support the case of the prosecution. So, the witness went again and thereafter he thrust money into the window, at that time, RTO official asked him not to throw currency note and thereafter members of raiding party arrived and recovered the said amount. Though extensive cross examination was carried out, he did not at all support the case of the prosecution. On the contrary, the witness deposed that he was instructed to thrust the money upon the official of RTO and even though, the said official of RTO was not accepting the money, he thrown the said money into the window. The witness further deposed that while he visited octroi naka, at that time, he was alone and no other person was with him at the time of trap. 12. P.W.3 - Dalpatsinh Himatsinh Parmar, shadow panch has been examined at Exh.13. The witness has deposed that at the relevant time, he was working as Senior Clerk in the office of the Information Bureau, Vadodara. The witness has deposed that he was requisitioned and he proceeded along with punter upon the truck. On the day of trap, while the turn of truck came, at that time, driver - PW 1 paid Rs. 100/- towards road tax for which the accused issued receipt and thereafter the accused asked as to what was in the truck and thereafter asked for weighing. Thereafter, the accused asked for Rs. 20/-, whereupon the punter handed over the said amount to the accused and thereafter, other members of the raiding party arrived. Detailed search and seizure was also carried out. 13. P.W.4 - Laxmanbhai Muljibhai Vaghela has been examined at Exh.22. The witness has deposed that who was serving at the relevant time as Police Inspector, ACB, Vadodara. The witness has deposed that he received secret information that trucks which were entering in the area of Chhotaudepur from Rajasthan State and Madhya Pradesh, officials of police, RTO and Others were collecting Rs. 20/- to 150/- as the amount of illegal gratification for not issuing any sort of memo. The witness further deposed that on 17.2.1993, he formed team for laying trap, requisitioned panchas and proceeded to hold the trap and the trap was carried out in his presence. It was remained successful. 20/- to 150/- as the amount of illegal gratification for not issuing any sort of memo. The witness further deposed that on 17.2.1993, he formed team for laying trap, requisitioned panchas and proceeded to hold the trap and the trap was carried out in his presence. It was remained successful. Thereafter, on the following day, the witness lodged the complaint before himself, undertaken the investigation, recorded the statements of panchas and other members of raiding party and after conclusion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet. 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 of Rs. 20/- or not ? 15. On analysis of the aforesaid evidence on record, it is clearly emerging out that upon receipt of secret information, PW 4 held running trap after availing services of punter, shadow panch and other members of the raiding party. The search and seizure was also carried out from the person of the accused. 16. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, since the punter PW 1 had not at all supported the case of the prosecution and he went to the extent that official of ACB threatened him to thrust money upon any official of RTO even though he was not accepting and at the instance of such official, PW 1 again went and handed over Rs. 20/-. Such sort of evidence is coming from the mouth of punter - PW 1 and in the cross examination undertaken by learned APP, PW 1 has went to the extent that at the time of trap, no other person was accompanied with him and he was alone and therefore, evidence of PW 1 is not at all helpful to the case of the prosecution. 17. So far as the evidence of shadow panch - Dalpatsinh is concerned, he had made lots of improvements in his deposition which is neither stated before the police in his statement nor in the contemporaneous panchnama. 18. 17. So far as the evidence of shadow panch - Dalpatsinh is concerned, he had made lots of improvements in his deposition which is neither stated before the police in his statement nor in the contemporaneous panchnama. 18. In view of the aforesaid evidence, since punter had not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, even if the evidence of shadow panch may be taken into consideration, then also, his evidence suffers from material improvements as regards to conversation between him which is not clearly revealling from the contemporaneous panchnama as regards to demand of illegal gratification, whereas such things were also not revealling in his previous police statement and therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the demand and acceptance. 19. The case on hand is also squarely covered by the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of B. Jayraj, 2014 Supp AIR SC 1837 and M.R. Purushotham Vs. State of Karnataka, (2015) 3 SCC 247 . 20. One another disturbing feature comes out from the Record and Proceedings of the case is regarding the fact that the Police Inspector has assumed all roles right from the stage of recording the complaint, arranging trap as well as members of raiding party, carrying out investigation till filing of the charge-sheet. This course of action 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 the 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. The said view is fortified by the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of "Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (1976) AIR SC 985" , followed by this Court in the case of Kanubhai Kantibhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, (1998) 1 GLH 924 , as well as in the case of Gopal Lal Ghisulal Chhipa. Therefore, in this case, the prosecution case suffers from the aforesaid basic infirmity which itself is sufficient to vitiate the whole investigation and accordingly the whole proceedings based on such investigation deserves to be quashed and set aside on this count only. 21. Therefore, in this case, the prosecution case suffers from the aforesaid basic infirmity which itself is sufficient to vitiate the whole investigation and accordingly the whole proceedings based on such investigation deserves to be quashed and set aside on this count only. 21. In view of the above discussion, the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant - accused is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 4.3.2006 passed by learned Presiding Officer and Special Judge, Vadodara in Special Case No.13 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.