Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 441 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Umesh Kantilal Amin

2024-03-05

S.V.PINTO

body2024
JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 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 01.03.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 7th Fast Track Court, Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special Case No. 166 of 1999, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(D)(1)(2)(3) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.C. Act’). The respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused No. 1’ and ‘the accused No. 2” at they 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 Udaji Hiraji Brahman, the father of Chenaji Udaji Brahman - the complainant, resident of village Bhalasara, Taluka Tharad, Distrcit Banaskantha had an agricultural land and a well in the land and also an electric motor on the well. That a residential house was constructed on the said land and an application for electric connection for the house was given to the office of the Gujarat Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to ‘the GEB”) at Dhanera. That on 02.05.1999, the accused had come to the agricultural land with a jeep and at that time the complainant, his father Udaji Hiraji Bhrahman and his brother Shamalbhai were present and at that time, the accused conducted the survey of the house and demanded an amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/- for giving the estimate of Rs. 2,000/- and if the amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/- was not paid, then, an estimate of Rs. 4,000/- was to be given. That after bargaining, the amount of Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification was fixed and the accused No. 1 told them to come to the GEB office, Dhanera during office hours and give him the amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 500/-. That as the complainant did not want to give the amount of illegal gratification, he went to the ACB office at Palanpur and filed the complaint, which was registered as C.R. No. 5 of 1999 on 03.05.1999 under sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) 1, 2, 3 and 13(2) of the P.C. Act. 500/-. That as the complainant did not want to give the amount of illegal gratification, he went to the ACB office at Palanpur and filed the complaint, which was registered as C.R. No. 5 of 1999 on 03.05.1999 under sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) 1, 2, 3 and 13(2) of the P.C. Act. That the Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and after explaining to the complainant and the panch witnesses about the procedure of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp, the trap was laid on 03.05.1999 and at 4.45 hours, the demand of illegal gratification for Rs. 500/- was made by the accused No. 1 and accepted by the accused No. 2 and the same was recovered from the possession of the accused No. 2. That the accused No. 1 was working as Junior Engineer at GEB office and was a public servant and the accused No. 2 was a private person and had accepted the amount of illegal gratification and after due investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Sessions, Banaskantha at Palanpur, which was registered as Special Case No. 166 of 1999. 2.2 The accused were duly summoned and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and after following the procedure under section 207 of the Code, a charge was framed against the accused at Exh.12 and statements of accused were recorded at Exh.13 and 14 respectively and both the accused denied all the charges and the evidence of the produced on record. 2.3. The prosecution has filed the following oral as well as documentary evidence to prove the charges against the accused: 1. Chenabhai Udaji Brahman Complainant Exh.24 2. Jayantilal Umiyashankar Rawal Panch Witness Exh.28 3. Prabhudas Badaji Pandav, P.I. ACB Panch Witness Exh.42 4. Kacharabhai Dalabhai Parmar, P.I. ACB Investigating Officer Exh.70 5. Hirabhai Gedabhai Damor, P.I. ACB Investigating Officer Exh.78 Documentary Evidence: 1. Seizure Memo Exh.30 2. Panchnama regarding Exh.31 3. Complaint Exh.43 4. Suchipatra Exh.47 5. Service book of the accused No. 1 Exh.56 6. Salary certificate of the accused No. 1 Exh.57 7. Sanction order Exh.79 2.4. Kacharabhai Dalabhai Parmar, P.I. ACB Investigating Officer Exh.70 5. Hirabhai Gedabhai Damor, P.I. ACB Investigating Officer Exh.78 Documentary Evidence: 1. Seizure Memo Exh.30 2. Panchnama regarding Exh.31 3. Complaint Exh.43 4. Suchipatra Exh.47 5. Service book of the accused No. 1 Exh.56 6. Salary certificate of the accused No. 1 Exh.57 7. Sanction order Exh.79 2.4. That after the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record, the learned APP filed a closing pursis at Exh.80 and the further statements of both the accused under section 313 of the Code was recorded, wherein, both the accused denied all the evidence against them and have stated that a false case has been filed against them. The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, acquitted both the accused from all the offences by the impugned judgment and order dated 01.03.2006. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 01.03.2006 passed in Special Case No. 166 of 1999, the appellant State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the complainant has clearly deposed that his father had applied for an electric connection and the officer of GEB had come for verification and at that time, they had demanded Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification for giving estimate of Rs. 2,000/-. That the witness has also deposed that the currency notes were laced with anthracene powder and were placed in his pocket and when the complaint went to the accused No. 1, the accused No. 1 told him to give the amount to the accused No. 2, who was a private person and the accused No. 2 had accepted the tainted currency notes. The prosecution has proved the tainted currency notes recovered from the custody of the accused No. 2 and the learned Trial Court has erroneously come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. The shadow witness has also supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that the amount was accepted by the accused No. 2 and the hands and the clothes qua the accused No. 2 were found stained with anthracene powder during the ultraviolet test. That the impugned judgment and order is improper, perverse and bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. That the impugned judgment and order is improper, perverse and bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the appellant-State and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tejas Barot assisted by learned advocate Rhea Chokshi for the accused. 5. Learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya has taken this Court through the entire evidence and has submitted that the complainant has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that the accused No. 1 had demanded the amount and had instructed the complainant to give the amount of illegal gratification to the accused No. 2 and on the instruction of the accused No. 1, the complainant had given the amount of illegal gratification to the accused No. 2 and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused No. 2. That the panch witness Jayantibhai Umiyashankar Raval has fully supported the case of the prosecution and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the panch witness properly. That from the depositions of Prabhudas Badaji Pandav, the Trap Laying Officer and Hirabhai Gedabhai Damor, the Investigating Officer, the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and all the ingredients of demand of illegal gratification, acceptance and recovery of the tained currency notes as stated by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions have been proved by the oral and the documentary evidence led by the prosecution and hence, the appeal must be allowed and the accused must be convicted. 6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tejas Barot assisted by learned advocate Ms.Rhea Chokshi for the accused has submitted that no tainted currency notes have been recovered from the accused Nos.1 and 2 and the prosecution has not proved the demand beyond reasonable doubts. That the complainant has not identified any of the accused persons before the learned Trial Court and the complainant has stated that the officer of GEB has come with a jeep but he does not know as to who had made the demand of the illegal gratification. That, in fact, the complainant had requirement of the motor for the electric connection and the accused No. 2 was selling electric motors and the complainant had gone to the shop of the accused No. 2 to buy the motor. That, in fact, the complainant had requirement of the motor for the electric connection and the accused No. 2 was selling electric motors and the complainant had gone to the shop of the accused No. 2 to buy the motor. That it has come on record that the accused No. 1 had checked the electric connection in village Bhalasara and recovered a fine of Rs. 1,35,660/- from the persons residing in village Bhalasara, Taluka Tharad and the Sarpanch and the other persons had a grudge against the accused No. 1. That the demand is not proved beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution and no recovery of any tainted currency notes has been made from the accused No. 1. That the prosecution has not proved the nexus between the accused No. 1 and the accused No. 2 and in the investigation, it has come on record that an estimate of Rs. 5,368/- was given by the accused No. 1 whereas it is the case of the complainant that the amount of illegal gratification was demanded to reduce the amount of estimate to Rs. 2,000/-. Hence, this creates doubt on the version of the complainant. Moreover, as per the record, the complaint has been filed at 12.00 hours and the panchnama has been drawn at 1.00 hours and it appears that within one hour, the entire procedure has been undertaken which itself creates a doubt upon the case of the prosecution. Moreover, in the entire evidence, it has come on the record that the panchnama was not drawn at the place where the tainted currency notes were recovered at the shop of the accused No. 2 and the learned Trial Court appreciated all the evidence properly and has rightly concluded that the prosecution has not proved the demand of illegal gratification, acceptance and recovery of the tainted currency notes and has rightly acquitted the case. That no order of interference is required in the impugned judgment and order and hence, the appeal must be dismissed. 7. Learned Senior Advocate for the accused has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 (ii) K. Shanthamma vs. State of Telengana, (2022) 4 SCC 574 (iii) Soundarajan vs. State Rep. 7. Learned Senior Advocate for the accused has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 (ii) K. Shanthamma vs. State of Telengana, (2022) 4 SCC 574 (iii) Soundarajan vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police Vigilance Anticorruption Dindigul, 2023 SCC Online SC 424 (iv) Mukhtar Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2017) 8 SCC 136 (v) P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2015) 10 SCC 152 (vi) Dashrath Singh Chauhan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2017) 17 SCC 509 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. The prosecution has examined the complainant PW-1 Chenaji Udaji Brahman at Exh.24 and the witness has stated that his father had applied for an electric connection and had filled up the form in the office of GEB, Dhanera and 2-3 persons had come from the GEB office for verification. That at that time, he was at home and his father and other six persons were sitting under the neem tree. That the persons from the GEB office had asked for an illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- from his father for reducing the estimate and had stated that if they did not give the illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- the estimate would be higher and if they wanted the estimate to be at a lower amount, the amount of Rs. 500/- was to be paid. That the complainant went to the ACB Office at Palanpur and filed the complaint, which is produced at Exh.25. That he had given the amount of Rs. 500/- to Mr. Pandav, Police Inspector, ACB Police Station and the amount was to be paid to Mr. Amin, Junior Engineer, GEB. 500/- was to be paid. That the complainant went to the ACB Office at Palanpur and filed the complaint, which is produced at Exh.25. That he had given the amount of Rs. 500/- to Mr. Pandav, Police Inspector, ACB Police Station and the amount was to be paid to Mr. Amin, Junior Engineer, GEB. That the witness Mr. Rawalbhai went to the GEB Office with him and at that time, the accused No. 1 was there and he told the accused to take the amount that he had demanded, but the accused No. 1 told him to give it to the accused No. 2 so they went and gave the amount of illegal gratification to the accused No. 2. That thereafter, he gave the pre-determined signal and Mr. Pandav, Police Inspector and other police personnel and the other panch witness came. That they took the accused No. 2 to the office of the accused No. 1 and in their presence, the accused No. 2 gave the amount to the accused No. 1 and the accused No. 1 took the amount and placed it on the table. The complainant has not identified the persons who had taken the amount and has not identified any of the accused before the learned Trial Court. During the cross-examination, the complainant had stated that the persons, who had come to his house in a jeep had met his father and in the complaint, he had not stated that he was present at the time when the demand of illegal gratification from his father was made. Moreover, the complainant has stated that in his statement before the police he has not stated that the accused No. 2 gave the amount to the accused No. 1 and the accused No. 1 had placed the tainted currency notes on the table. That the accused No. 2 has a shop of the electric goods and he does not know where the police officers were when he went to the shop of the accused No. 2. That no procedure was undertaken in the shop of the accused No. 2 and they took the accused No. 2 and went to the GEB Office, which was on the first floor. 9.1. The prosecution has examined the PW-2 Jayantilal Umiyashankar Raval at Exh.28 and this witness is the shadow witness, who had accompanied the complainant at the time of the trap. 9.1. The prosecution has examined the PW-2 Jayantilal Umiyashankar Raval at Exh.28 and this witness is the shadow witness, who had accompanied the complainant at the time of the trap. This witness had deposed as per the case of the prosecution and has stated that at the time of recovery of the tainted currency notes, the ultraviolet lamp test was done on the hands of the accused No. 2 in the shop and florescent blue light was found on the tips of the fingers of the accused No. 1 and thereafter, the panchnama could not be undertaken in the shop and they went to the chamber of the accused No. 1 in the GEB Office after closing the shop. During the cross-examination, the witness had admitted that when they went to the accused, there were discussion about the work and no other discussion had taken place and the Trap Laying Officer had instructed the complainant that the amount was to be paid to the accused No. 1 only. The witness has admitted that no panchnama was prepared at the place where the amount of recovery of the tainted currency notes had taken place and a number of persons had gathered but their statements were not recorded. That the ultraviolet lamp test was done on his hands in the chamber of the accused No. 1, in the office of GEB and from the shop till the office of GEB, for about one hour, the tainted currency notes of Rs. 500/- were lying with him and he had kept these tainted currency notes in his hands for the entire hour. 9.2 The prosecution has examined PW-3 Prabhudas Badaji Pandav, the Trap Laying Officer, who has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has stated the entire sequence of the events that has taken place from filing of the complaint till the trap. That in the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the complainant had stated that on 02.05.1999, the employees of GEB had come for survey and had conducted the survey from the well to the residential house. That during the examination-in-chief, the witness had stated that the panchnama was drawn at the shop where recovery of the tainted currency notes had taken place but during the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the said facts were not narrated in the panchnama and in the station diary also. That during the examination-in-chief, the witness had stated that the panchnama was drawn at the shop where recovery of the tainted currency notes had taken place but during the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the said facts were not narrated in the panchnama and in the station diary also. That the ultraviolet lamp test was done in the office of the accused No. 1 on the hands of the accused No. 1, the accused No. 2 and PW-1 Chenaji Udaji Brahman. That the accused No. 2 was selling electric goods and electric motors also in the shop. That no test of ultraviolet test lamp on the hands of the complainant and the panch witness No. 1 was done in the shop and there was no reason for not conducting the ultraviolet test at the shop. 9.3. The prosecution has examined PW-4 Kachrabhai Dalabhai at Exh.17 and this witness is the Investigating Officer, who had filed the charge sheet against the accused. The prosecution has also examined PW-5 Hirabhai Gedabhai Damor at Exh.18 and this witness is the Investigating Officer, who had taken over the investigation after the trap and got the necessary sanction for prosecution from the competent authority and the sanction for prosecution is produced at Exh.79. 10. 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. 88.3. (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. 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 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 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.” 10.1. 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. 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.” 10.2. The Apex Court, in the case of Soundarajan (Supra), has observed in Para-11, as under: “11. Now, we turn tot he 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.” 10.3. 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. 3,000 which fhad been paid or of Rs. 2,000 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. 3,000 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. 3,000 as well as the demand of Rs. 2,000 has remained uncorroborated. 3,000 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. 3,000 as well as the demand of Rs. 2,000 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.” 10.4 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 he offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(1) and (ff) 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 he 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.” 11. In light of the above settled principles of law on apprisal of the evidence of the prosecution, there is no evidence to prove that the demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/- was made by the accused No. 1, who was the Junior Engineer in the GEB Office at Dhanera. In light of the above settled principles of law on apprisal of the evidence of the prosecution, there is no evidence to prove that the demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/- was made by the accused No. 1, who was the Junior Engineer in the GEB Office at Dhanera. That as per the case of the prosecution, the officers of GEB, Dhanera had gone to the agricultural land of the complainant and had met the father of the complainant and had demanded the amount of Rs. 1,000/- and after bargaining, the amount was fixed to Rs. 500/- but, the father of the complainant Udaji Hiraji Bhrahman has not been examined before the learned Trial Court to prove the prior demand. That the complainant has not identified any of the accused before the learned Trial Court and the demand of illegal gratification has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. Moreover, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused No. 2 had accepted the amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- on behalf of the accused No. 1 but there is no iota of evidence to show any nexus between the accused No. 1 and the accused No. 2. It has also come on record that the accused No. 2 was having the shop of electric goods and was also selling electric motors and the complainant had required the electric motor for the electric connection at his house. That there is no recovery made from the possession of the accused No. 1 and it is the case of the prosecution that the demand of illegal gratification was made for reduction of the estimate but during the cross-examination, it is found that the estimate of Rs. 5,368/- was given, which was for the entire amount. Moreover, the estimate was dated 03.05.1999 but there is no name of the accused No. 1 on the estimate which shows that the accused No. 1 did not have any role to play in calculating the estimate. That there is no evidence showing that the accused No. 1 had, in fact, gone to the agricultural land of the complainant to demand the amount of illegal gratification and there is no witness, who has been examined, to corroborate the prior demand of the illegal gratification by the accused No. 1 at the agricultural land of the complainant. That there is no evidence showing that the accused No. 1 had, in fact, gone to the agricultural land of the complainant to demand the amount of illegal gratification and there is no witness, who has been examined, to corroborate the prior demand of the illegal gratification by the accused No. 1 at the agricultural land of the complainant. That in the evidence, it has come on record that there were other persons present at the shop when the trap had taken place but no such other persons have been examined by the prosecution. It has also come on record that the panchnama was not prepared at the place of the trap. There is evidence to show that no ultraviolet lamp test was done in the shop of the accused No. 2 i.e. the place where the tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused No. 2 and the accused No. 2, the complainant, panch witness Nos.1 and 2 and the members of the Raiding Party had gone to the chamber of the accused No. 1, which was at the first floor and the ultraviolet lamp test and the procedure of the panchnama was done in the chamber of the accused No. 1. During the evidence of the panch witness No. 1, it has also come on record that the tainted currency notes were in the custody of the panch witness No. 1 and they remained with the panch witness No. 1 for almost an hour for reasons best known to the prosecution. 12. In view of the settled position of law in the decision of the cases of Neeraj Dutta (Supra), Soundarajan (Supra) and Mukhtar Singh (Supra) and appraisal of the evidence produced by the prosecution, 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 both 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 full agreement with the reasons, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal by the learned Trial Court. 13. Moreover, the view taken by the learned Trial Court of acquitting both 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 full agreement with the reasons, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal by the learned Trial Court. 13. In view of the above discussion and in light of the settled position of law, the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 01.03.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 7th Fast Track Court, Palanpur in Special Case No. 166 of 1999 is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds stand cancelled. 14. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.