JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-original accused under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and order of conviction in Special Case No. 05 of 2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 6th Fast Track Court, Rajkot (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) on 25.01.2006, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as ‘the P.C. 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 relevant facts leading to filing the conviction appeal are as under: 2.1. That the accused was working as a daily wager with Rohitgiri Amrutgiri Goswami, who was a contractor of the Gujarat Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the GEB’) for the year 1999-2000 and the contract was given for disconnection and reconnection of the electric connection of the consumers of the GEB. The accused was given a list of the consumers whose electric connections were to be disconnected or reconnected and had to work accordingly. That on 08.12.1999, an order was passed to disconnect certain electric connections of consumers of the GEB and accordingly, a list was given on 10.12.1999 to another daily-wager Gadhavibhai and the accused had gone on 21.12.1999 to “Friend Fast Food” belonging to the complainant Divyesh Prafulchandra Kotak as his electric connection was to be disconnected. That the accused demanded for an amount of Rs. 1000/- and the complainant gave him an amount of Rs. 100/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 900/- was to be paid on the next date i.e. on 22.12.1999. That the complainant did not want to give the amount of illegal gratification and hence, went to the ACB Police Station, Rajkot on 22.12.1999 and filed the complaint under Sections 8 and 9 of the P.C. Act, which was registered as C.R. No. 18 of 1999 on 22.12.1999. That the Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and the experiment of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was carried out and explained to the complainant and the panch witness and one panch witness accompanied the complainant to his shop. That the Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and the experiment of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was carried out and explained to the complainant and the panch witness and one panch witness accompanied the complainant to his shop. The accused came to the shop of the complainant at 16.30 hours on 22.12.1999 and demanded the amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 900/- and the tainted currency notes were given by the complainant to the accused, who received the amount of illegal gratification with his right hand and while he was counting the notes, the complainant came out of the shop and gave the pre-determined signal and the members of the raiding party rushed into the shop and caught the accused red handed. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the panch witnesses and drew the necessary panchnama and after concluding the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the learned Sessions Court, Rajkot against the accused, which came to be registered as Special ACB Case No. 5 of 2000. 2.2. The accused was duly summoned and after following the procedure of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.8 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.9, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution has produced the following oral as well as documentary evidence in support of the case. ORAL EVIDENCE: S. No. Particulars Exhibit 1 Divyesh Prafulchandra Kotak 21 2 Kishorgiri Bhikhugiri Goswami 32 3 Tusharbhai Mohanbhai Dholakiya 38 4 Kishorchandra Babulal Mehta 44 5 Arvindbhai Ranchhodbahi Patel 48 6 Omprakash Barusingh Sharma 57 7 Rohitrigi Amrutigiri Gosai 63 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: S. No. Particulars Exhibit 1 Complaint 22 2 Electricity Bill 23 3 Panchanama 33 4 Seizure Memo 34 5 Order to disconnect the electric connection 45 6 Agreement of Contract 46 7 Arrest Memo 49 2.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused were heard and the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 25.01.2006, convicted and sentenced the accused to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, imprisonment of 1 month for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the P.C. Act and to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, imprisonment of 1 month for the offence punishable under Section 9 of the P.C. Act. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 25.01.2006, the appellant-accused has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the accused is a daily wager of a contractor of the GEB namely Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami and the prosecution has not produced any evidence on record to show that the accused was, in fact, a daily wager of the contractor Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami. It is the case of the prosecution that a list for disconnection of the electric connection of the consumers of the GEB was given to daily wager Gadhavibhai and the list for disconnection of the electric connection was not given to the accused and hence, there is no iota of evidence that the accused was, in any way, connected with the contractor. That the judgment and order of conviction is rendered without appreciating the relevant material evidence on record and even, the contractor Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami, PW-7, examined at Exh.63, has categorically stated that he had engaged Rajubhai, Majubhai and Krushnabhi and he had not engaged the accused for any work. He had never called him or engaged him for any work of his contract. There is no iota of evidence that the accused was ever working in the contract of the GEB. For the offence under section 9 of the P.C. Act, the accused must have exercised his personal influence with a public servant. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused has exercised his personal influence with any public servant. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused had demanded any amount to exercise his personal influence with any officer or employee of the GEB. The conviction under Sections 8 and 9 of the P.C. Act is prima-facie illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside and it is settled law that where a public servant employs a person to assist him in his work and pays him out of his own allowances, the latter is not a public servant. The conviction under Sections 8 and 9 of the P.C. Act is prima-facie illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside and it is settled law that where a public servant employs a person to assist him in his work and pays him out of his own allowances, the latter is not a public servant. That the principles of joint liability cannot be applied to the person who is not a public servant and in fact, no charge can be legally framed against the accused under the P.C. Act. That even the panch witness has categorically stated that he has not dictated the panchnama and the impugned judgment and order being illegal and perverse, is liable to be quashed and set aside and the accused must be acquitted from said the offences. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Shakeel Qureshi for the appellant-accused and learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent-State. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Shakeel Quresh for the accused has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution produced before the learned Trial Court and has submitted that there is no iota of evidence to show that the accused had demanded for any bribe and the accused was never a daily wager with the contractor - Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami. The contractor - Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami has himself admitted before the learned Trial Court that the accused was never called by him to do any work on his behalf and as per the case of the prosecution, a list for disconnection of the electric connections of the consumers of the GEB was given to Gadhavibhai. There was no reason for the accused to visit the shop of the complainant and the prosecution has produced the contract agreement of the GEB with Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami, but there was no contract with the present accused. That, in fact, Section 8 of the P.C. Act applies to an abettor of the offence and it would apply to a person who has taken the amount of illegal gratification to influence any public servant. The accused is not charged with any material to show that he had influenced any public servant and demanded the amount of bribe on behalf of some public servant and there is no allegations against the accused that he had exercised his personal influence with any public servant to do or not to do any work. The accused is not charged with any material to show that he had influenced any public servant and demanded the amount of bribe on behalf of some public servant and there is no allegations against the accused that he had exercised his personal influence with any public servant to do or not to do any work. That the charge of receiving illegal gratification for influencing a public servant must specify the person, who was influenced and in the absence of such specification, the conviction is prima-facie illegal and perverse. The complainant, during his cross-examination before the learned Trial Court, could not identify the currency notes and even, the panchnama has been dictated by the Police Inspector in his chamber to his writer and the panchnama is not dictated by any of the panch witnesses. That the entire panchnama was drawn in the ACB Police Station and the complainant and the panch witnesses were mere spectators and they had affixed their signatures on the ready panchnama. That the ingredients of demand and acceptance are not proved by the evidence of the panch witnesses and hence, the impugned judgment and order of the learned Trial Court is required to be quashed and set aside as there is no evidence to convict the accused under Sections 8 and 9 of the P.C. Act. Learned advocate for the accused has urged this Court to allow the appeal and to acquit the accused for all the offences. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Shakeel Qureshi for the accused has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 . 7. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent-State has submitted that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery and the prosecution has examined the complainant at Exh.21 and he has identified the accused, who had come to his shop and demanded the amount of Rs. 1000/- as illegal gratification stating that he would not disconnect his electric connection. The complainant has also admitted that after filing of the complaint, he and the shadow witness were in his shop and the accused had come and demanded the amount of illegal gratification, which was given by the complainant and the accused has been caught red handed with the tainted currency notes. The complainant has also admitted that after filing of the complaint, he and the shadow witness were in his shop and the accused had come and demanded the amount of illegal gratification, which was given by the complainant and the accused has been caught red handed with the tainted currency notes. That the prosecution has also produced the agreement between the GEB and the contractor - Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami at Exh.46, which clearly shows that the contractor - Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami had executed a contractual agreement with the GEB and the list of the consumers whose electric connection were to be disconnected or reconnected were given to Gadhavibhai and he had employed the accused and other persons to do the said work. That the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence of Arvinbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, the Trap Laying Officer, who has fully supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Trial Court has convicted the accused after proper appreciation of the entire evidence and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the hands of the accused, which was also found with the traces of anthracene powder and hence, no interference of this Court is required in the impugned judgment and the order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and hence, the appeal of the accused must be rejected. 8. The accused has been charged under Sections 8 and 9 of the P.C. Act and it is the case of the prosecution that the accused was working as a daily wager with the contractor - Rohitgiri Amritigiri Goswami, who had entered into a contractual agreement with the GEB to disconnect or reconnect the electric connections of the consumers of the GEB. The complainant - Divyesh Prafulchandra Kotak was the proprietor of “Friend Fast Food” and the prosecution has examined the complainant - Divyesh Prafulchandra Kotak at Exh.21. The witness has stated that on 21.12.1999, when he was in his shop at around 2:00pm, the accused had come to his shop and had stated that his electric meter would have to be disconnected and sealed and had demanded an amount of Rs. 2500/- and after bargaining, the amount was settled at Rs. 1000/-. The complainant had given him Rs. 100/- and had told him that he would give the remaining amount of Rs. 900/- on the next date i.e. on 22.12.1999. 2500/- and after bargaining, the amount was settled at Rs. 1000/-. The complainant had given him Rs. 100/- and had told him that he would give the remaining amount of Rs. 900/- on the next date i.e. on 22.12.1999. The complainant went to the ACB Police Station, Rajkot and filed the complaint. The complainant has narrated the entire sequence and eventsm that had occurred and has stated that the panch witnesses were called and the experiment of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp test was explained and carried out in their presence and thereafter, the complainant had accompanied by the shadow witness gone to his shop at around 13.50 hours and they waited for the accused at the shop and at around 16.30 hours, the accused came and told him that he would file a report that the meter was working slowly and he would come on Sunday to do the work and demanded the amount of Rs. 900/- as illegal gratification. That the tainted currency notes of Rs. 900/- was given by the complainant to the accused, who had accepted the same with his right hand. That while the accused was counting the currency notes, the complainant went out the shop and gave the pre-determined signal and at that time, the Trap Laying Officer along with panch witness No. 2 and the members of the raiding party rushed into the shop the caught the accused red handed. That the experiment of ultraviolet lamp was done and the hands of the accused were found marked with florescent blue colour in the ultraviolet lamp. During the cross-examination, the complainant had stated that he would not be able to identify the accused outside the Court and he had not affixed the signature on the muddamal currency notes. That he would not be able to say as to whether the same currency notes were used at the time of the trap and he has identified the muddamal currency notes as they were shown to him before the Court. That the panchnama was dictated by Patel Saheb in his chamber to his writer and the signatures of the panch witnesses were affixed at the place where the experiment was conducted. The panchnama regarding the events that had occurred in the shop were drawn at the ACB Police Station. That the panchnama was dictated by Patel Saheb in his chamber to his writer and the signatures of the panch witnesses were affixed at the place where the experiment was conducted. The panchnama regarding the events that had occurred in the shop were drawn at the ACB Police Station. That he and the panch witnesses were sitting outside at the place where the experiment was carried out and Patel Saheb had come there and had taken their signatures. The complainant had produced the complaint at Exh.22. 8.1. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Kishorgiri Bhikhugiri Goswami at Exh.3. This witness is the shadow witness, who had accompanied the complainant to his shop. The witness has narrated all the facts that occurred after he was called as the panch witness and the explanation about the anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was given to them and the experiment was carried out and thereafter, he had accompanied the complainant to his shop. The witness has stated that while they were sitting in the shop of the complainant, the accused came to the shop and at that time, the complainant asked him whether he had filed the report about the small strip that was used for slowing the meter and at that time, the accused had stated that he has not filed the report and he would come on a holiday and would do his work. That the complainant had, thereafter, given the tainted currency notes of Rs. 900/- to the accused and the accused took them and placed them in his left side shirt pocket. That at that time, the complainant went out of the shop and gave the pre-determined signal and the members of the raiding party rushed into the shop and caught the accused red handed. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had gone as a panch witness on the say of his superior officer and if he did not go, his officer would terminate him from the office. That he had not dictated anything in the panchnama and while he was in the ACB Police Station, Patel Saheb was in his chamber and both the panch witnesses were at another place and he had merely affixed the signatures on the panchnama on the say of Patel Saheb and the panchnama was completed within 15 to 20 minutes. 8.2. That he had not dictated anything in the panchnama and while he was in the ACB Police Station, Patel Saheb was in his chamber and both the panch witnesses were at another place and he had merely affixed the signatures on the panchnama on the say of Patel Saheb and the panchnama was completed within 15 to 20 minutes. 8.2. The prosecution has examined PW-3 Tusharbhai Mohanlal Dholakiya at Exh.38. This witness has accompanied the members of the raiding party on the day of the trap. The witness has stated that he was called to the ACB Police Station on 22.12.1999 and the experiment of anthrecene powder and ultraviolet lamp was explained and carried out in the presence of the complainant and the panch witnesses and he was instructed to remain with Patel Saheb as a member of the raiding party. That after the complainant gave the pre-determined signal, he had gone into the shop of the complainant with the members of the raiding party and he was instructed to take the 9 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- from the hands of the accused and the witness has deposed about the entire incident that had taken place. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that he has not seen the accused accepting the amount from the complainant and he had not heard any conversation that had taken place between the complainant and the accused. 8.3. The prosecution has examined PW-4 Kishorchandra Babulal Mehta at Exh.44. This witness was working as a senior assistant in the GEB and this witness has produced the contractual agreement between the GEB and the contractor -Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami at Exh.46. The witness has stated that an agreement was entered into between the GEB and contractor - Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami for disconnection and reconnection of the electric connection of the consumers and the said Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami had employed two persons namely Majidbhai and Gadhavibhai and they used to come to the office of the GEB. That the list of the consumers whose electric connections were to be disconnected was given to Gadhavibhai and the same is produced at Exh.47 and the order for disconnecting the electric connections including the complainant’s electric connection is produced at Exh.45. That the list of the consumers whose electric connections were to be disconnected was given to Gadhavibhai and the same is produced at Exh.47 and the order for disconnecting the electric connections including the complainant’s electric connection is produced at Exh.45. During the cross-examination, this witness has stated that the contract between the GEB and the contractor Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami was not given by his office and it was executed on the stamp paper of Rs. 20/- and other documents at Exh.46 are not the documents connected with the agreement, but are the bills of the payments passed. That the agreement on the stamp paper of Rs. 20 was not executed in his presence and he does not know the terms and conditions of the agreement. That he has no documents to show that the contractor - Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami had kept Majidbhai on service and there is no documents to show that Majidbhai was instructed to disconnect the electric connection of the consumers. 8.4. The prosecution has examined PW-5 Arvindbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel at Exh.48. This witness is the Trap Laying Officer and he has fully supported the case of the prosecution. This witness has deposed the entire facts right from filing of the complaint till the trap was successful. During the cross-examination, this witness has stated that the accused was the employee of the GEB and he was demanding the bribe and at the time of filing the complaint, he had not inquired from the complainant about the accused. That he had, thereafter, found that the accused was a daily wager of contractor - Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami and the only information that he had at the time of trap was that the accused was working with the contractor - Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami, but no documents to that effect were collected. The accused had his identity card and the documents of the GEB at the time of the trap and he had seen the identity card, which reflected that the accused was an employee of the contractor - Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami. That the identity card that was found was not mentioned in the panchnama and the other documents regarding the GEB that were found from the accused were also not mentioned in the panchnama. 8.5. The prosecution has examined PW-6 Omprakash Barusing Sharma at Exh.57. That the identity card that was found was not mentioned in the panchnama and the other documents regarding the GEB that were found from the accused were also not mentioned in the panchnama. 8.5. The prosecution has examined PW-6 Omprakash Barusing Sharma at Exh.57. This witness is the Investigating Officer, who has carried out the investigation and filed the charge sheet. This witness, during his cross-examination, has stated that when he had taken over the investigation, there was no document to show that the accused was an employee of the GEB. That besides the oral statement of the contractor - Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami, there was no evidence to show that the accused was working with the contractor - Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami. 8.6. The prosecution has examined PW-7 Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami at Exh.63. This witness is the contractor, who had entered into the contractual agreement with the GEB for disconnection and reconnection of the electric connections of the consumers of the GEB. This witness has stated that he had employed Rajubhai, Majubhai and Krushanbhai for placing new meters, collecting the bills of the GEB and disconnection and reconnection of the electric connection of the consumers of the GEB. That he had not employed Majidbhai and has not identified the accused before the Court. This witness has categorically stated that he has not employed the accused, who was present before the Court for any work. During the cross-examination, this witness has also stated that he knows Majid Suleman, who was named in his statement before the Investigating Officer as his brother Yusufbhai was his friend and Majid Suleman was working with him for a long time. That the person, who is present before this Court, is not Majidbhai and the person, whom he had employed, did not have to go to the GEB and he has not introduced any persons to the GEB officers. 9. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused was working as a daily wager with contractor - Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami, who has been examined as PW-7 at Exh.63 and has stated that he was, in fact, working as a contractor for placing new meters, collecting the bills of the GEB and disconnection and reconnection of the electric connection of the consumers of the GEB. The prosecution has produced the agreement at Exh.46, but there is no iota of evidence that the accused was, in fact, working as a daily wager with the contractor - Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami. That the contractor - Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami has categorically denied that the accused had ever worked with and he has not identified the accused before the Court and in the absence of any evidence that the accused was working as a daily wager with the contractor - Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami, it cannot be presumed that the accused was working on behalf of the GEB. 10. The accused has been charged with the offences under Sections 8 and 9 of the P.C. Act and it would be apt to refer to the provision of Sections 8 and 9 of the P.C. Act, which read as under: “8. Taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or illegal means, to influence public servant - Whoever accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means, any public servant, whether named or otherwise, to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favour or disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.” “9. Taking gratification, for exercise of personal influence with public servant: Whoever accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, as a motive or reward for inducing, by the exercise of personal influence, any public servant whether named or otherwise to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favour or disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.” 11. To prove the offence under Section 8 of the P.C. Act, the prosecution has to prove that the accused had accepted or obtained the amount of illegal gratification from any person for himself or for any other person to induce by corrupt or illegal means, any public servant to do or to forbear to do any official act or to show favour or disfavour to any person. To prove the offence under Section 9 of the P.C. Act, the prosecution has to prove that the accused had accepted or agreed to accept from any person for himself or for any other person, any gratification for inducing by the exercise of his personal influence any public servant or to do or to forbear to do any official act to favour or disfavour any person. If the charge framed at Exh.8 is perused, the charge does not say that the accused had obtained the illegal gratification to influence any public servant to show favour or disfavour to the complainant and in the entire evidence, no public servant is named. If the charge framed at Exh.8 is perused, the charge does not say that the accused had obtained the illegal gratification to influence any public servant to show favour or disfavour to the complainant and in the entire evidence, no public servant is named. There is no iota of evidence in the deposition of PW-4 Kishorchandra Babulal Mehta, who is working as a Senior Assistant in the GEB, that the accused was, at any point of time, in the employment of contractor - Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami and there is no cogent and convincing evidence as to why the accused had demanded the illegal gratification. There is no evidence that, in fact, the accused had to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant and from the evidence of the prosecution, it appears that the contractor - Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami had employed one Gadhavibhai, who had gone to the GEB Office and accepted the list of the consumers whose electric connections had to be disconnected. That in fact, in the deposition of the complainant, the complainant had asked him whether he had filed the report about his electric meter and the accused had stated that he would come on Sunday. From the deposition of PW-2 Kishorgiri Bhikhugiri Goswami at Exh.32, the conversation that had taken place between the accused and the complainant was to the effect that the complainant asked the accused whether he had filed the report and whether he had done anything about the report that his meter had a small strip and the accused had stated that he would come on a holiday and would do his work. That in the deposition of the panch witness, there is no evidence that the accused had demanded the amount of illegal gratification to influence any public servant and that he would exercise his personal influence with any public servant to do or not to do some act, which would favour the complainant. It appears that the complainant himself had handed over the currency notes of Rs. 900/- to the accused and had gone out of the shop and had given pre-determined signal and the Trap Laying Officer and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused red handed. What emerges from the record of the evidence of the prosecution is that 9 tainted currency notes of denomination of Rs. 900/- to the accused and had gone out of the shop and had given pre-determined signal and the Trap Laying Officer and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused red handed. What emerges from the record of the evidence of the prosecution is that 9 tainted currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- each were recovered from the possession of the accused, but there is nothing on record to show that the accused was, in fact, working on behalf of the GEB and that the accused had done any work on behalf of the GEB and had tried to use his influence with any public servant or any officer of the GEB to do or to forbear any act. 12. 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. (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 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. (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. 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.” 13. The learned Trial Court has relied upon the deposition of the Trap Laying Officer and has convicted the accused, but has not considered that there is no iota of evidence to show that the accused was an employee of the contractor - Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami, who had executed the agreement with the GEB and that the accused was working on behalf of the GEB. The contractor - Rohitgiri Amritgiri Goswami has categorically denied that he had ever employed the accused to work on his behalf and there is no iota of evidence that the accused had made any demand of illegal gratification either prior to filing of the complaint or at the time of the trap and in the absence of cogent and convincing and reliable evidence regarding the demand, it cannot be presumed that the accused had accepted the illegal gratification from the complainant. 14. 14. As per the settled principles of law, proof of demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused under the P.C. Act and the accused cannot be convicted in the absence of evidence of demand and unless the evidence of demand is clear, cogent and reliable, no conviction can be recorded. The evidence of the prosecution suffers from many infirmities and as discussed above, the prior demand and demand at the time of trap are not proved and in absence of proof of demand, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubts That the evidence is contradictory and far from convincing and there is no reliable evidence to support the conviction of the accused. That the learned Trial Court has, in absence of any evidence of demand of illegal gratification and in absence of evidence to show that the accused was, in any manner, connected with the GEB, has passed the order of conviction, which is improper and the conviction of the accused under Sections 8 and 9 of the P.C. Act could not have been invoked. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. 15. The impugned judgment and order of conviction in Special Case No. 05 of 2000 passed by the learned Special Judge and Presiding Officer, 6th Fast Track Court, Rajkot on 25.01.2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 9 of the P.C. Act, 1988 is hereby quashed and set aside and the accused is acquitted from all the charges against him. Bail bonds stand cancelled. Fine to be refunded to the accused after due verification. 16. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.