JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Court No. 4, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special CBI Case No. 25 of 2004 on 16.03.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act”). 1.1 Special CBI Case No. 25 of 2004 was filed against accused no. 1 – Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and accused no. 2 – Bhagirathbhai Arvindkumar Dave and after the charge-sheet was filed, the accused no. 1 – Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki expired on 11.06.2006 and an order was passed below Exh. 4, and the case against the accused no. 1 – Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki was abated. 1.2 The appellant - Bhagirathbhai Arvindkumar Dave is hereinafter referred to as the accused no. 2 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 no. 1 - Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki (deceased) was discharging his duties as an Income Tax Officer, Ward No. II, Gandhinagar and the accused no. 2 was discharging his duties as Income Tax Office, Ward No. III, Gandhinagar. That a Tax Evasion Petition of the complainant – Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal was pending on the file of the accused no. 1 and a notice was served by the accused no. 1 upon the complainant to remain present in his office. That a letter dated 23.05.2003 was sent by the accused no. 2 to the complainant and hence, the accused no. 1 told the complainant to meet the accused no. 2, as earlier the accused no. 2 was looking after the file of the complainant. That the complainant contacted the accused no. 2 and on 15.10.2003, the complainant met the accused no. 1 who demanded for illegal gratification of Rs. 60,000/- to close the Tax Evasion Petition. That after negotiations, the amount of Rs. 20,000/- was decided to be paid as the first installment. 2 was looking after the file of the complainant. That the complainant contacted the accused no. 2 and on 15.10.2003, the complainant met the accused no. 1 who demanded for illegal gratification of Rs. 60,000/- to close the Tax Evasion Petition. That after negotiations, the amount of Rs. 20,000/- was decided to be paid as the first installment. That the complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification and hence, the complainant went to the CBI Office at Gandhinagar and filed the complaint which was registered as RC14(A)/2003 on 04.032011 under Sections 120B of Indian Penal Code and under Section 7 of the PC Act. That the demand was verified by making telephone calls to both the accused and their conversations were recorded in the cassettes. That the Trap Laying Officer called independent panch witnesses and a trap was arranged and currency notes of Rs. 20,000/- which were 40 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/- each were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and put in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant – Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal. That the complainant - Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal and the shadow witness – Bimalkumar Gopalkrishna Pillai went to the Income Tax Office, Udyog Bhavan and the complainant - Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal went into the chamber of the accused no. 1, where the accused no. 2 was also present and the accused no. 1 demanded for the amount of illegal gratification, accepted the tainted currency notes and placed the same in his pant pocket and thereafter, all the three of them came out of the chamber of the accused no. 1. That the complainant gave the predetermined signal and the CBI Officers came and caught the accused no. 1 red handed and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the right side pant pocket of the accused no. 1. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and after the necessary panchnamas were drawn and the order of sanction for prosecution was received from the Competent Authority, a charge-sheet was filed before the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad which was registered as Special CBI Case No. 25/2004. 2.2. 1. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and after the necessary panchnamas were drawn and the order of sanction for prosecution was received from the Competent Authority, a charge-sheet was filed before the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad which was registered as Special CBI Case No. 25/2004. 2.2. That the accused were duly served with the summons and both the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and the copies of the charge-sheet and all the police papers were given to both the accused under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. That during the pendency of the case, the accused no. 1 – Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki expired on 11.06.2006 and the case was abated against the accused no. 1 by an order passed below Exh. 4. 2.3 That a charge at Exh. 10 was framed by the learned Trial Court against the accused no. 2 which reads as below: 1. That you, the accused, while working as the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar and the deceased accused Shri G.M.Solanki while working as Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar during November-2003 demanded illegal gratification of Rs.60,000/- from Shri Harishankar K. Agrawal to close the Tax Evasion Petition pending before the deceased accused Shri Solanki. As per the instruction of the deceased accused Shri Solanki, you the accused negotiated with the said Shri Harishankar Agrawal and it was decided that Shri Agrawal would pay Rs.20,000/- as part of first installment. 2. That the trap was arranged by Shri Bhartendra Sharma, P.I., CBI, Gandhinagar in presence of two independent witnesses namely Shri Bimalkumar & Shri Gaurang B. Anand on the basis of complaint lodged by the complainant Shri Harishankar Agrawal on 4.11.03, after verification of the allegations made in the complaint by recording conversation that took place between the complainant and the deceased accused Shri Solanki. During the said conversation Shri Solanki had directed the complainant Shri Agrawal to get in touch with you and he also gave your telephone number. There after Shri Agrawal also talked with you on telephone and the said conversation was also recorded. That on 4.11.03, the complainant Agrawal visited your house at 42/A, Rimapark Society, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad where the negotiation had taken place to reduce the amount of illegal gratification. There after Shri Agrawal also talked with you on telephone and the said conversation was also recorded. That on 4.11.03, the complainant Agrawal visited your house at 42/A, Rimapark Society, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad where the negotiation had taken place to reduce the amount of illegal gratification. That you informed to Shri Agrawal that Shri Solanki would not be available in his office on 5.11.03 and he should meet Shri Solanki direct on his arrival. 3. That on 6.11.03, the trap was laid by the Trap Laying Officer Shri Bhartendra Sharma with the assistance of two independent witnesses Shri Bimalkumar & Shri Gaurang B. Anand and with the assistance of complainant Shri Agrawal and other team members, at the office of the deceased accused Shri Solanki at Income-Tax office 5th floor, Block no.14, Udyog Bhavan, Sector- 11, Gandhinagar. That during the trap, Shri Solanki was caught red handed accepting Rs.20,000/- from the complainant in his office where you were also present. That the conversation which took place between Shri Solanki, you and the complainant was also got recorded and the tainted amount of Rs.20,000/- was recovered from the pant pocket of Shri Solanki in presence of two independent witnesses. 4. The aforesaid acts of the deceased accused Shri Solanki and you constituted an offence punishable under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. Both of you being public servants had also committed offence of criminal misconduct under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and also offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. I, therefore, direct that you be tried on the above charges by this Court. 2.4 That the statement of the accused no. 2 was recorded at Exh. 11 and the accused no. 2 denied all the allegations made in the charge and the evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.5 The prosecution produced the following oral evidence to bring home the charge against the accused. Sr. No. PW Particulars Exh. 1. 1 Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal 14 2. 2 Bimalkumar Gopakrishna Pillai 25 3. 3 V.N. Shashikumar 35 4. 4 Bhartendra Sharma 38 5. 5 Dayashankar S. Rastogi 41 6. 6 Rajesh Ratanlal Bishnu 47 2.6 The prosecution also produced the following documentary evidence to bring home the charge against the accused. Sr. No. Particulars Exh. 1. Complaint 15 2. Transcription 17 3. Transcription 18 4. Transcription 19 5. Post Trap Panchnama Transcription 20 6. 4 Bhartendra Sharma 38 5. 5 Dayashankar S. Rastogi 41 6. 6 Rajesh Ratanlal Bishnu 47 2.6 The prosecution also produced the following documentary evidence to bring home the charge against the accused. Sr. No. Particulars Exh. 1. Complaint 15 2. Transcription 17 3. Transcription 18 4. Transcription 19 5. Post Trap Panchnama Transcription 20 6. Pre Trap Panchnama by CBI 26 7. Panchnama at house of complainant 27 8. 3rd Part Panchnama at house of complainant 28 9. Post Trap Panchnama 29 10. Site Map 30 11. Seizure Memo 31 12. Seizure Memo of muddamaal recovered from chamber of accused no. 1 32 13. Seizure Memo of muddamaal recovered from chamber of accused no. 2. 33 14. File of complainant recovered from chamber of accused no. 1. 34 15. Forwarding letter 36 16. FIR 39 17. Panchnama of voices of both the accused. 40 18. Order of sanction for prosecution 42 19. Call details 48 20. Call details 49 21. Report of Central FSL 50 22. Letter of FSL Gandhinagar to CBI 51 23. Report of telephone calls and specimen voice cassettes 52 24. Letter indicating presence of accused no. 1 outside the office . 91 2.7 That after the closing pursis of the learned Public Prosecutor was filed at Exh. 58, the further statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein, the accused no. 2 denied all the evidences produced by the prosecution and further stated that he wanted to examine witnesses and produce documentary evidences on record and also wanted to depose before the learned Trial Court. That the accused stepped into the witness-box and gave his deposition on oath at Exh. 65 and the deposition of his father Arvindbhai Maneklal Dave has been recorded at Exh. 66. The accused produced eight documentary evidences in support of his case. After the evidence of the accused was closed by a closing pursis at Exh. 82, the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard and by a judgment and order dated 16.03.2012, the learned Trial Court was pleased to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 120B of Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. 3. 5,000/- and in default, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of conviction, the appellant has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the learned Trial Court has committed a serious error in facts and law in convicting the appellant and the judgment is based on surmises and conjunctures and there is no evidence on record to establish the essential ingredients of the offences. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the documentary evidence produced on record; as also the oral evidence and has committed a grave error of law in convicting the appellant despite the fact that at no point of time, the appellant had ever demanded or accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 20,000/- and the trap money was not recovered from the possession of the present appellant. That all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery of the illegal gratification were against the original accused no. 1 – late Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and there is evidence on record that the Tax Evasion Petition was pending before the accused no. 1 – late Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki. That the meeting regarding the demand was between the complainant and late Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and it is also on record that the complainant - Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal had himself approached late Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and he was an interested witness and there was no corroboration to his version of demand. That the oral evidence produced by the prosecution is highly inconsistent with the documentary evidence and it is admitted that the complainant - Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal was of a bad character and the ACB Department had registered a case against him under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act and just to come out of the case, he had created documents indicating that he had divorced his wife, when in fact, they were staying together. That the complainant is highly untrustworthy and not reliable and the learned Trial Court ought to have considered that his oral evidence was not reliable. That in fact, the complainant had falsely implicated the appellant as the appellant had issued a notice to the complainant - Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal who was a defaulter. That the complainant is highly untrustworthy and not reliable and the learned Trial Court ought to have considered that his oral evidence was not reliable. That in fact, the complainant had falsely implicated the appellant as the appellant had issued a notice to the complainant - Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal who was a defaulter. That the notice was issued as a part of the routine office work of the appellant and it had nothing to do with the Tax Evasion Petition which was pending before late Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki. That the notice dated 02.04.2003 which was issued by the appellant under Section 274 read with Section 271F of the Income Tax Act had to be imposed with penalty up to Rs. 5,000/- and in fact, the penalty proceedings that were initiated by the appellant were dropped by Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki in the month of June 2003 itself. That the learned Trial Court has not considered that the complainant - Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal has suppressed vital and important facts and has filed the complain with full animosity with an intention of maligning the present appellant. That in fact, the conversation that was recorded on microcassettes, as per the say of the prosecution, were transferred to regular cassettes without the permission of the Court and the small device which was used for recording has never been made part of the evidence. That the prosecution has not examined important witnesses such as Deputy Superintendent of Police - Jagruk Gusinha and panch witness - Gaurang B. Anand and the learned Trial Court ought to have made an adverse inference about the same. That even the Officer of the Forensic Science Laboratory who had analyzed the voices, has not been examined and if the evidence of PW4 – Bhartender Sharma is perused, in the examination-in-chief, the witness has stated that there was a joint demand of bribe of Rs. 60,000/- by deceased accused – Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and the present appellant but this fact has not been stated by any of the witnesses. That the peon of the deceased accused – Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki was an important witness but he has not been examined by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court and it is on record that no incriminating articles were found from the custody of the present appellant, as also no tainted currency notes were recovered from the present appellant. That the peon of the deceased accused – Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki was an important witness but he has not been examined by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court and it is on record that no incriminating articles were found from the custody of the present appellant, as also no tainted currency notes were recovered from the present appellant. That even the authority who has given the sanction – PW5 – Dayashankar S. Rastogi has stated that the Tax Evasion Petition File was pending with deceased accused – Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and before giving the order of sanction for prosecution, the Credance Report of the present appellant has not been seen. That the authority who had given the sanction was neither the appointing authority nor the authority to remove the appellant from service. That if the deposition of the Investigating Officer – PW6 – Rajesh Ratanlal Bisnoi is perused, he has stated that the site map produced at Exh. 30 does not describe the presence of the accused no. 2 in the sketch and the learned Trial Court ought to have conclude that at the time of the incident, the appellant was not physically present. That the learned Trial Court has erred in wrongly appreciating the evidence on record and has wrongly concluded that the appellant was acting as a mediator, when in fact, at no point of time, any demand was made by the appellant from the complainant. That the complainant has misused the CBI Machinery and has concocted a false story and has falsely implicated the appellant and the learned Trial Court ought to have considered that the appellant was not the competent authority to close the Tax Evasion Petition proceedings of the complainant. That the appellant during the course of trial has led evidence and has successfully proved his defence by leading cogent and convincing evidence and has also produced important documents at Exhs. 72 to 79 which were not seized by the Investigating Officer during the investigation and hence, the learned Trial Court ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the prosecution. That the learned Trial Court has committed a serious error of law in not appreciating the evidence according to the well established principles of criminal jurisprudence which has caused the failure of justice. That the learned Trial Court has committed a serious error of law in not appreciating the evidence according to the well established principles of criminal jurisprudence which has caused the failure of justice. That the demand of illegal gratification, the acceptance and recovery of the tainted currency notes are not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts and the learned Trial Court has not considered the evidence in proper perspective. Moreover, the learned Trial Court has also not considered that for a criminal conspiracy, two or more persons are required to be tried together and unfortunately as the accused no. 1 - Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki has expired during trial and the proceedings against him stood abated, the present appellant could not be convicted for the offence of criminal conspiracy and hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court must be quashed and set and set aside and the appellant must be acquitted for the said offence. 4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hemang H. Parikh assisted by learned advocate Mr. Rasesh H. Parikh for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. R.C. Kodekar for the respondent no. 1 and learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent no. 2. 5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hemang H. Parikh assisted by learned advocate Mr. Rasesh H. Parikh for the appellant has taken this Court through the entire evidence and has submitted that the main accused - Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki was discharging his duties as Income Tax Officer, Ward No. II, Gandhinagar, whereas, the present appellant was discharging his duties as Income Tax Officer, Ward No. III, Gandhinagar. That the file of the complainant - Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal was pending with Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and whatever demand was made, was made by Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki. That the appellant was not concerned with the Tax Evasion Petition of the complainant – Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal but merely as he was residing near to the complainant, the complainant had spoken to the present appellant to resolve the dispute. That the charge has been framed only against the present appellant as Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki has expired and the case against him has abated. That the charge has been framed only against the present appellant as Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki has expired and the case against him has abated. That in fact, the charge is contrary to the evidence of the complainant and if the conversations on record, between the complainant and the appellant are perused, the appellant had clearly told the complainant that it was their internal problem and he was not pressurizing him and the appellant had also told the complainant that the amount was to be paid by him only. That merely as he was a neighbour of the complainant, the appellant has been unnecessarily involved in the offence. From the transcript of the conversation, it can also be seen that the appellant had advised the complainant not to pay the amount early and merely because the appellant is the neighbour, without any expectations, he was trying to help the complainant. That the prosecution has not established the ingredients of obtainment of agreement to accept or attempt to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other then legal remuneration as a motive or reward and it is crystal clear that the appellant had not demanded a single penny for himself. That as the appellant was not handling any file of the complainant, he was not in a position to oblige the complainant in any manner and it cannot be said from the evidence of the prosecution that the offence is establish against the present appellant. That as the main accused Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki had expired before framing of the charge, there is no question of committing an offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. That the entire evidence makes it clear that the accused no. 1 late Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki is the person who had demanded and accepted the amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/- and he was trapped and the tainted currency notes were recovered from his possession. That as the appellant faced the trial all alone, the shocking aspect is that the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code for entering into a criminal conspiracy with with the accused no. 1 deceased Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki for committing the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the PC Act. 1 deceased Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki for committing the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the PC Act. That there is no way that a single person can commit the offence under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and it is settled law that for the offence of conspiracy, more than one person is required and hence, the judgment is incorrect and illegal on the face of it. That the prosecution has not established the demand, acceptance and recovery of any amount of illegal gratification qua the present appellant and hence, the conviction on the face of it is false. It is pertinent to note that when the main accused Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki has expired, the charge could not be framed against him and the accused who has indirectly abetted the crime, cannot be held responsible for any offence whatsoever, as the main accused has not faced the trial. Hence, this is a case in which the accused cannot be prosecuted or convicted for the offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act. That the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the appellant was a mediator between the deceased accused no. 1 - Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and the complainant and as a mediator, he was only working for settlement of the dispute and not for conspiracy. That there is no proof of hatching a conspiracy before committing the offence and the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of the audio cassettes to prove the charge of conspiracy but the original cassettes, wherein, the conversation between the appellant and the complainant has been recorded, have not been seized as muddamaal and have not been sent for verification to the FSL. That the evidence cannot be considered at all as the cassettes that were sent were dubbed cassettes and the original audio cassettes that were used for recording have not been seized as muddamaal and sent for verification to the FSL. That the evidence cannot be considered to convict the appellant and the impugned judgment and order of conviction is absolutely wrong and is required to be set aside and the appellant must be acquitted of the charge. 5.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hemang H. Parikh has relied on Manoj Kumar Soni Vs. That the evidence cannot be considered to convict the appellant and the impugned judgment and order of conviction is absolutely wrong and is required to be set aside and the appellant must be acquitted of the charge. 5.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hemang H. Parikh has relied on Manoj Kumar Soni Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 0 AIR (SC) 3857, wherein, the Apex Court has observed in para 38 to 41 as under: 38. It is intriguing that among all five accused persons, only Kallu has been convicted for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B, IPC. At this stage, we cannot help but wonder: can a single individual conspire with oneself? We cannot but disagree. It logically follows that one person alone can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy because one cannot conspire with oneself. As per Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edn), ‘conspiracy’ is an “agreement by two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, coupled with an intent to achieve the agreement's objective, and action or conduct that furthers the agreement”. The wordings of Section 120-A, IPC make it abundantly clear—the offence of criminal conspiracy is committed only when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. The position in English law too is well- settled. In The King vs. Plummer, the King’s Bench, speaking through Lord Justice Bruce, held: It logically follows from the nature of the offence of conspiracy that, where two or more persons are charged in the same indictment with conspiracy with one another, and the indictment contains no charge of their conspiring with other persons not named in the indictment, then, if all but one of the persons named in the indictment are acquitted, no valid judgment can be passed upon the one remaining person. (page 343) 39. In I.G. Singleton v. King-Emperor,(1924-25) 29 CWN 260 : AIR 1925 Cal 501 , the Calcutta High Court further clarified the law related to criminal conspiracy: The rule of English law that is now well settled is that where two persons are indicted for conspiring together and they are tried together, both must be acquitted, or both convicted. (page 265). 40. The decision of this Court in Topandas (supra) affirmed the aforesaid position and held: 14. (page 265). 40. The decision of this Court in Topandas (supra) affirmed the aforesaid position and held: 14. … on the charge as it was framed against the Accused 1, 2, 3 and 4 in this case, the Accused 1 could not be convicted of the offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code when his alleged co-conspirators Accused 2, 3 and 4 were acquitted of that offence. 41. Having regard to the position of law as aforesaid, the conviction of Kallu under Section 120-B, IPC stands completely vitiated because of the simple reason that one cannot alone conspire. There is no evidence to even remotely suggest that there existed any agreement between Kallu and the co-accused while none of the others, except Kallu, has been convicted for criminal conspiracy. 5.2 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hemang H. Parikh has relied on Bimbadhar Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa reported in 1956 AIR 469, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under: In our opinion, there is no substance in any one of these contentions and we proceed to give our reasons for our conclusions. In support of the first contention raised on behalf of the appellant strong reliance was placed on the recent decision of this Court in Topan Das v. State of Bombay, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 881 and the rulings relied upon in that case. The cases, The Queen v. Manning, [1883] 12 Q.B.D 241, The Queen v. Thompson, [1851] Q.B. 832. 117 E.R. 1100 and The King v. Plummer, [1902] 2 K. B. 339 were cited in support of the contention that where all the accused persons except one are acquitted on a charge of conspiracy, the conviction of one only on that charge cannot be sustained. In this connection the recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Kannangara Aratchige Dharmasena v. The King, [1951] A.C. 1. may also be referred to, though it was not cited at the Bar. In that case the Judicial Committee held that where only two persons are involved in a charge of conspiracy, if a new trial has to be directed in respect of one it should be ordered in respect of both, because the only possible conclusion in such a case was either that both were guilty or that neither was guilty of the offence. The recent decision of this Court so strongly relied upon by the appellant lays down a similar rule, but is clearly distinguishable from the case in hand inasmuch as in that case the only persons alleged to have been guilty of the offence of conspiracy were the persons placed on trial. There was no allegation nor any evidence forthcoming that any other persons were, though not placed on trial, concerned with the crime. In those circumstances this Court laid it down that it was essential to bring the charge of conspiracy home to the accused person or persons to prove that there was an agreement to commit an offence between two or more persons. On the findings in that case only one person, after the acquittal of the rest of the accused was concerned with the crime-and stood convicted of the charge of conspiracy. As a person cannot be convicted of conspiring with himself to commit an offence, this Court gave effect to the contention that on the findings and on the evidence, as also on the charge in that case the conviction could not be sustained. 5.3 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hemang H. Parikh has relied on Parveen @ Sonu Vs. The State of Haryana arising of Criminal Appeal No. 1571 of 2021, wherein, the Apex Court has observed in para 12 as under:: 12. It is fairly well settled, to prove the charge of conspiracy, within the ambit of Section 120-B, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. At the same time, it is to be noted that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence at all, but at the same time, in absence of any evidence to show meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act, it is not safe to hold a person guilty for offences under Section 120-B of IPC. A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy……. 6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. R.C. Kodekar for the respondent no. 1 and learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent no. A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy……. 6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. R.C. Kodekar for the respondent no. 1 and learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent no. 2 have fairly considered that the charge against the accused is only under Section 120B of the IPC and in view of the settled principles of law that for the charge under Section 120B of IPC to be proved, the conspiracy must be between two or more persons. In the instant case, the original accused no. 1 - Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki has expired during the trial of the case before framing of the charge and hence, the order of abatement was passed by the learned Trial Court below Exh. 4 on 11.04.2007 and hence, has urged this Court to pass necessary orders in the interest of justice. 7. Before adverting to the facts of the present appeal, it is necessary to reiterate the cardinal principles of Criminal Jurisprudence as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions and the first cardinal principle is that the prosecution is required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution cannot claim any benefit of the weaknesses of the defence. The second cardinal principle is that in a criminal trial, the accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty beyond reasonable doubts from the evidence of the prosecution and the third cardinal principle is that the burden of onus of proof never shifts from the prosecution. 8. In conviction appeal, it is essential that the prosecution proves the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and in the instant case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses and has produced 24 documentary evidences to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. If the charge against the accused at Exh. 10 is perused, the charge states that the deceased accused - Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 60,000/- from the complainant – Harishankar K. Raval to close the Tax Evasion Petition of the complainant which was pending before the deceased accused - Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki. Paragraph 4 of the charge framed against the present accused at Exh. 10 is perused, the charge states that the deceased accused - Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 60,000/- from the complainant – Harishankar K. Raval to close the Tax Evasion Petition of the complainant which was pending before the deceased accused - Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki. Paragraph 4 of the charge framed against the present accused at Exh. 10 states that “the aforesaid acts of the deceased accused – Shri. Solanki and you constitute and offence punishable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code” but it is pertinent to note that the learned Trial Court by the order dated 11.04.2007 passed below Exh. 4, had abated the case qua the accused no. 1 and the charge has been framed at Exh. 10 on 07.09.2009 which means that on the day when the charge was framed, the case qua the accused no. 1 was abated. 8.1 The prosecution has examined PW1 – the complainant – Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal at Exh. 14 and the witness has stated that he got the notice with the signature of Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and on 16.10.2003, Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki had threatened him. That earlier on 23.05.2003, the notice with the signature of the present accused was served to the complainant and thereafter, on the day of the trap, the complainant along with the accused had gone to the cabin of Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and at that time, the complainant had taken the tainted currency notes from his left side shirt pocket and had given them to Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki who had accepted the same with his right hand and placed the tainted currency notes of Rs. 20,000/- in his right side pant pocket. That immediately, thereafter, all of them came out of the cabin and the complainant gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki. During the cross-examination, the complainant has categorically stated that the amount of illegal gratification was to be taken by Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and the present accused did not tell him to come with any amount of illegal gratification to his house. During the cross-examination, the complainant has categorically stated that the amount of illegal gratification was to be taken by Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and the present accused did not tell him to come with any amount of illegal gratification to his house. That at the time of the trap, the shadow witness was instructed by the Trap Laying Officer to be with the complainant but the complainant had asked the panch witness to sit outside of the cabin of Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and the complainant had alone gone into the office of Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki. The complainant has also admitted that the tainted currency notes were recovered from the right side pant pocket of Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and when Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki was caught, he told the Trap Laying Officer that he had made a mistake and to forgive him and in the entire procedure, no test was conducted on the accused no. 2. 8.2 The prosecution has examined PW2 – Bimalkumar Gopalkrishna Pillai at Exh. 25 and the witness is the shadow witness who had accompanied the complainant on the day of the trap. The witness has fully supported the case of prosecution and has narrated all the events that had unfolded from the time he and the other panch witness – Gaurang B. Anand was called to the CBI Office and he met Police Inspector – Shri. Bhartendra Sharma who had explained how to trap Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki red handed. The witness has narrated all the details and has stated that on the day of the trap when he accompanied the complainant to the office of the accused, he waited for half and hour on the sofa outside in the hall and the complainant went into the chamber of Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and after some time, the complainant came out of the chamber along with two other gentlemen and the complainant gave the predetermined signal and at that time, Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki started fumbling and was almost fainting and said in Hindi ^^xyrh gks x;h] vkxs ls xyrh ugh djsxh] ekQ dj nks^^ That the complainant had stated that he had given the trap money to Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki who had accepted and put it in his right side pant pocket and the right hand fingers of Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki were washed in the solution. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that in the complaint, the complainant has stated that his work was pending before Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and after the trap, no experiment of the solution had taken place so far as the fingers of the present accused was concerned. That the accused no. 2 was also searched physically in their presence and during the personal search, nothing incriminating was found from the possession of the accused no. 2. The witness has also admitted that on the day of the trap, before going to the chamber of Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki, the complainant did not try to contact the accused no. 2 and on the day of the trap, the complainant did not try to give the trap money to the accused no. 1 through the accused no. 2 before going into the chamber of the accused no. 1. 8.3 The prosecution has examined PW3 – V.N. Shashikumar at Exh. 35 and the witness was working as Tax Recovery Officer in the Income Tax Department, Ward No. III(i). The witness has stated that there was a Tax Evasion Petition against the complainant – Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal which was pending with Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and earlier there was only one ward and thereafter, three wards were created and the said Tax Evasion Petition was sent to Income Tax, Ward No. II which was within the jurisdiction of Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki who had already expired. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the Income Tax Officer cannot interfere in the work under the jurisdiction of other Income Tax Officers and Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and the accused no. 2 were Income Tax Officers working in different wards. 8.4 The prosecution has examined PW4 – Bhartender Sharma at Exh. 38 and the witness is the Trap Laying Officer and he has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has narrated in detail all the events that had occurred right from the time that the complainant came to the CBI Office and the experiment of phenolphthalein powder and solution of sodium carbonate was done and the panch witnesses were called and the trap was arranged. The witness has stated that immediately after the amount of illegal gratification was taken inside of the chamber of Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki, the complainant - Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal and the accused no. The witness has stated that immediately after the amount of illegal gratification was taken inside of the chamber of Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki, the complainant - Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal and the accused no. 2 were seen coming out and the panch witness was standing near the sofa. The complainant pointed towards Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and identified him as the person who has taken the bribe. That the solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and the hand wash of both the hands of Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki were taken and the solution of sodium carbonate turned pink when the right hand of Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki was dipped in the solution. That the tainted currency notes of Rs. 20,000/- were recovered from the right side pant pocket of Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki. That the necessary panchnama was prepared and the seizure memos were also prepared. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused no. 2, the witness has stated that the Income Tax Wards of both the accused nos. 1 and 2 were different and at the time of the trap, the matter of the complainant was pending with the accused no. 1. That the complainant did not make any attempt to pass on the money to Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki through the accused no. 2 on 04.11.2003. 8.5 The prosecution has examined PW5 – Dayashankar S. Rastogi at Exh. 41 and the witness was working as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat during the year 2004 and he had given the order of sanction for prosecution on 29.10.2004 which is produced at Exh. 42. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and the accused no. 2, both were Income Tax Officers but were handling different wards. That in this case, on the day of incident, the issue of the complainant was pending with Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and the bribe was demanded and accepted by Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki and was also recovered from Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki. 8.6 The prosecution has examined PW6 – Rajesh Ratanlal Bishnu at Exh. 47 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who had taken over the investigation from Inspector – Bhartender Sharma. The witness has narrated all the details of the events had were undertaken during the investigation and during the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the accused nos. 8.6 The prosecution has examined PW6 – Rajesh Ratanlal Bishnu at Exh. 47 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who had taken over the investigation from Inspector – Bhartender Sharma. The witness has narrated all the details of the events had were undertaken during the investigation and during the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the accused nos. 1 and 2 were working in similar capacities and the areas of operation of both the officers were different. That at the time of the trap, nothing incriminating was recovered from the accused no. 2 and not a single document or paper, in relation to the file of the complainant, was recovered from the accused no. 2. That the trap money was seized from the accused no. 1 near the sofa which was just in front of the entrance of Income Tax Office and in the sketch that was prepared during the course of the trap proceedings, the presence of accused no. 2 was not described in the sketch. That the panch witness no. 1 had recovered the tainted amount from the pocket of Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki. 9. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it is proved that the accused no. 1 was the competent authority to handle the Tax Evasion Petition of the complainant – Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal and the accused no. 1 had given the notice to the complainant and the complainant had gone and met the accused no. 1. That at that time, the accused no. 1 had demanded for the amount of illegal gratification and it is proved on record that earlier there was only one ward in the Income Tax Officer and the accused no. 2 had given a notice to the complainant– Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal but thereafter, three wards were formed and the Tax Evasion Petition of the complainant – Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal had gone to the jurisdiction of the accused no. 1 - Gautambhai Maganlal Solanki. That the accused no. 2 had no jurisdiction whatsoever to interfere in the work of the accused no. 1 and there is no evidence that the accused no. 2 was in fact, working on behalf of the accused no. 1. That though in the complaint, the complainant has stated that the demand was made by both the accused, in his deposition, he has stated that the demand was made by the accused no. 1. 1 and there is no evidence that the accused no. 2 was in fact, working on behalf of the accused no. 1. That though in the complaint, the complainant has stated that the demand was made by both the accused, in his deposition, he has stated that the demand was made by the accused no. 1. The prosecution has proved that on the day of the trap, the complainant had gone along with the shadow witness to the Income Tax Office and even though the shadow witness was instructed to go along with the complainant and to see the events that were taking place and also to hear the conversation, when they reached the Income Tax Office, the complainant had told the shadow witness to sit outside on a sofa and hence, the shadow witness sat on the sofa and did not accompany the complainant into the cabin of the accused no. 1. That there is evidence that the complainant had gone into the cabin of the accused no. 1 and he came out along with the accused no. 1, and the complainant and the panch witness have stated that the accused no. 2 was also with them and it is on record that in the map of the place of the offence produced by the prosecution, the presence of the accused no. 2 is not shown in the map. The prosecution has also proved beyond reasonable doubts that the amount of illegal gratification was demanded by the accused no. 1 from the complainant and the complainant had taken the tainted currency notes from his left side shirt pocket and had given them to the accused no. 1 who had accepted the same with his right hand and had placed the tainted currency notes in the right side hand pocket from where it was recovered by the panch witness. As per the case of the prosecution, the hand wash of the hands of the accused no. 1 was done but no hand wash of the accused no. 2 was done. It is also proved by the prosecution that when the right hand of the accused no. 1 was dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate, the solution had turned pink when the right hand was dipped in the solution but the water did not change the colour when left hand of the accused no. 2 was done. It is also proved by the prosecution that when the right hand of the accused no. 1 was dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate, the solution had turned pink when the right hand was dipped in the solution but the water did not change the colour when left hand of the accused no. 1 was dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate. That no experiment of solution of sodium carbonate was done on the accused no. 2 and it is not the case of the prosecution that the amount was accepted or recovered from the possession of the accused no. 2. 9.1 As per the case of the prosecution, the accused no. 2 has been involved in the criminal conspiracy and he is charged with the offence that he had entered into a conspiracy with the accused no. 1 to demand the illegal gratification of Rs. 60,000/- from the complainant – Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal but there is no iota of evidence to that effect on record. The prosecution has produced the cassettes and transcription of the conversation that had taken place between the accused no. 2 and the complainant but it is also on record that during the entire procedure, micro cassettes were used and the conversation was copied into regular cassettes and produced before the learned Trial Court. All the witnesses have categorically stated that both the accused nos. 1 and 2 were officers of the same cadre and they both were having different wards under them and the file of Tax Evasion Petition of the complainant – Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal was pending before the accused no. 1 from where it was recovered. There is evidence that nothing incriminating or no document relating to the complainant was recovered from the accused no. 2, and the complainant and other witness have stated that the amount of illegal gratification was accepted by the accused no. 1 with his right hand and the tainted currency notes were placed in the right side pant pocket of the accused no. 1. There is no evidence to the effect that the complainant had tried to give the amount of illegal gratification through the accused no. 2 to the accused no. 1 or that after accepting the amount of illegal gratification, the accused no. 1 had to give any share to the accused no. 2 or that the accused no. 1. There is no evidence to the effect that the complainant had tried to give the amount of illegal gratification through the accused no. 2 to the accused no. 1 or that after accepting the amount of illegal gratification, the accused no. 1 had to give any share to the accused no. 2 or that the accused no. 2 had any interest in the amount of illegal gratification to be taken from the complainant – Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal. 10. In the entire evidence, there is no evidence of demand, acceptance or recovery of any amount of illegal gratification from the accused no. 2 and the entire evidence points towards the involvement of the accused no. 1 against whom the case is abated by the order dated 11.04.2007 passed below Exh. 4 by the learned Trial Court. 11. The short question that is to be decided by this Court is whether the charge under Section 120B can be sustained against the sole accused and whether the learned Trial Court was justified in passing the order of conviction under Section 120B against the accused no. 2. 12. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the definition of criminal conspiracy which is laid down in Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code and reads as under: 120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.— When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,— (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation.—It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object. The main ingredients of Section 120A are that there must be an agreement between two or more persons and the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either an illegal act or an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. The main ingredients of Section 120A are that there must be an agreement between two or more persons and the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either an illegal act or an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. The most important ingredient of the offence under Section 120B is the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act and in a case where a criminal conspiracy is alleged, the Trial Court must inquire as to whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to pursue the unlawful object. When the learned Trial Court finds that both the persons are independently pursuing the same end, it does not render them as conspirators but if they come together to pursue the unlawful object, they would be as conspirators and for the offence of conspiracy, some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established. The express agreement is not required to be proved before the learned Trial Court and at the same time, the evidence as to the transmission of thoughts, sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient. Moreover, a conspiracy is a continuing offence which continues to subsist till it is executed or frustrated by choice of necessity. 13. In the instant case, as discussed above, there is entire evidence that the Tax Evasion Petition of the complainant – Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal was pending within the jurisdiction of the accused no. 1, and the accused no. 2 did not have any power to interfere in the work of the accused no. 1. That both the accused no. 1 and the accused no. 2 were officers of the same cadre and there is no evidence that they were inferior or superior officers to each other. In fact, in the evidence of the prosecution, it has come on record that earlier there was only one ward in the Income Tax Office and all the files were pending in one ward of the Income Tax Office and thereafter, three wards were made and the Tax Evasion Petition of the complainant – Harishankar Kalyandas Agrawal had gone to the jurisdiction of the accused no. 1. There is also evidence that the amount was accepted by the accused no. 1 in his cabin and the tainted currency notes of Rs. 1. There is also evidence that the amount was accepted by the accused no. 1 in his cabin and the tainted currency notes of Rs. 20,000/- were recovered from the possession of the accused no. 1. As discussed above, the accused no. 2 has been charged with the offence of conspiracy but there is no evidence regarding the conspiracy produced on record and moreover, when the case qua the accused no. 1 has abated, it is a question to ponder as to whether a single accused can conspire with himself when it is stated in the definition of criminal conspiracy in Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code that the offence of criminal conspiracy is committed only when two or more persons agree to do the illegal act or to do an act by illegal means. It is well settled in a catena of judgments that two or more persons can be tried together for conspiring together to commit an offence and one person cannot be tried and convicted for the offence of conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Any conviction passed under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, when there is only one accused, against whom the entire trial has been conducted, stands completely vitiated because of the simple reason that one individual alone cannot conspire to commit any illegal act. Even otherwise, there is no iota of evidence to even remotely suggest that there was any agreement between the accused no. 1 and the accused no. 2, that they had conspired to take the amount of illegal gratification or that out of the amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/-, the accused no. 2 had to received any part of the amount. 14. In the judgments relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant in case of Manoj Kumar Soni (supra), Bimbadhar Pradhan (supra) and Parveen @ Sonu (supra), it is settled that the conviction of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and even though the demand was not corroborated by the evidence of the panch witness, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction. That the learned Trial Court has misread the evidence, and the findings of the learned Trial Court are not in the right perspective and on reappreciation of the evidence, the glaring infirmities in the evidence of the prosecution have come on record. That on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, the conviction of the accused cannot be sustained and the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery beyond reasonable doubts. 15. In view of the above discussion, this Court answers the question in the negative and as the learned Trial Court has completely misread the evidence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the conviction of the accused cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Court No. 4, Ahmedabad in Special CBI Case No. 25 of 2004 on 16.03.2012 is quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. 16. Bail bond stands cancelled. Fine to be refunded after due verification. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the Trial Court forthwith.