JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal in Special (ACB) Case No.18 of 1997 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar on 28.11.2006 (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 10, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as ‘the P.C.Act’). The respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as they stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. That the respondent No.3 herein – original accused No.3 has expired on 26.09.2009 and thereafter, the respondent No.2 herein – original accused No.2 has expired on 26.05.2013 and copies of death certificates have been produced on record and hence, the present appeal qua the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 stand abated and the present appeal survives qua the respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 6 herein – original accused Nos.1 and 4 to 6. 3. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under: 3.1. That the accused Nos. 1 to 5 were working in Bhavnagar Mahanagarpalika and were public servants, whereas, the accused No.6 was Armed Police Officer was on duty and also a public servant. That the complainant had illegally placed an electric motor for drawing water at his house and an amount of Rs.500/- was demanded by the accused as an illegal gratification for not taking any legal action for the illegal electric motor. That on 18.04.1997, all the accused went to meet the complainant and demanded the amount of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification and hence the complainant to the ACB Police Station, Bhavnagar and filed the complaint which was registered as I-C.R.No.10 of 1997 registered with A.C.B. Police Station under Sections 7, 10, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C.Act. That on 18.04.1997, all the accused went to meet the complainant and demanded the amount of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification and hence the complainant to the ACB Police Station, Bhavnagar and filed the complaint which was registered as I-C.R.No.10 of 1997 registered with A.C.B. Police Station under Sections 7, 10, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C.Act. That the Trap Laying officer called the panch witnesses and after explaining the procedure of the anthracene power and ultraviolet lamp and the test was done and a trap was laid and on 18.04.1997, the complainant gave the illegal gratification of Rs.500/- to the accused which was accepted and at that time, as the trap was laid, the members of the Raiding Party came and all the accused were caught red handed. That the Investigating Officer investigated the offence and the charge sheet was filed against the accused before the Sessions Court, Bhavnagar, which was registered as Special (ACB) Case No. 18 of 1997. 3.2. That all the accused were duly summoned and they appeared before the learned Trial Court and after following the procedure of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused No.1 Prajajan Bhupatbhai Gordhanbhai gave an application to be treated as a witness, which was allowed on merits and by an order dated 21.11.2004, the accused No.1 was treated as a witness and his statement was recorded. That a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.14 against the accused Nos. 2 to 6 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh.15 to 19, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. That after the closing pursis was given by the learned APP, the further statement of all the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and the arguments of both the parties were heard and the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 28.11.2006, gave the benefit of doubt to all the accused and acquitted them from all the offences. 4. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order in Special (ACB) Case No.18 of 1997 passed by the learned Trial Court on 28.11.2006, the State has filed the present appeal mainly contending that in fact, the accused had demanded Rs.700/- and ultimately, after bargaining an amount of Rs.500/- was decided to be paid and hence, the complainant had filed the complaint with the ACB Police Station. That the trap was laid and the accused persons had come in a jeep at the office of ‘Ghanshyam Travels’ where the amount of Rs.500/- was to be paid and the complainant had handed over the tainted currency notes to the accused and the amount was recovered from the accused. That the experiment of ultraviolet lamp was conducted and the traces of the anthracene powder were found and the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. That the complainant had supported the complaint and the demand was made in the presence of the panch witnesses and the tainted currency notes were also found at the spot. That even the panch witness has supported the case of the prosecution and nothing adverse has come out during the cross-examination of the complainant and the panch witnesses. That even the Trap Laying Officer and the Investigating Officer have deposed as per the case of the prosecution but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence laid by the prosecution in true spirit. That the learned Trial Court has erroneously acquitted all the accused and concluded that the prosecution has not proved the case. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the panch witness properly and has not considered the tainted currency notes have been recovered from the possession of the accused which were seized at the time of raid and all the three ingredients i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts but the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the same. That an illegal demand was made and the entire chain of evidence led by the prosecution has been brushed aside by the learned Trial Court and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is illegal, bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside and the accused must be convicted for the offences. 5. Heard learned APP Ms. 5. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. Rajendera Joshi for the respondent Nos. 1, 4 to 6 – accused. 6. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court through the evidence of the prosecution and has submitted that even though, the complainant Govindbhai Parshottambhai Gohel at Exh.43 has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution, the panch witness and Prajajan Buptabhai Gordhanbhai, who was the original accused No.1, has deposed in favour of the prosecution and his evidence has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. That the Trap Laying Officer and the Investigating Officer have also supported the case of the prosecution and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is not proper and must be set aside. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. Rajendra Joshi for the respondent Nos. 1, 4 to 6 - accused has submitted that there is no evidence to prove the case of demand of illegal gratification, acceptance and recovery of the tainted currency notes against the accused and there are major contradictions in depositions regarding the amount of money demanded. That the complainant in his deposition has stated that the amount of Rs.1,000/- was demanded, whereas, it is the case of the prosecution that Rs.700/- was demanded and finally, the amount was fixed at Rs.500/-. That there is no clear evidence on record regarding the exact amount that was demanded and the accused have a good case with regard to sanction also. That the sanction orders have been produced at Exhs. 69 to 72 but they are carbon copies of the said orders and it is not emerging from the record as to where the sanction has been granted. That after perusal of the necessary papers, there is no clear evence about the acceptance of the amount and the recovery of the tainted currency notes and the respondents cannot be convicted for any offences as the demand of illegal gratification, acceptance and recovery is not proved beyond reasonable doubts. That the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court has been passed after appreciation of the necessary evidence in true perspective and no order of interference is required and hence, the present appeal may be rejected. 8. That the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court has been passed after appreciation of the necessary evidence in true perspective and no order of interference is required and hence, the present appeal may be rejected. 8. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka passed in Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011 on 12.02.2024, wherein, the Apex Court has observed in Para Nos. 24 to 26, as under: “24. We may firstly discuss the position of law regarding the scope of intervention in a criminal appeal. For, that is the foundation of this challenge. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, unless proven guilty. The presumption continues at all stages of the trial and finally culminates into a fact when the case ends in acquittal. The presumption of innocence gets concretized when the case ends in acquittal. It is so because once the Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, finds that the accused was not guilty, the presumption gets strengthened and a higher threshold is expected to rebut the same in appeal. 25. No doubt, an order of acquittal is open to appeal and there is no quarrel about that. It is also beyond doubt that in the exercise of appellate powers, there is no inhibition on the High Court to re-appreciate or re-visit the evidence on record. However, the power of the High Court to reappreciate the evidence is a qualified power, especially when the order under challenge is of acquittal. The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the Trial Court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence. The second point for consideration is whether the finding of the Trial Court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact. If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a fairly possible view. A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion. What is required is an illegality or perversity. 26. If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a fairly possible view. A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion. What is required is an illegality or perversity. 26. It may be noted that the possibility of two views in a criminal case is not an extraordinary phenomenon. The ‘two-views theory’ has been judicially recognized by the Courts and it comes into play when the appreciation of evidence results into two equally plausible views. However, the controversy is to be resolved in favour of the accused. For, the very existence of an equally plausible view in favour of innocence of the accused is in itself a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it reinforces the presumption of innocence. And therefore, when two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action. Furthermore, it is also settled that if the view of the Trial Court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for the High Court to convict the accused by reappreciating the evidence. If such a course is permissible, it would make it practically impossible to settle the rights and liabilities in the eyes of law. In Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka, “13. Considering the reasons given by the trial court and on appraisal of the evidence, in our considered view, the view taken by the trial court was a possible one. Thus, the High Court should not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal. This Court in Jagan M. Seshadri v. State of T.N. [ (2002) 9 SCC 639 ] has laid down that as the appreciation of evidence made by the trial court while recording the acquittal is a reasonable view, it is not permissible to interfere in appeal. The duty of the High Court while reversing the acquittal has been dealt with by this Court, thus: “9. …We are constrained to observe that the High Court was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. It was required to deal with various grounds on which acquittal had been based and to dispel those grounds. It has not done so. Salutary principles while dealing with appeal against acquittal have been overlooked by the High Court. …We are constrained to observe that the High Court was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. It was required to deal with various grounds on which acquittal had been based and to dispel those grounds. It has not done so. Salutary principles while dealing with appeal against acquittal have been overlooked by the High Court. If the appreciation of evidence by the trial court did not suffer from any flaw, as indeed none has been pointed out in the impugned judgment, the order of acquittal could not have been set aside. The view taken by the learned trial court was a reasonable view and even if by any stretch of imagination, it could be said that another view was possible, that was not a ground sound enough to set aside an order of acquittal.”” (emphasis supplied) In Sanjeev v. State of H.P., the Hon’ble Supreme Court analyzed the relevant decisions and summarized the approach of the appellate Court while deciding an appeal from the order of acquittal. It observed thus: “7. It is well settled that: 7.1. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the reasons which had weighed with the trial court in acquitting the accused must be dealt with, in case the appellate court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the trial court deserves to be upturned (see Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka5, Anwar Ali v. State of H.P.) 7.2. With an order of acquittal by the trial court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced (see Atley v. State of U.P.) 7.3. If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal (see Sambasivan v. State of Kerala).” 8.1. In Para – 36, the Apex Court, in the case of Mallappa (Supra), has observed as under: “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. In Para – 36, the Apex Court, in the case of Mallappa (Supra), has observed as under: “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as: (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive – inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court. 8.2. The Apex Court, in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248, has observed in Para No. 68, which reads as under: “68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under: (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind: (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1) (d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and inturn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and inturn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. (f) In the event the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. (g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.” 9. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.” 9. In view of the above settled principles of law with regard to acquittal appeals under the P.C.Act, the evidence led by the prosecution is required to be appreciated and in the instant case, to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Govindbhai Parsottambhai at Exh.43 and the witness is the complainant and has stated on oath that as his motor for pumping water was taken by the employees of the Bhavnagar Mahanagarpalika from his house. That he had demanded the motor back but he did not remember who had taken the motor and at that time, they had demanded an amount of Rs.500/- from the complainant and he told them to come at his office ‘Ghanshyam Travels’ and on the next date, the accused Odhavjibhai Jadavjibhai Dihora went to the office of ‘Ghanshyam Travels’ and the complainant gave Rs.500/- but the accused did not take the same and demanded Rs.1,000/-. That at that time, as the complainant did not have Rs.1,000/-, the accused told him that he would come back in the evening. That the complainant went to the ACB Office and filed the complaint. The complainant had not read the complaint and the complainant was told by the officer of ACB to come in the evening. The complainant has also stated that he does not know what papers were drafted. That the complainant had given the currency notes, which were placed in his left side pocket and he had gone back on his scooter. That the complainant came to his office and he had given the amount to the Odhavjibhai Jadavjibhai Dihora and at that time, the ACB officers came and took the employees of the Bhavnagar Mahanagarpalika, who had come in a vehicle. The complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and during the crossexamination by the learned APP, he has not supported the case of the prosecution. As far as the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused Nos. The complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and during the crossexamination by the learned APP, he has not supported the case of the prosecution. As far as the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused Nos. 3 and 5 is concerned, the complainant has stated that he has never spoken to the police and had never met the accused Nos. 3 and 5 ever. 9.1. The prosecution has also examined PW.2 Jayantbhai Kapilbhai Trivedi at Exh.44 and this witness is a panch witness, who had gone as a shadow witness with the complainant. The witness has stated that the complainant and the witness had gone to the office of ‘Ghanshyam Travels’ at around 8.00pm, and one boy came and asked as to who was Govindbhai and stated that somebody was calling him and the complainant went out. That at that time, the person, who sat in the jeep, asked the complainant whether he had brought the motor and the complainant stated that he did not want to give the motor but he had brought the money and he was told to hand over the money to the person who sat in the front seat. That the complainant gave the money to the person who sat next to the driver of the jeep and he was told to take the money. That at that time, the complainant gave the predetermined signal by raising his hand and the members of the raiding party came and the person, who had accepted the money, was told to throw the money so he threw the money and came back and sat in the jeep. That the other panch witness picked up the money from the road and the vehicle was taken to the ACB Office where other procedure was done. The panch witness has not identified any person before the Court. During the cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know as to whether other members of the Raiding Party had sat in the jeep or not. He has also stated that he does not know how many persons were sitting in the jeep. That he does not know whether all the accused persons were in the jeep and he also does not know what was written in the pachanama. He has also stated that he does not know how many persons were sitting in the jeep. That he does not know whether all the accused persons were in the jeep and he also does not know what was written in the pachanama. That he was sat in the office of ‘Ghanshyam Travels’ for about 2.00 hours and the complainant had not spoken to the driver of the Jeep. 9.2. The prosecution has examined P.W.3 Prajajan Bhupatbhai Gordhanbhai Mer at Exh.53. This witness is the original accused No.1 and he was in the jeep at the time of the incident. That the witness has deposed and supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he has stated that he knew all the persons as they were working together and he has also stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case. 9.3. The prosecution has examined PW-4 Vikarmsinh Jivatsinh Puwar at Exh.54, who is the Trapping Laying Officer and PW-5 Dilipbhai Shantilal Mehta at Exh.68, who is the Investigating Officer and both the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. 10. From the entire evidence produced by the prosecution on record, it has emerged from the record that the demand has not been proved as the complainant has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. That the complainant is not clear as to whether the amount of Rs.1000/-, Rs.700/- or Rs.500/- was demanded by the accused and he is also not clear as to who had demanded the amount and he has not identified any of the accused persons. That as per the panchnama, Odhavjibhai Jadavjibhai Dihora or Jayantbhai Kapilbhai Trivedi, who was sitting in the jeep, asked Bhupatbhai Gordhanbhai Mer to accept the amount and he had done so and the members of the Raiding Party came, but, it is not proved as to whether Bhupatbhai Gordhanbhai Mer, Odhavjibhai Jadavjibhai Dihora or Jayantbhai Kapilbhai Trivedi had accepted the amount. That Bhupatbhai, who had accepted the tainted currency notes, has been shown as accused No.1 in the charge sheet but has, thereafter, given an application to be a star witness and has stated that he had not accepted the amount and the amount was given to Odhavjibhai Jadavjibhai Dihora, who was sitting in the jeep and hence, it is not proved who had accepted the amount. That admittedly, the amount was found lying on the road and the panch witness had picked up the same from the road. As far as the sanctions are concerned, it is on record that the carbon copies of the sanction orders have been produced on record. From the deposition of PW.5 Dilipbhai Shantibhai Mehta, it appears that the sanction orders are the carbon copies of the same orders. That PW.5- Dilipbhai Shantibhai Mehta has admitted that he had sent a draft of the sanction order but he does not remember as to whether the documents were sent to the Competent Authority for granting the sanction for prosecution. That the documents are the carbon copies and the original documents have not been produced and only the carbon copies have been produced. That the Commissioner was Mr. Nagori, who was the competent authority to grant the sanction, but he has not signed the sanction order and somebody has signal the sanction order “for him”. That in all the sanction orders from Exhs. 69 to 72, the Commissioner Mr. Nagori has not signed but he does not know as to who has signed for the Commissioner Mr. Nagori. That the draft of the sanction order would not be a sanction order and it appears that the draft of the sanction order was sent by the Investigating Officer to the Commissioner and without perusing the documents, the sanction order was simply signed by some other official, who was not the Commissioner of the Municipality and the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution. That this type of sanction, which is on carbon paper, cannot be said to be a valid sanction and when there are major contradictions regarding the amount of illegal gratification demanded by the accused persons and there is no clarification and proof as to who had actually demanded and accepted the amount of illegal gratification and also no clarification and proof regarding the role of each of the accused and all these aspects have been dealt with by the learned Trial Court. 11. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of the case of Mallappa (Supra) and Neeraj Dutta (Supra) and appraisal of the evidence produced by the prosecution, the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court are reasonable and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges levelled against him. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. 12. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal in Special (ACB) Case No.18 of 1997 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar on 28.11.2006 is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds stand cancelled. 13. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.