JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.11.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anand (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 36 of 2006 (Old Case No. 3 of 2003), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (herein after referred to as ‘the P.C.Act’). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ at he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under: 2.1. That the accused was working as a Talati-Cum-Mantri, Class-III, at Khadodhi Gram Panchayat, Taluka, Khambhat, District Anand and was a public servant. That Motibhai Chauhan, the father of the complainant Ganpatbhai Chauhan and Mohanbhai Chauhan, the uncle of the complainant Ganpatbhai Chauhan, had purchased a house from Gangaben, daughter of Bhaiba Aatabhai, resident of village Khadodhi, Taluka Khambhat, District Anand by a Registered Deed dated 17.01.1968 for a consideration amount of Rs.501/-. That the house had fallen down and Mohanbhai Chauhan, the uncle of the complainant Ganpatbhai Chauhan had filed necessary papers in the Gram Panchyat, Khadodhi for constructing the residence under the scheme of “Sardar Awas Yojna”. That it was found that the name of the father of the complainant was not entered in revenue the record. That the complainant had contacted the accused to get the name of his father mutated in the revenue record and at that time, the accused demanded an amount of Rs.1,500/- as illegal gratification and after bargaining, the amount was fixed at Rs.1000/-. That the complainant contacted the ACB Police Station, Nadiad and filed the FIR being I-C.R.No.10 of 2002 on 25.11.2002 under Sections 7, 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the P.C.Act against the accused. That the complainant contacted the ACB Police Station, Nadiad and filed the FIR being I-C.R.No.10 of 2002 on 25.11.2002 under Sections 7, 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the P.C.Act against the accused. That the Trap Laying Officer Mr.A.R.Patel, Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, Nadiad called the panch witnesses and the entire procedure of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate was explained to the complainant and the panch witnesses and the trap was laid on 27.11.2002, wherein, in the presence of the panch witnesses, the accused demanded and accepted the tainted currency notes laced with phenolphthalein powder and after receiving the predetermined signal, the members of the Raiding Party came and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused. That after due investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the accused before the learned Sessions Court, Anand, which was registered as Special (ACB) Case No.36 of 2006 (Old Case No.3 of 2003). 2.2. That the accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and a charge was framed against the accused at Exh. 4 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.5. That the accused denied all the contents of the charge at Exh.4 and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. That the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses and produced 10 documentary evidence on record and after the closing pursis was filed by the learned APP at Exh.24, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the allegations made against him and submitted that in fact, the outstanding revenue of the property of the complainant was due and the outstanding revenue was collected from the complainant and no illegal gratification was ever demanded from the complainant by the accused. That the learned Trial court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 20.11.2006, has acquitted the accused from all the charges. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court in Special (ACB) ACB) Case No.36 of 2006 (Old Case No.3 of 2003) on 23.11.2006, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is bad in law, erroneous and contrary to the provisions of law. That the complaint had clearly stated that the demand was made by the accused and the shadow witness has also admitted that the demand was being made by the accused. Moreover, the seizure memo is produced at Exh.12 and the panchnama is produced at Exh.13. That the amount has been recovered by the accused but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence in proper prospective. That the sanction for prosecution has also been given by the Competent Authority and the Trap Laying Officer has also fully supported the entire case of the prosecution and during his cross-examination, nothing adverse has come on record. That the learned Trial Court has erroneously come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against accused and the learned Trial Court has given undue importance to some portion of the deposition of the pnch witnesses, who has not supported the case of the prosecution. That the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused and there was no reason to doubt the version of the panch witnesses. That the Learned Trial Court has discarded the evidence on the basis of minor discrepancies and has disbelieved the fact of the demand whereas the evidence shows that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. That the order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence and deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused must be found guilty for the said offences. 4. Heard leaned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tejas Barot for learned advocate Mr. Dhawal Barot and assisted by learned advocate Ms. Rhea Chokshi. 5. Learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya has taken this Court through the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court and has submitted that the complainant has stated that the accused had demanded an amount of Rs.1,500/- and after bargaining, the amount was fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Dhawal Barot and assisted by learned advocate Ms. Rhea Chokshi. 5. Learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya has taken this Court through the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court and has submitted that the complainant has stated that the accused had demanded an amount of Rs.1,500/- and after bargaining, the amount was fixed at Rs.1,000/-. The prosecution has also proved that the father and the uncle of the complainant had purchased property in village Khadodhi, Taluka Khambhat, District Anand from one Gangaben, daughter of Bhaiba Atabhai on 17.01.1968 and as they wanted to develop and reconstruct the existing house under the scheme of “Sardar Awas Yojana” they checked the revenue record and found that the name of the father of the complainant was not mutated in the revenue record. That this work falls within the jurisdiction of the accused and to get the name of the father of the complainant mutated in the revenue record, the accused had demanded the illegal gratification of Rs.1,500/-, and after bargaining, the amount was fixed at Rs.1,000/-. That the prosecution has examined the complainant and the panch witness who both have deposed that the demand was made by the accused and at the time of the trap on 27.11.2002, the amount of illegal gratification was accepted by the accused and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused. That this entire evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution and there is nothing adverse come on record during the examination-in-chief, which would falsify the case of the prosecution and the learned Trial Court has mainly considered minor contradictions and not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the order of acquittal must be quashed and set aside and the accused must be found guilty for all the offences. 6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tejas Barot for learned advocate Mr. Dhawal Barot and assisted by learned advocate Ms. Rhea Chokshi for the accused has submitted that in the entire evidence of the prosecution, there is no evidence regarding any demand made by the accused for any illegal gratification for doing any work. That, in fact, the accused had called for the necessary documents to verify whether the father of the complainant was, in fact, in actual ownership of the property or not and verified the same from the sale deed. That, in fact, the accused had called for the necessary documents to verify whether the father of the complainant was, in fact, in actual ownership of the property or not and verified the same from the sale deed. That as per the evidence of the complainant, the name of the complainant and the name of his mother were mutated into the revenue record. That a sum of Rs.1,648/- was due towards the property tax and at the time of trap, the accused had actually taken the amount of Rs.1,000/- as the amount of arrears of revenue and the said fact has also been stated by the complainant in his deposition. That in the deposition of the complainant, it has also come on record that when the complainant had gone to meet the accused, the accused had written an application and has taken the signature of the complainant and the thumb impression of the complainant in place of the thumb impression of his mother. That, in fact, it has also come on record that there were a number of persons, who had come to pay the electricity bills and there were other persons, who were sitting in the office of the accused and at that time, the accused had asked the complainant as to whether he had brought the amount for the property tax and the complainant had stated that he had brought Rs.1,000/- and had handed over the amount to the accused. It has also come on record that on the first day, the trap had failed and on the next day, the same panch witnesses were called and even in the deposition of the panch witnesses, it has also come on record that the accused was doing legal work and the amount that was paid to the accused was given for legal work. The learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and has rightly acquitted the accused and no order of interference is required and hence, the appeal must be rejected. 7. Learned Senior Advocate for the accused has relied upon the following decisions: [i] B. Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55 . [ii] P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 . [iii] Mukhtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2017) 8 SCC 136 . State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55 . [ii] P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 . [iii] Mukhtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2017) 8 SCC 136 . [iv] K. Shanthamma Vs. State of Telengana reported in (2022) 4 SCC 574 . [v] Soundarajan Vs. State rep. By the Inspector of Police Vigilance Anticorruption Dindigul reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 424. [vi] Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731 . 8. Before appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution on record before the learned Trial Court, it is necessary to reiterate the principles of cardinal jurisprudence as settled by the Apex Court in a catena of decision and the first principle is that the prosecution is required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution cannot take any benefit of the weakness of the defence. The second cardinal principle is that in a criminal trial, the accused is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty by the evidence adduced by the prosecution on record beyond reasonable doubts and the third principle is that the onus of burden never shifts from the prosecution. 9. In view of the above settled cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence and citations relied upon by the learned advocate for the accused and considering the evidence, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Ganpatbhai Motibhai Chauhan at Exh.54 and this witness is the complainant, who has deposed mainly stating the facts as narrated in the complaint. The complainant has stated that the accused had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1,500, for which, after bargaining, the amount was settled at Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to give the amount of illegal gratification, he had gone to the ACB Police Station and filed a complaint and on the next day, he was called to the ACB Police Station and the panch witnesses were called and the procedure and experiment of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate were done in the presence of the complainant and the panch witnesses and the currency notes traces with phenolphthalein powder were placed in the left side pocket of his shirt. That they all went to the office of the accused and the accused was not present and the trap failed and hence, they returned back. That on 27.11.2002 i.e. on the next day, once again, they all went to the Khadodhi Gram Panchayat and at that time, the tainted currency notes were placed in the left side shirt’s pocket and when the Complainant and the shadow witness met the accused, the accused wrote the application and the complainant affixed his signature and thereafter, the accused told the complainant that the thumb impression of his mother would have to be taken and as his house were far away, he had affixed his thumb impression in place of his mother’s thumb impression and immediately, he went out and gave the pre-determined signal that the complainant has thereafter, stated that he came inside the office and the accused had demanded the illegal gratification, which was given to him and at that time, other persons, who had come to pay the electricity bills, were present and the members of the Raiding Party rushed in the office and the tainted currency notes were given by the panch witness No.1 to Budhabhai. During the cross-examination, the complainant has stated that the property was in the possession of his uncle and he wanted to mutate his name and his mother’s name in the record as his father had passed away. That the resolution to get the name of his mother and his name mutated in the record was passed on 30.10.2002 and at that time, if he wanted the house under the scheme of “Sardar Awas Yojna” then he had to pay the outstanding amount of property tax, which was Rs.1648/- as stated by the accused. That the complainant did not have the sufficient amount to pay the tax at once and he had insisted his name be mutated but the accused had told him to pay the entire amount of tax which was not liked by him. That he went to file a complaint at the ACB Police Station and at that time, his uncle was with him and the some punch witnesses were called on both the days. That he went to file a complaint at the ACB Police Station and at that time, his uncle was with him and the some punch witnesses were called on both the days. That when he went to meet the accused, there were other persons and at that time, the accused had asked whether he had brought the amount to pay the outstanding amount of tax and the complainant had stated that he had brought Rs.1,000/- and the amount of Rs.1,000/- was handed over to the accused. 9.1. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Shaileshbhai Laherchandbhai Shah at Exh.8 and this witness is the competent authority, who has given sanction for the prosecution, which is produced at Exh.10. 9.2. The prosecution has examined PW-3 Mansinghbhai Vechatbhai Damor at Exh.11 and this witness is a shadow witness, who had gone along with the complainant on the date of the trap. This witness has stated that on the first day, the trap has failed as the accused was not present in his office and he was called on the next day and at that time he was instructed to go with the complainant to the office of the accused as a shadow witness. The witness has deposed the entire sequence of events as had taken place and has also stated that before going for the trap, the complainant had given the currency notes to Mr. Patel, who had given the tainted currency notes to the witness and witness had placed those tainted currency notes in the pocket of the complainant. That they went to the office of the accused and the complainant had spoken to the accused about the succession and the accused had demanded Rs.1,000/- and the complainant gave the amount to the accused, which was taken by the accused and placed in the right side shirt’s pocket and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the accused. The witness has stated that the tainted currency notes were removed by the PW-2 on the direction of Mr.Patel from the pocket of the accused. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the experiment of the phenolphthalein powder was done on the next date and he is aware that the accused being a Talati-Cum-Mantri has to accept the amount due to the Gram Panchayat. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the experiment of the phenolphthalein powder was done on the next date and he is aware that the accused being a Talati-Cum-Mantri has to accept the amount due to the Gram Panchayat. That from the discussion with the complainant, the panch witness had found that the Talati-cum-Mantri was doing legal work and the amount that had to be given to the accused was for legal work. 9.3. The prosecution has examined the PW-4 Kirankumar Augustine Macwan at Exh.14 and this witness is the second panch witness, who had accompanied the members of the Raiding Party for the raid. The witness has deposed as per the case of the prosecution. But during cross-examination, he has stated that while they were going for the trap on the second day, the Trap Laying Officer had told the complainant that as the trap has failed for the first time anyhow, the trap must be successful on the second time. During cross-examination, it has come on record that the tax receipt book was lying on the table of the accused along with other register. 9.4. The prosecution has examined PW-5 Arvindbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel at Exh.15 and this witness has entirely supported the case of the prosecution. This witness has deposed the entire procedure that had taken right from filling of the complaint till the trap was successful. During the cross-examination, the witness had admitted that there is no mention about how the pre-determined signal was given and there were other register lying on the table of the accused but he does not remember whether the tax receipt book or outstanding tax book were lying or not. 9.5. The prosecution has examined PW-6 Manojbhai Khimajbhai at Exh.17 and this witness is the Investigating Officer, who has filed the charge sheet after getting the sanction from the prosecution before the learned Trial Court. 10. The Apex Court, in the case of B. Jayaraj (Supra), has observed in Para-8, as under: “8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext. P-11) before LW 9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW I and the contents of Ext. P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as 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 established.” 10.1 The Apex Court, in the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy (Supra), has observed in Para-23, as under: “23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(1) and (ff) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge thereof, 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. 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. As a corolllary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.” 10.2. The Apex Court, in the case of Mukhtar Singh (Supra), has observed in Para-24, as under: “24. It would thus be patent from the materials on record that the evidence with regard to the demand of illegal gratification either of Rs 3000 which had been paid or of Rs 2000 as made on the day of trap operation is wholly inadequate to comply with the prerequisites to constitute the ingredients of the offence with which the original accused had been charged. Not only the date or time of first demand/payment is not forthcoming and the allegation to that effect is rather omnibus, vague and sweeping, even the person in whose presence Rs 3000 at the first instance is alleged to have been paid i.e. Santosh Singh Lambardar, has neither been produced in the investigation nor at the trial. In other words, the bald allegation of the complainant with regard to the demand and payment of Rs 3000 as well as the demand of Rs.2000 has remained uncorroborated. Further to reiterate, his statement to this effect lacks in material facts and particulars and per se cannot form the foundation of a decisive conclusion that such demand in fact had been made by the original accused. Viewed in this perspective, the statement of the complainant and the Inspector Satpal, the shadow witness in isolation that the original accused had enquired as to whether money had been brought or not, can by no means constitute demand as enjoined in law as an ingredient of the offence levelled against the original accused. Such a stray query ipso facto in absence of any other cogent and persuasive evidence on record cannot amount to a demand to be a constituent of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act.” 10.3. The Apex Court, in the case of K. Shanthamma (Supra), has observed in Para-20, as under: “20. Such a stray query ipso facto in absence of any other cogent and persuasive evidence on record cannot amount to a demand to be a constituent of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act.” 10.3. The Apex Court, in the case of K. Shanthamma (Supra), has observed in Para-20, as under: “20. Thus, this is a case where the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant was not proved by the prosecution. Thus, the demand which is sine qua non for establishing the offence under Section 7 was not established.” 10.4. The Apex Court, in the case of Soundarajan (Supra), has observed in Para-11, as under: “11. Now, we turn to the evidence of the shadow witness (PW-3). In the examination-in-chief, he stated that the appellant asked the PW-2 whether he had brought the amount. PW-3 did not say that the appellant made a specific demand of gratification in his presence to PW -2. To attract Section 7 of the PC Act, the demand for gratification has to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The word used in Section 7, as it existed before 26th July 2018, is 'gratification'. There has to be a demand for gratification. It is not a simple demand for money, but it has to be a demand for gratification. If the factum of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof is proved, then the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked and the Court can presume that the demand must be as a motive or reward for doing any official act. This presumption can be rebutted by the accused.” 10.5. The Apex Court, in the case of Neeraj Dutta (Supra), has observed in Para-88, as under: 88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under: 88.1. (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. 88.2. (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. 88.2. (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. 88.3. (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. 88.4. (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 e 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 Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (1) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribegiver 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 Sections 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 9 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 in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1) (d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.5. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1) (d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.5. (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. 88.6. (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. 88.7. (g) Insofar 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 Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.” 11. Section 20 does not apply to Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.” 11. As per the settled principles of law and particularly, in the case of Neeraj Dutta (Supra), in a case filed under the P.C.Act, proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine quq non to establish the guilt of the pubic servant and the prosecution must prove the demand of the illegal gratification and the acceptance beyond reasonable doubts. In the instant case, the complainant has stated that initially, the accused had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1,500/- and the same was made in the presence of the complainant and the uncle of the complainant, who had accompanied the complainant to the ACB office but the uncle of the complainant has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. During the evidence, it has also come on record that the complainant had a grudge against the accused as he wanted his name and his mother’s name to be mutated in the revenue record at any cost and in the entire evidence, it has also come on record that an amount of Rs.1648/- was due towards the outstanding arrears of revenue tax to be paid by the complainant. In the evidence, it has also come on record that when the complainant went to meet the accused, the accused had written an application and taken the signature and thumb impression of the complainant and at that time, there were other persons present in the office of the accused, who had come to pay their electricity bills. It is pertinent to note that no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, more particularly, those persons, who were present at the time of the trap. PW-3 Mansing Vechatbhai Damor at Exh.11, who is a shadow witness, has categorically stated that he found that the accused was doing legal work and an amount that had to be paid by the complainant was for doing legal work. PW-3 Mansing Vechatbhai Damor at Exh.11, who is a shadow witness, has categorically stated that he found that the accused was doing legal work and an amount that had to be paid by the complainant was for doing legal work. In the cross-examination of the complainant, it has come on record that the accused had asked the complainant whether he had brought the amount for the property tax and there is no mention of any illegal gratification and at that time, the complainant had stated that he had brought Rs.1,000/- and had handed over the tainted currency notes to the accused. It appears that the amount that was paid by the complainant to the accused was towards the outstanding arrears of property tax, which the accused was legally entitled to collect and the demand for the illegal gratification is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. 12. Moreover, in the evidence of the prosecution, there is a minor contradiction about the recovery of tainted currency notes and it is not clear as to who had removed the tainted currency notes from the pocket of the accused. The complainant had stated that the amount was removed and given to one Budhabhai but Budhabhai is not examined before the learned Trial Court. Moreover, in the crossexamination of PW-5 Arvindbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, at Exh.15, it has come on record that the receipt books were lying on the table of the accused and he does not know whether those receipt books were checked or seized by the Trap Laying Officer or not. 13. In view of the above discussion, in the entire evidence, the demand of illegal gratification by the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubts and it is the defense of the accused that the amount of Rs.1,648/- was due as arrears of the revenue tax, which had to be paid by the complainant for getting his name and his mother’s name mutated into the revenue record. That the amount was, in fact, owned to the Government towards the outstanding arrears of property tax and the accused was legally entitled to collect the same from the complainant. This fact is proved by the evidence of the shadow witness PW-3 Mansingbhai Vechatbhai Damor, who had stated that the accused was entitled to collect the amount and he had thought that the complainant had to give his legal dues to the accused. This fact is proved by the evidence of the shadow witness PW-3 Mansingbhai Vechatbhai Damor, who had stated that the accused was entitled to collect the amount and he had thought that the complainant had to give his legal dues to the accused. Moreover, the complainant has also stated that at the time of the trap, the accused asked him whether he had brought the outstanding amount of property tax and he had taken the tainted currency notes and had given to the accused. Hence, acceptance and recovery of the tainted currency notes dehors the proof of demand is not sufficient to bring home the charge against the accused. 14. The learned Trial Court has thoroughly appreciated all the evidence on record and has given due consideration to all the material pieces of evidence. The findings that the learned Trial Court has arrived at is legal and proper and there is no error of law or fact. Moreover, the view taken by the learned Trial Court of acquitting the accused is a fairly possible view and there is no legality or perversity in the impugned judgment and order and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of acquittal by the learned Trial Court. 15. 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 dated 23.11.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anand in Special (ACB) Case No. 36 of 2006 (Old Case No. 3 of 2003) is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds stand cancelled. 16. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.