Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 767 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Devendrabhai Laxmanbhai Patel

2024-04-04

S.V.PINTO

body2024
JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 8, Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special ACB Case No. 7 of 2002 on 30.06.2005, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as “the PC Act” for short). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as the accused as he stood in original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under: 2.1 That the accused was working as Talati Cum Mantri in the Arethi Group Gram Panchayat, Taluka Valia, District Bharuch and was a public servant. That the complainant was given the work of putting metal stones on the road from Kupgam till the crematorium and the complainant had completed the work in the month of October 2001 and the bill for material and carting was for Rs. 40,200/- which was given to the accused. That the accused had told the complainant that there was no grant and the bill would be cleared after the grant was received and the complainant had demanded for the amount of bill from the accused on a number of occasions. That the complainant had met the accused at Netrang Gram Panchayat at around 12.00 pm in the afternoon and asked him about the amount of bill and the accused had told him that the grant was received and the bill was sanctioned and the cheque of Rs. 40,200/- was ready but he would have to pay an amount of Rs. 7,500/- as illegal gratification. That after bargaining, the amount was fixed at Rs. 6,000/- and the accused had told the complainant to come to Netrang Gram Panchayat Office around 12.00 pm in the afternoon on Saturday to collect his cheque and if he did not give Rs. 6,000/- as illegal gratification, he would not get the cheque. 7,500/- as illegal gratification. That after bargaining, the amount was fixed at Rs. 6,000/- and the accused had told the complainant to come to Netrang Gram Panchayat Office around 12.00 pm in the afternoon on Saturday to collect his cheque and if he did not give Rs. 6,000/- as illegal gratification, he would not get the cheque. That the complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification and hence, the complainant went to the ACB Police Station, Bharuch on 17.05.2002 and gave the complaint to the Police Inspector Shri. N.B. Koralwala, ACB Police Station, Bharuch. That on 18.05.2022, the Police Inspector called the panch witnesses and after the experiment of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was carried out and explained to the panch witnesses and the complainant, and the trap was arranged and the complainant and the shadow witness went to the Netrang Gram Panchayat. That in the presence of the panch witness, the accused demanded for the amount of Rs. 6,000/- at around 12.20 p.m. accepted the same and after the predetermined signal was given, the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused red handed. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the connected witnesses, drew the necessary panchnamas and after the order of sanction for prosecution was received, a charge-sheet was filed before the Sessions Court, Bharuch which was registered as Special ACB Case No. 7/2002. 2.2 The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and after the procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was followed, a charge at Exh.4 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.5, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.3 The prosecution has produced the following oral evidences in support of their case: S. No. PW Particulars Exhibit 1. 1 Somabhai Damjibhai Vasava 11 2. 2 Pankajkumar Jivanlal Somani 16 3. 3 Nareshbhai Bhikhabhai Koralwala 27 4. 4 Prakash Babulal Modi 29 5. 5 Rajdhar Dolatrav Marathe 33 2.4 produced the following documentary evidences in support of their case: S. No. Particulars Exhibit 1. Complaint 11 2. Cheque 12 3. Cheque Counter 13 4. Order of Taluka Panchayat, Valia 14 5. Resolution of Arethi Gram Panchayat 15 6. 3 Nareshbhai Bhikhabhai Koralwala 27 4. 4 Prakash Babulal Modi 29 5. 5 Rajdhar Dolatrav Marathe 33 2.4 produced the following documentary evidences in support of their case: S. No. Particulars Exhibit 1. Complaint 11 2. Cheque 12 3. Cheque Counter 13 4. Order of Taluka Panchayat, Valia 14 5. Resolution of Arethi Gram Panchayat 15 6. Receipt of muddamaal 17 7. Bank Zerox 18 8. Compliance Certificate 19 9. Plan estimate 20 10. Cheque of Rs. 40,200/- 21 11. Cheque counter file 22 12. Panchnama of trap 23 13. Seizure list 24 14. Seizure list of cheque 25 15. Pursis for dropping panch no. 2 26 16. Confidential letter 28 17. Sanction for prosecution 30 18. Closing pursis 34 2.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis at Exh.34, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and after the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2005 was pleased to acquit the accused from all the offences. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant-State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is erroneous, unjust and improper and the learned Trial Court has not considered the fact that the complainant has stated that Rs. 40,200/- was to be paid and the said fact is accepted by the accused in his further statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. That the learned Trial Court has not considered the deposition of the District Development Officer who has deposed that the accused was a government servant and even though the complainant has turned hostile, the learned Trial Court has not accepted the portion of the evidence of the complainant which supports the case of the prosecution that merely as the complainant has turned hostile, the entire case of the prosecution does not stand vitiated and there are other circumstances which establish the guilt of the accused and they are successfully proved by the prosecution. That the panch witness who is examined at Exh.16 is an independent witness and there is no reason to disbelieve his version and the case of the prosecution is corroborated by the evidence of the Investigating Officer that the prosecution has successfully proved all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery but the learned Trial Court has erred in disbelieving the same and hence, the impugned judgment and order must be quashed and set aside and the accused must be found guilty for all the offences. 4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav B. Shukla assisted by learned advocate Ms. Janki V. Jadeja for Nanavaty and Nanavaty Associates for the respondent-accused. Perused the impugned judgment and order and the entire evidence of prosecution on record. 5. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution and has submitted that even though the complainant had turned hostile but he has admitted that he had signed on the complaint which is produced at Exh.11. The complainant has also admitted that he had done the work of the Gram Panchayat and had given a bill of Rs. 40,200/- and the learned Trial Court has discarded the evidence of the complainant merely because he has turned hostile. Learned APP has submitted that it is settled principles of law that if the witness has turned hostile, the portion of his deposition that supports the case of the prosecution can be considered in proving the guilt against the accused but the learned Trial Court has not relied upon the evidence of the complainant. Learned APP has further submitted that the prosecution has examined Pankajkumar Jivanlal Somani at Exh.16 and this witness is an independent witness and he has not fully supported the case of the prosecution but his deposition up to the extent that he supports the case of the prosecution must be considered. That the witness has admitted that he had gone with the complainant to Netrang Gram Panchayat and he, the other panch witness and the members of the raiding party along with the complainant had gone to the Netrang Gram Panchayat. That the witness has admitted that he had gone with the complainant to Netrang Gram Panchayat and he, the other panch witness and the members of the raiding party along with the complainant had gone to the Netrang Gram Panchayat. That this version of the panch witness is fully corroborated by the deposition of the Trap Laying Officer Nareshbhai Bhikabhai Koralwala who is examined at Exh.27 and the deposition of the Investigating Officer-Rajdhar Dolatrav Marathe who is examined at Exh.33. That the prosecution has also proved that the valid sanction was given by the witness Prakash Babulal Modi who was the Deputy District Development Officer at the time of the offence and he has given the sanction for prosecution which is produced at Exh.30. Learned APP has further submitted that the learned Trial Court has not considered all these evidences in proper perspective and has misinterpreted the evidence and has acquitted the accused but the appeal must be allowed and the accused must be found guilty of the said offences. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav B. Shukla assisted by learned advocate Ms. Janki V. Jadeja for Nanavaty and Nanavaty Associates for the respondent-accused has submitted that the complainant has admitted that he had not filed the FIR but it was given by his friend Ramsingbhai Bababhai and he had only affixed his signature on the complaint. The complainant has denied that the accused had asked for any bribe at any point of time and the complainant has also denied the demand and acceptance of the amount of the illegal gratification by the accused. The complainant has very clearly stated that there was no event when the accused had demanded for any amount of bribe of Rs. 6,000/- and has also denied that the accused had accepted the same and counted the amount and placed it in his pocket. Moreover, there are contradictions in the version of the panch witness Pankajkumar Jivanlal Somani who has clearly stated that at the time of alleged recovery, he was standing outside of the room and the evidence regarding the recovery is hearsay evidence. That the witness has categorically denied that the accused had demanded for the amount of Rs. 6,000/- and had told the complainant that his cheque was ready and had asked the complainant if he had brought the amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 6,000/-. That the witness has categorically denied that the accused had demanded for the amount of Rs. 6,000/- and had told the complainant that his cheque was ready and had asked the complainant if he had brought the amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 6,000/-. Moreover, the witness has also denied that the complainant had taken the tainted currency notes of Rs. 6,000/- from his pocket and had given to the accused. That the deposition of the Investigating Officer suggests that ASI Singhabhai had applied the anthracene powder on the currency notes with his bare hands but in the deposition of panch witness Pankajkumar Jivanlal Somani, it has come on record that Police Constable Shankarbhai had demonstrated the use of the anthracene powder. The prosecution has not proved the demand or acceptance and in fact, the complainant has turned hostile completely and has denied filing any complaint with the ACB Police Station. That merely on the basis of the evidence of the Trap Laying Officer who is the person in whose presence the complaint has been filed, the accused cannot be convicted and it is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that the prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of the tainted currency notes for the accused to be convicted under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act. That the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in proper perspective and there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court and hence, the appeal of the appellant must be rejected. 7. Before dissecting the evidences adduced by the prosecution on record before the learned Trial Court, it is essential to reiterate the cardinal principles of Criminal Jurisprudence as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 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. 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. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2018, in Para 9, has observed as under: “9.........The law with regard to interference by the Appellate Court is very well crystallized. Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with the same would not be warranted. Though, there are a catena of judgments on the issue, we will only refer to two judgments which the High Court itself has reproduced in the impugned judgment, which are as reproduced below: “13. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P. (2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court has held that: “In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. Appellate Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and re-look the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded.” 14. Similar, In case of Harljan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat, (2016) 12 SCC 665 , the Supreme Court has held that: “No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the same. However, this does not mean that in all the cases where the trial court has recorded acquittal, the same should not be interfered with, even if the view is perverse. However, this does not mean that in all the cases where the trial court has recorded acquittal, the same should not be interfered with, even if the view is perverse. Where the view taken by the trial court is against the weight of evidence on record, or perverse, it is always open far the appellate court to express the right conclusion after re-appreciating the evidence If the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt on record, and convict the accused.” 9. In view of the above settled principles of law in acquittal appeal and re-appreciating the evidence, to bring home the charge against the accused and to prove their case beyond reasonable doubts, the prosecution has examined PW1-Somabhai Damjibhai Vasava at Exh.10. The witness is the complainant and the witness has stated that Ramanbhai and the Talati of Arethi Gram Panchayat had called him for preparing the road from Kup Village to the Crematorium and he had to put metal stones and mud and he had demanded for a written order but the Talati had told him that no order in writing would be given and he had to do the work and he had first put mud and then metal stones and had given the bill but the Talati did not pay the bill as there was no grant. That in the year 2002, he got fed up of asking the Talati for the amount of bill and he told his friend Ramsingbhai Bababhai who told him that he would have to take action against the Talati and his friend had taken him to the ACB Office at Bharuch. That his friend had told him to wait outside and his friend went in the office of the ACB and after 10 to 15 minutes came down from the office and called him into the office. That one police man had told him that the complaint against Devendrabhai was filed and had asked him to affix his signature and he had affixed his signature on the complaint which is produced at Exh.11. That the amount of bill was Rs. 40,200/-. The witness has thereafter, denied that the accused had asked for any amount of illegal gratification of Rs. That the amount of bill was Rs. 40,200/-. The witness has thereafter, denied that the accused had asked for any amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 6,000/- and that when he had gone to the Bharuch Police Station, the panch witnesses were called and the procedure for trap was done and he had gone to Netrang Gram Panchayat with a shadow witness. The complainant has denied that the accused had demanded for any amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 6,000/- for paying him the cheque of Rs. 40,200/- and the complainant has been declared hostile as he has not supported the case of the prosecution. The witness has been cross-examined by length by the learned APP but has denied the entire case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that before going to the office of the Talati at Netrang, no writing was done at the ACB Office, Bharuch and when they went to the office of the Talati at Netrang, three persons were seated in the office but their statements were not recorded. 9.1 The prosecution has examined PW-2 Pankajkumar Jivanlal Somani at Exh.16 and this witness is the shadow witness who had accompanied the complainant at the time of the trap. The witness has stated that on 17.05.2002, he had gone to the ACB Office at Bharuch at 05.30 pm with the other panch Rajeshbhai Ramanlal Mehta and at that time, Police Inspector Mr. Koralwala had met them and given them the proper instructions. That they were asked to come on the next day i.e. on 18.05.2002 at 07.30 am and when they went on the next day to the ACB Office, the ACB Officers were present and the complainant was also present. That the experiment of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp was done by Shankarbhai and the complainant had given 12 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/- each to Police Inspector Mr. Koralwala and anthracene powder was applied on the notes and they were placed in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant by Shankarbhai. That they had gone to the Netrang Gram Panchayat in a government jeep and when they went to the office, the complainant had gone into the room of the accused but he was standing outside. Koralwala and anthracene powder was applied on the notes and they were placed in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant by Shankarbhai. That they had gone to the Netrang Gram Panchayat in a government jeep and when they went to the office, the complainant had gone into the room of the accused but he was standing outside. That the accused had demanded for the amount of illegal gratification from the complainant and the complainant had taken the tainted currency notes and given it to the accused and the accused had given him the cheque and this fact was told to him by the complainant. That the complainant came out of the room and gave the predetermined signal and Police Inspector Mr. Koralwala and other members of the raiding party and the other panch witness came and the accused was caught red handed. The witness has not fully supported the case of the prosecution and hence, has been declared hostile and during the cross-examination by the learned APP, the witness has denied that in his presence the accused had asked the complainant as to whether he had brought the amount of Rs. 6,000/- as his cheque was ready. The witness has also denied that the complainant had given the accused the amount of Rs. 6,000/- in his presence and the accused had accepted the amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 6,000/- in his presence. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had not seen anthracene powder or the ultraviolet lamp prior to 18.05.2002 and the panchnama was dictated by Police Inspector Mr. Koralwala and it was written by his writer. That while the panchnama was written, Police Inspector Mr. Koralwala had not spoken to the accused or the panch witness and had also not spoken to the members of the ACB staff and after the panchnama was written, both the panch witnesses were asked to affix their signatures on the panchnama. 9.2 The prosecution has examined PW-3 Nareshbhai Bhikhabhai Koralwala at Exh.27 and this witness is the Police Inspector of ACB Police Station in whose presence the complainant had given the complaint and the witness had made arrangements for laying of the trap. 9.2 The prosecution has examined PW-3 Nareshbhai Bhikhabhai Koralwala at Exh.27 and this witness is the Police Inspector of ACB Police Station in whose presence the complainant had given the complaint and the witness had made arrangements for laying of the trap. The witness has deposed and fully supported the case of the prosecution and has narrated all the chronology of facts as the events had unfolded right from the filing of the complaint till the trap was successful and has fully supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had not inquired about the veracity of the complainant before arranging for the trap. That the complaint of the complainant was taken on a blank paper and after the details of the complaint were taken down, he realized that the case is of the jurisdiction of the police. That the FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded after the trap was successful and after the panchnama was drawn. 9.3 The prosecution has examined PW-4 Prakash Babulal Modi at Exh.29 and the witness is the Deputy District Development Officer who had given the order of sanction for prosecution of the accused. The witness has produced the order of sanction for prosecution at Exh.30 and the witness has stated that he had given the order for sanction for prosecution of the accused. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the ACB Office had sent the draft of the order of sanction for prosecution along with papers and he had made some corrections in the draft of the order of sanction for prosecution. That the muddamaal was not sent along with the papers requesting the sanction for prosecution and in the sanction order produced at Exh.30, it is not written that the witnesses were explained about the characteristics of anthracene powder and it is also not mentioned that the experiment of the anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was carried out. 9.4 The prosecution has examined PW-5 Rajdhar Dolatrav Marathe at Exh.33 and this witness is the Investigating Officer who has taken over the investigation from the Trap Laying Officer-Mr. 9.4 The prosecution has examined PW-5 Rajdhar Dolatrav Marathe at Exh.33 and this witness is the Investigating Officer who has taken over the investigation from the Trap Laying Officer-Mr. Koralwala and the witness has arrested the accused and after recording the further statement of the complainant and the connected witnesses after the sanction for prosecution was received, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned Sessions Court, Bharuch on 30.09.2002. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had sent only those documents that he had felt were necessary for the order of sanction for prosecution and the muddamaal currency notes and muddamaal shirt were not sent to the competent authority at that time. 10. On minutely scrutinizing the entire evidence of the prosecution, it is the case of the prosecution that the complainant had done the work of laying metal stones and mud on the road from Kup village to the Crematorium and that the complainant had given a bill of Rs. 40,200/- for the work that was done but the accused had demanded for an amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 6,000/-. That the complainant has denied all the allegations made in the complaint and has clearly stated that his friend Ramsingbhai Bababhai had taken him to the office of the ACB and he was made to wait down and his friend Ramsingbhai Bababhai had gone into the office of the ACB and after sometime, he was called into the ACB Office and was asked to affix his signature on the complaint. The witness has merely identified his signature on the complaint which is produced at Exh.11 and the contents of the complaint had not been proved by the deposition of the complainant. It is pertinent to note that the friend of the complainant Ramsingbhai Bababhai who had accompanied the complainant has not been examined by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court and the prior demand has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that the friend of the complainant Ramsingbhai Bababhai who had accompanied the complainant has not been examined by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court and the prior demand has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution. The panch witness PW-2 Pankajkumar Jivanlal Somani has also not supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that he had stood outside of the office of the accused and the complainant had gone in the office of the accused and thereafter, the complainant came out and told him that the accused had demanded and accepted for the amount of the illegal gratification and the tainted currency notes were handed over to the accused by the complainant. That the factum of demand and acceptance is not proved by the prosecution from the deposition of the independent panch witness who was the shadow witness and was instructed to remain with the complainant and to listen to all the conversation that was taking place between the complainant and the accused and was also instructed to see and witness the acceptance. That the complainant PW1-Somabhai Damjibhai Vasava and the panch witness PW-2 Pankajkumar Jivanlal Somani have both been declared hostile as they have not supported the case of the prosecution and even in the lengthy cross-examination by the learned APP, the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, hence, there is no iota of evidence from the deposition of the complainant and the panch witness that the accused had demanded and accepted the amount of illegal gratification. 10.1 As far as the deposition of PW-4 Prakash Babulal Modi is concerned, the witness who is the Competent Authority who has granted the order of sanction for prosecution which is produced at Exh.30 has clearly stated that along with the papers requesting for sanction for prosecution of the accused, the ACB Office had sent the draft sanction order and merely some changes were made in the draft sanction order and he has given the sanction for prosecution, which as per the settled principles of law, is not a valid sanction. It appears that there was no proper application of mind by the Competent Authority. It appears that there was no proper application of mind by the Competent Authority. The Trap Laying Officer-PW-3/Nareshbhai Bhikhabhai Koralwala is the only person who has fully supported the case of the prosecution but when the complaint has not been proved by the deposition of the complainant and when the complainant has categorically stated that when he went to the office of the ACB at Bharuch, he went along with his friend Ramsingbhai Bababhai and the said Ramsingbhai Bababhai had gone into the office of the ACB and he was asked to stand outside and thereafter, he was called into the office and merely asked to affix his signature on the complaint which was prepared by the police. The contents of the complaint have remained unproved. 11. The law on the issue is well settled that proof of demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under the PC Act and mere recovery of tainted currency notes is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence produced by the prosecution is not reliable and unless there is evidence led by the prosecution to prove that the payment of illegal gratification was taken voluntarily by the accused as a bribe, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable doubts. It is also well settled that the burden rest on the accused under Section 20 of the PC Act to displace the statutory presumption when the recovery is established and the Court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability but however, before the accused is called upon to explain as to how the tainted currency notes were found in his possession, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had demanded for the amount of illegal gratification and had accepted the same. That the initial burden of proving beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had demanded and thereafter, had accepted the amount of illegal gratification is fully upon the prosecution and only when this initial burden is successfully discharged, the onus would shift upon the accused and the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could apply. That the initial burden of proving beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had demanded and thereafter, had accepted the amount of illegal gratification is fully upon the prosecution and only when this initial burden is successfully discharged, the onus would shift upon the accused and the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could apply. In the instant case, there is no iota of evidence on record by the prosecution to prove the initial demand made by the accused and there is no iota of evidence that at the time of the trap, the accused had demanded for the amount of illegal gratification in the presence of the independent panch witness. 12. In view of the above and in view of the settled principles of law, it is clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts and there is no evidence on record to prove the demand and acceptance and the learned Trial Court has discussed all these aspects in the impugned judgment. 13. As discussed above, after meticulous dissection of the evidence of the prosecution as also considering the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is with proper reasons and the learned Trial Court is fully justified in acquitting the accused from all the charges levelled against him. This Court does not find any illegality, perversity or infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of acquittal. 14. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly the same is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 8, Bharuch in Special ACB Case No. 7 of 2002 on 30.06.2005 is hereby confirmed. 15. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.