Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 472 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Keshavji Lakhmanbhai Dobariya

2024-03-07

S.V.PINTO

body2024
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 dated 29.11.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Tack Court No. 6, Gondal (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 3 of 2000, 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. The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as 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) in the Patidar Gram-Panchayat and was a public servant and at that time the complainant Rameshbhai Devajibhai Vekariya, who residing at Vaniyavad, Sheri No 1, Flat No. 10, Divya Apartment, Rajkot had purchased agricultural land situated in Kolithad village. The name of the complainant was required to be mutated in the revenue record and when the complainant went to meet the accused, the accused demanded an amount of illegal gratification of 1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification, he went to the ACB Police Station at Rajkot to file the complaint, which was registered as IC. R.No 8 of 1999 on 11/05/1999 under sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. That, the trap laying officer called the independent panch witnesses and explained the procedure of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp and conducted the experiment. That, the complainant gave 10 currency notes of Rs.100/- each which were laced with anthracene powder and given to the complainant to give to the accused, when he had demanded for the same and the shadow witness Dhirubhai Jivrajbhai Timbadiya was sent with the complainant and the trap was laid. That, after the accused demanded and accepted the tainted currency notes, the predetermined signal was given and the members of the raiding party rushed and the accused was caught and the tainted currency notes were recovered from his possession. That, after the accused demanded and accepted the tainted currency notes, the predetermined signal was given and the members of the raiding party rushed and the accused was caught and the tainted currency notes were recovered from his possession. That after due investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Sessions Court, Rajkot which was registered as Special ACB Case No. 3 of 2000. 2.2. That the accused was duly served with the summon and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and after following the procedure of Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, a charge was framed at Exh:42 against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at exhibit 43, wherein, the accused denied all the allegations made in the charge and the trial came to be conducted before the learned Trial Court. That the prosecution produced the oral evidence of six witnesses including the complainant, the panch witnesses and the police witnesses and also produced 22 documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the evidence of the prosecution was recorded, a closing pursis was filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor at Exh 92-A and the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 was recorded. The accused denied all the evidences against him pointed out in the evidence of the prosecution and he stated that the tax of the property of the complainant was pending and the same was demanded from the complainant but the complainant started a verbal altercation with the accused and thereafter an amount of 1100/- was given to the Rs.100/- and as the complainant did not want to pay accused as an amount of 1115.45 paisa was due as Tax. That the Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay complainant has filed a false case and the amount that was taken from the complainant was towards the outstanding amount of property tax. The learned Trial Court, after hearing arguments of the learned APP for the State and the learned advocate appearing for the accused, by a judgment and order dated 29/11/2005 was pleased to acquit the accused from all the offences. 2.3. The learned Trial Court, after hearing arguments of the learned APP for the State and the learned advocate appearing for the accused, by a judgment and order dated 29/11/2005 was pleased to acquit the accused from all the offences. 2.3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant-State has filed the present appeal, mainly contending that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record of the case and the complainant has been declared hostile by the learned Trial Court but the complainant has stated that he had purchased the land and had to get his name and the name of his wife mutated into the revenue record and he had met the accused, who had demanded 1000/- from him. That, the complainant had also Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay deposed that he had given the amount of 1000/- to the accused Rs.10/- and as the complainant did not want to pay and the accused had accepted the same and placed them in the right side shirt pocket from where it was recovered after the predetermined signal was given. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution in proper perspective and even though the recovery of tainted currency notes from the custody of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the traces of anthracene powder were found on the hands of the accused, the learned Trial Court has not been believed the evidence on record. That the deposition of other witnesses has not relied upon by the learned Trial Court and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Heard learned Additional Publi Prosecutor Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the appellate-State and learned Advocate Mr. Dharmesh Nanavati the accused. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr Bhargav Pandya for the appellant-State has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution and has submitted that from the oral and documentary evidences the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. Heard learned Additional Publi Prosecutor Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the appellate-State and learned Advocate Mr. Dharmesh Nanavati the accused. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr Bhargav Pandya for the appellant-State has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution and has submitted that from the oral and documentary evidences the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. That, it is settled principles of law, that if the witness has turned hostile, the evidence where the witness has supported the case of the prosecution can be considered and relied upon and in fact the depositions of the trap laying officer Mr. Raustambhai Belim has proved the entire offence. That even the evidence of Santubha Dhirubha Gohil, who was the member of raiding party supports the case of the prosecution and when the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused the learned Trial Court ought to have convicted the accused for the offence. That the prosecution has proved the demand of illegal gratification, acceptance and the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the accused and hence the impugned judgment and order must be set aside and the accused must be convicted for the offence. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr Dharmesh Nanavati for the accused has submitted that the complainant has turned hostile and the complainant has categorically stated that there were arrears of revenue due from him and the accused has stated that the certificate will be issued only after the payment of the revenue dues and amount of 1036.45/- was due from the complainant‘s Rs.100/- and as the complainant did not want to pay father. That, the complainant had agreed to pay the outstanding revenue dues of the property and if the entire deposition of the complainant is perused, there is no demand of illegal gratification by the accused. That even the panch witness Dhirubhai Jivrajbhai Timbadiya has not supported the case of the prosecution and the demand of any illegal gratification is not proved from the deposition of this witness. Moreover, it has come on record that the panch witness had read the panchnama just before his deposition before the learned Trial Court and the panchnama was not drawn as the incident has occurred. Moreover, it has come on record that the panch witness had read the panchnama just before his deposition before the learned Trial Court and the panchnama was not drawn as the incident has occurred. That blank spaces were kept in the panchnama and the panch witness admits that the amount that was recovered from the accused was given for the payment of the outstanding arrears of revenue dues. That the prior demand has not been proved by the prosecution and the panch witness Ramsang Jadeja has also not supported the case of the prosecution. The only evidence that has come on record is in the form of the evidence of Sattubha Gohil, the Police Constable who had conducted the ultraviolet lamp procedure and the evidence of trap laying officer. Admittedly, none of these witnesses are the witness to the demand, and it is the case of the accused that he had acceoted the amount of arrears of revenue dues of the complainant. That the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in proper perspective and there is no substantial evidence produced by the prosecution to convict the accused and hence no order of interference is required in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court. Learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh Nanavati for the accused has relied on the following citations in support of his case. 1. V. Sejappa Vs. State By Police Inspector Lokayukta, Chitradurga, reported (2016) 12 SCC 150 , 2. Neeraj Dutta Vs. State ( Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211, 3. Jagrar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 232; 4. State of Gujarat Vs. Devrambhai Manilal Nayi, reported in (2023) 4 GLR 2773. 4.1. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of V. Sejappa (supra) has held thus: 21. While dealing with the contention that it is not enough that some currency notes were handed over to the public servant to make it illegal gratification and that the prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid was an illegal gratification, reference can be made to following observation in Mukut Bihari and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 11 SCC 642 , wherein it was held as under: “11. v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 11 SCC 642 , wherein it was held as under: “11. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused, when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as bribe. Mere receipt of amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten the guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification, but the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness and in a proper case the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person.” 22 If the evaluation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the grounds on which the trial court has based its conclusion are reasonable and plausible, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal if another view is possible. Merely because the appellate court on reappreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. Merely because the appellate court on reappreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. In State through Inspector of Police, A.P. v. K. Narasimhachary (2005) 8 SCC 364 , this Court reiterated the well settled principle that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the acquittal by the lower court and that only where the material on record leads to an inescapable conclusion of guilt of the accused, the judgment of acquittal will call for interference by the appellate court. The same view was reiterated in T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. (2006) 1 SCC 401 .” 4.2. The Honourable 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 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. (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. 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. (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. 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.” 5. Before the evidence of the prosecution is appreciated and dissected, it is essential to reiterate the cardinal principles of criminal jurisdiction as settled by the Honourable Apex Court in a Catena of decision and the first cardinal principle is that the prosecution in a criminal trial is required to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution cannot benefit from the weaknesses of defence. The second cardinal principle Is that in a criminal trial, the accused is presumed to be innocent unless and until he is found guilty by the evidence produced by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts and the third cardinal principles of law is that the onus of burden of proof never shifts from the prosecution. 6. The second cardinal principle Is that in a criminal trial, the accused is presumed to be innocent unless and until he is found guilty by the evidence produced by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts and the third cardinal principles of law is that the onus of burden of proof never shifts from the prosecution. 6. In acquittal appeals under the Prevention of Corruption Act in a catena of decisions of the Honourable Apex Court has held that the prosecution has to prove the demand made by the public servant, which is a sine qua non for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. That the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant must be proved beyond reasonable doubts to bring home, the guilt of the accused and the prosecution has to be oral and documentary evidence prove the demand and acceptance. It is also settled that the same can be proved by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Moreover, if the complainant turns hostile or had died or is not available to lead evidence, the demand of illegal gratification can be proved by circumstantial evidence and the trial will not abate or result in acquittal.. 7. To bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined prosecution witness No. 1 Rameshbhai Vekariya at Exh; 61 and the witness is the complainant who has filed the complaint which is produced at Exh; 62. this witness has stated that he had purchased land in village Kolithad in his name and in thename of his wife and he had met the accused who was the Talati-Cum-Mantri of Patidad Gram Panchayat. That he had gone to the house of the accused and at that time had asked the accused to give him the copies of the village form no. 7 and 12 and village form No. 8A from the record of the panchayat and at that time the accused had told him to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay 1000/- of regarding property tax. That he had a verbal altercation with the accused about the certificate and the receipt and besides this nothing had happened and he felt that the accused was demanding an illegal gratification and hence he went and filed the complaint in the ACB Police Station at Rajkot. That he had a verbal altercation with the accused about the certificate and the receipt and besides this nothing had happened and he felt that the accused was demanding an illegal gratification and hence he went and filed the complaint in the ACB Police Station at Rajkot. Besides this fact, the complainant had denied all other situations and has been declared hostile by the learned Trial Court. That even in the cross examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the complainant has not stated anything that would support the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the complainant has admitted that Kolithad and Patidad villages are two separate villages and the Talati -cum-Mantri of both the villages are different. That if the name has to be mutated in the revenue record of Kolithad Gram Panchayat, it would have to be done through the Talati-cum-Mantri of Kolithad Gram Panchayat and the complainant had purchased land situated in Kolithad village. That the procedure for getting the names mutated was to be done through the Kolithad Gram Panchat and he had not made any application for getting his name mutated in the Kolithad Gram Panchayat. That he had to pay the property tax which was outstanding and for the year 1999-2000 an amount of 1036.40/- was outstanding and the accused had told Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay him to pay up the remaining amount of property tax before the copies of the village form no. 7 and 12 and village form no. 8 A were given. That the accused had told him that the outstanding amount of property tax is 1100/- and he had a verbal altercation Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay with the accused for this amount. That as he was angry, he went to the ACB office and filed the complaint. That he does not know as to what had taken place in the office of ACB and no experiment of anthracene powder and UV Lamp was conducted in his presence. That as he was angry, he went to the ACB office and filed the complaint. That he does not know as to what had taken place in the office of ACB and no experiment of anthracene powder and UV Lamp was conducted in his presence. That after he had paid the amount of outstanding tax arrears of 1000/-, they came down from the office of the accused for tea Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay and at that time, the trap laying officer came and caught the accused and the accused has stated that he has taken the money towards the payment of outstanding property tax. 7.1. The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2 Dhirubhai Jivrajbhai Timbadiya at Exh: 71 and this witness is the shadow witness, who had gone with the complainant to the office of the accused at the time of the trap. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and has mainly stated that in his presence, the accused had made the demand of 1000/- Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay and the complainant had given the amount of 1000/- to the Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay accused and the accused had taken the tainted currency notes with his right hand and counted the same with both hands and placed them in the right side shirt pocket. That thereafter the accused had asked the complainant as to what vehicle had he brought and the complainant had stated that he had come with a Maruti Car and thereafter the accused told him to proceed. That, the accused closed the office windows, lights and fan and they came down the stairs and at that time the complainant made the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused. That they went up the stairs into the office of the accused and the test of UV lamp was done. That in both the hands, the fingers and the thumb of the accused were light blue fluorescent colour in the ultraviolet lamp test. That during the cross examination, the witness has categorically stated that he had read the panchnama before his deposition and if he had not read the panchnama, he would not have been able to depose as correctly regarding all the details as he had done so. That during the cross examination, the witness has categorically stated that he had read the panchnama before his deposition and if he had not read the panchnama, he would not have been able to depose as correctly regarding all the details as he had done so. Moreover, it has also come on record that the witness was a reluctant witness and was not ready to act as panch witness for the ACB but he had come to take part as a panch as he knew he would have to face departmental inquiry, If he had refused. Moreover, the witness has also stated that he does not know as to who was writing the panchnama in the Patidad Gram Panchayat office and he was sitting at one side in the ACB office and in the office Gram Panchayat and the police personnel were writing the panchnama. The witness has clearly stated that he has not dictated the panchnama and the police had written the panchnama on their own. Moreover, the witness has also stated that at the time of the trap, the accused had stated that an amount of 79.05 and Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay amount of 1036.45/- is outstanding arrears of property tax from Rs.10/- and as the complainant did not want to pay the complainant and the witness has also stated that no demand was made in his presence by the accused by saying that the copies of the village Form No. 7 and 12 and the village Form No. 8A would be given only if the illegal gratification of 1000/- was Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay paid. Moreover, the witness has stated that he does not know as to why the amount of 1000/- was taken and accepted by the Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay accused. 7.2. The prosecution has examined the Prosecution witness No. 3 Ramsinghji Vaghjibhai Jadeja at Exh: 74 and this witness is the panch witness, who was a member of the raiding party. The witness has denied that any procedure about any panchnama had taken place in his presence and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. The witness has been declared hostile and even during the cross examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he has not supported the case of the prosecution. The witness has denied that any procedure about any panchnama had taken place in his presence and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. The witness has been declared hostile and even during the cross examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he has not supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that if he had to refuse to go as a panch, his service would be put into the trouble and he was to made to sit one hour in the office by the trap Laying Officer and thereafter sent home. That he does not know what had transpired between the complainant and the trap Laying Officer and there was no conversation between the complainant and the panch witnesses. That he had not read the panchnama before affixing his signature on the same and an amount of 3500/- was found from Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay the pocket of the accused which was the amount of tax as stated by the accused. Moreover, the witness has also stated that during the panchanama procedure, one police personnel was writing the panchanama and other police personnel was doing the procedure. 7.3. The prosecution has examined the prosecution witness No. 4 Santubha Dhirubha Gohil at Exh: 75 and the witness was the member of the raiding party at the time of raid and has mainly supported the case of the prosecution. Prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5 Rustambhai Belim at Exh; 83 and this witness is the trap laying officer who has entirely supported the case of the prosecution. The Prosecution Witness No. 6 Narendradev Pandey has been examined at Exh: 92 and this witness is the Investigating Officer, who has investigate the offence and has filed the charge sheet before the learned Trial Court. All the three witnesses are the police personnel and they have fully supported the case of the prosecution. 8. From the entire evidence, it is required to be appreciated as to whether the factum of the demand of illegal gratification was made by the accused and whether the accused had any reason for making illegal demand from the complainant. All the three witnesses are the police personnel and they have fully supported the case of the prosecution. 8. From the entire evidence, it is required to be appreciated as to whether the factum of the demand of illegal gratification was made by the accused and whether the accused had any reason for making illegal demand from the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant had purchased property in village Kolithad and his name had to be mutated in the revenue record and for that he had met the accused who had demanded the amount of 1000/- . In the evidence, it has also Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay come on record that the accused is the Talati-cum-Mantri of Patidad Gram Panchayat and the complainant had not given any application for mutating his name in the revenue record of Kolithad Gram Panchayat. Moreover, in the evidence of the complainant itself, it has come on record that revenue of 1036.40/- was Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay pending to be paid and the amount of outstanding revenue was demanded by the accused. That even the shadow witness, who had accompanied the complainant does not speak of any demand for illegal gratification and the shadow witness admits that the amount that was accepted by the accused was for the payment of revenue dues which were outstanding from the complainant. It is the defense of the accused also, that he was entitled to collect the outstanding amount of property dues and he had told the complainant to pay up the remaining amount of property tax that was outstanding, which was around 1100/- towards which the Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay complainant had given the amount of 1000/-. That from the Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay evidence of the complainant, Prosecution Witness No. 1 Rameshbhai Vekariya, and the evidence of Shadow Witness, Prosecution Witness No. 2 Dhirubhai Timbadiya, there is no iota of evidence to show that the accused had in fact made any demand for any illegal gratification from the complainant that has come on record. From the evidence, it has come on record that the amount of 1000/- was accepted and recovered from the accused. From the evidence, it has come on record that the amount of 1000/- was accepted and recovered from the accused. But it is Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay the specific plea of the accused, the amount was for the recovery of arrears of property tax and the shadow witness has also deposed to that effect. Moreover, as per the panchnama produced at Exh: 72, the trap was near Maruti Car when the complainant, the panch witness and the accused came down the stairs and went near the Maruti Car of the complainant but in the examination-in-chief of the shadow witness, the shadow witness states that the trap was successful just below the stairs when the complainant, the accused and the shadow witness had come down the stairs to go towards the car. It has come on record that no test of Ultraviolet lamp was conducted at the place where the trap was successful but it was conducted in the office of the accused when the members of the raiding party, accused and the complainant and the panch witnesses went into the office of the accused. 8.1. The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6 Narendra Pandey at Exh: 92 and this witness is the writer of the Investigating Officer who has expired. The witness has recorded all the statements during investigation on behalf of the Investigating Officer and during the cross examination by the learned advocate of the accused, the witness has stated that he has recorded the statement of the accused wherein the accused had accepted that he has taken the amount of 1000/- but had Rs.100/- and as the complainant did not want to pay stated that it was the amount of outstanding arrears of tax that was accepted from the complainant. 9. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of V. Sejappa (supra) has held that mere recovery of tainted notes is not sufficient to convict the accused and mere recovery of tainted currency notes does not prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. 9. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of V. Sejappa (supra) has held that mere recovery of tainted notes is not sufficient to convict the accused and mere recovery of tainted currency notes does not prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. That the prosecution has to prove that the illegal gratification was made pursuant to a demand which is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount of illegal gratification, it is not possible to fasten the guilt of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 10. As discussed above and in light of the settled principles of law in the case of V. Sejappa (supra), the complainant has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution and the shadow witness even though, supports the case of the prosecution does not clearly state anything regarding the demand made by the accused for any illegal gratification. That there is a contradiction with regard to the place of the offence and in the evidence it has come on record that the panchanama was not dictated by the panch witness. That even though the recovery is proved, the accused has consistently from the time of the trap has stated that the amount was for the outstanding amount of property tax to be collected from the complainant and hence the prosecution has not proved the demand of illegal gratification bu the accused. 11. In view of the settled position of law and the decision in the decisions of V. Sajappa (supra) and Neeraj Dutta (supra) and appraisal of the evidence produced by the prosecution, the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court are just and proper and hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled 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. 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 dated 29.11.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Tack Court No. 6, Gondal in Special (ACB) Case No. 3 of 2000 is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds stand canceled. 13. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.