Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 813 (GUJ)

State Of Gujarat v. Hirabhai Shankerbhai Patel

2024-04-09

S.V.PINTO

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.03.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Jamnagar (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 2 of 2001, whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (herein after referred to as ‘the PC Act’). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:- 2.1] That the accused No.1 was working as a Police Inspector and the accused No. 2 was working as an Unarmed Police Constable in the Jamnagar City ‘A’ Division Police Station , Jamnagar in the year 2000 and they were public servant. That on 26.09.2000, one offence was registered under the Prohibition Act by Jamnagar LCB Police at the Jamnagar City ‘A’ Division Police Station , which was registered at C.R.No. 588 of 2000 under Section 66(b), 66(e) and 116 of the Bombay Gujarat Prohibition Act against one Atulbhai Kishorebhai Dodiya and the accused No.1 was investigating the offence and the accused No. 2 was the writer head. That, both the accused had demanded for an amount of Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification to get the accused released early and for not seeking his police custody of remand and for other procedure and after bargaining, the amount was fixed at Rs.5000/-. That, the Atulbhai Kishorebhai Dodiya did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification and hence filed the complaint with the Jamnagar ACB Police Station , which was registered at C.R.No 7 of 2000 on 02.10.2000 under sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act. 2.2] That the Trap Laying Officer called the panch-witnesses and the characteristic of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp was explained to the Panch-witnesses and the complainant and the experiment was carried out and the trap was arranged . 2.2] That the Trap Laying Officer called the panch-witnesses and the characteristic of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp was explained to the Panch-witnesses and the complainant and the experiment was carried out and the trap was arranged . That earlier on 27.09.2000, just outside of the Court compound at around 05:00 p.m. in the Lal Bungalow area, the accused No. 2 had accepted the amount of Rs.1500/- from Pareshbhai Kishorebhai Dodiya, the brother of the complainant, Atulbhai Kishorebhai Dodiya and on 01.10.2000 at around 22:10 hours, the accused No. 2 had demanded for the remaining amount of Rs.3500/- in the Darbargadh area of Jamnagar City, which was in the City ‘A’ Division Police Station jurisdiction at the Chandi Bazaar near Jain Derasar. That on the day of the trap, the accused No. 2 accepted the amount of Rs.3500/- and after the predetermined signal was given, the members of the raiding party came and the accused No. 2 was caught red handed. 2.3] That the investigating officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses, drew the necessary Punchnama and after the orders of sanction for prosecution were received, had filed the charge-sheet before the learned Session Court, Jamnagar, which came to be registered as Special ACB case No. 2 of 2001. 2.4] That the accused were duly served with the summons from the learned trial Court and the accused appeared before the learned trial Court and after the due procedure of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was followed, a charge at Exh: 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh: 4 and 5 respectively. The accused denied all contents of the charge and the evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The accused denied all contents of the charge and the evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.5] The prosecution has examined 7 witnesses and has produced 38 documentary evidences on record in support of their case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh: 57, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded and after the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 04.03.2006 was pleased to acquit both the accused under Section 248 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 from all the charges leveled against them. 3] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant-state has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the judgment and order of the learned Court is illegal and has been passed without proper appreciation of the evidence. That the prosecution has proved that the respondents were working in the Jamnagar City ‘A’ Division Police Station and were public servants and the panch witnesses, Trap Laying Officer and the Investigating Officers have fully supported the case of the prosecution. That it is proved by the prosecution that the accused demanded the amount of illegal gratification from the complainant- Atulbhai Kishorebhai Dodiya and the amount was accepted by the accused No. 2 for him and on behalf of the accused No. 1. That even though the original complainant- Atulbhai Kishorebhai Dodiya and his brother Pareshbhai Kishorebhai Dodiya have not supported the case of the prosecution, the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and there are no major contradictions, which would vitiate the trial. That, the muddamal handkerchief and currency notes were recovered from the accused No. 2 and the learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that the burden lies on the accused to prove that they did not accept the amount of illegal gratification. That, the panch witnesses are government employees and independent witnesses and have fully supported the case of the prosecution but the learned trial Court has committed an error in passing the judgment and order of acquittal. That, the panch witnesses are government employees and independent witnesses and have fully supported the case of the prosecution but the learned trial Court has committed an error in passing the judgment and order of acquittal. That the judgment and order of acquittal is erroneous, improper and unjust and hence the appeal must be allowed and both the accused must be convicted for the said offence. 4] Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri and learned Advocate Ms. Shivangi Vyas for learned Advocate Mr. V.H. Kanara for the respondents. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5] Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced on record by the prosecution and has submitted that it is settled law that if the witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution, the portion of evidence that supports the case of the prosecution must be considered. That in cases filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the prosecution can prove their case by circumstantial evidence and in the instance case, the prosecution has proved all the three ingredients of demand, acceptance and the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the accused No. 2, who had accepted the same for himself and on behalf of the accused No. 1. That both accused are police officials and a part of the disciplined force and they are well aware that they should not demand any amount of illegal gratification but both the accused had demanded and accepted the amount of illegal gratification. That in the entire evidence, the Panch witness and the Trap Laying Officer have fully supported the case of the prosecution and if the entire evidence is perused, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. That, the learned trial Court has, merely because the complainant has turned hostile and considering the minor contradictions of the depositions of the other witnesses, acquitted both the accused, which is not proper and hence the learned APP has urged this Court to allow the appeal and convict both the accused for the offences. 6. Learned advocate Ms. Shivangi Vyas for learned advocate Mr. 6. Learned advocate Ms. Shivangi Vyas for learned advocate Mr. V.H.Kanara for the respondents has submitted that the learned trial Court has discussed all the evidence produced by the prosecution and in a well reasoned order has discussed all the aspects why the case of the prosecution is not proved. That there are major contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses and the complainant, Atulbhai Kishorebhai Dodiya and his brother Pareshbhai Kishorbhai Dodiya have not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, the aspect of demand is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. That there is no eye witness to the acceptance of the amount and it is on record that the Panchnama was not dictated by the Panch witnesses, but it was dictated by the Trap Laying Officer and even the Trap Laying Officer says that the writer was writing the Panchnama. That Trap Laying Officer went in a rickshaw behind the motorcycle but the Rickshaw driver is not examined and as per the case of the prosecution, the demand was made on Rasikbhai’s phone but the said Rasikbhai has not been examined. That there are contradictions in the findings of the anthracene powder and it is not clear as to whether the traces of anthracene powder were found on the T-shirt or pant of the accused. That there are contradictions about these aspects in the deposition of the panch witnesses and there is contradiction even in the place where the amount was recovered and it is not clear as to whether the amount was recovered when the accused No. 2 came on the motorcycle or in the Police Station. That the learned trial Court has considered all the aspects in detail and by a well reasoned judgment and order has acquitted the accused as there was no iota of evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and hence no interference is required in the judgment and order of the learned trial Court and the appeal must be rejected. 7. 7. Before the evidence of the prosecution is appreciated and dissected, it is essential to reiterate the cardinal principles of criminal jurisdiction as settled by the Honourable Apex Court in a catena of decision and the first cardinal principle is that the prosecution in a criminal trial is required to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution cannot benefit from the weaknesses of defence. The second cardinal principle is that in a criminal trial, the accused is presumed to be innocent unless and until he is found guilty by the evidence produced by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts and the third cardinal principles of law is that the onus of burden of proof never shifts from the prosecution. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248, has observed in Para No. 68 as under: “68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under: (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) (i) and(ii) of the Act (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind: (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1) (d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and inturn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. (f) In the event the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. (g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.” 9. Before adverting to the facts of the case on hand, it would be apt to refer to the scope of the learned Appellant Court in acquittal appeals and the Apex Court in criminal appeal No.1167 of 2018, in the case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh in para 8 and 9 has observed as under:- 8. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 9. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 9. Apart from that, it is to be noted that the present case is a case of reversal of acquittal. 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 relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded." 10. In view of the above settled principles of law in acquittal appeals in cases under the PC Act, it is imperative to consider and dissect the evidence led by the prosecution and in the instance case, the prosecution has in all examined 7 witnesses and produced 38 documentary evidences on record. 11. The prosecution has examined the complainant Prosecution Witness No. 1 Atulbhai Kishorebhai Dodiya at Exh: 7 and this witness has stated that in the year 2000, he was residing near Military gate at Jamnagar and a false case under the Prohibition Act was filed against him. 11. The prosecution has examined the complainant Prosecution Witness No. 1 Atulbhai Kishorebhai Dodiya at Exh: 7 and this witness has stated that in the year 2000, he was residing near Military gate at Jamnagar and a false case under the Prohibition Act was filed against him. That the investigation of the case was with the LCB and they had taken him to the LCB office and thereafter to the City ‘A’ Division Police Station . That, he does not know that who was at the city ‘A’ Division Police Station and the case was registered against him at the Jamnagar City ‘A’ Division Police Station . That he was arrested and thereafter produced before the Court and was released on bail. That no police had demanded for any amount from him and he does not know the accused and has never met them. That, the witness has merely identified his signature on the complaint. The witness has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined at length by the learned APP but the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has completely rescinded from the complaint filed by him. The complainant has not identified the muddamal or any fact and during the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the LCB police had arrested him and he was produced in the learned Court and at that time, a police custody the remand for five days was sought for and he had engaged an advocate and the remand application was rejected and he had filed the application for bail and was released on bail by the learned Court. 11.1. The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2 Pareshbhai Kishorebhai Dodiya at Exh: 8 and this witness is the brother of the complainant Atulbhai Kishorebhai Dodiya. This witness has stated that on 26th September 2000, the LCB Police had asked his brother in a case filed under the of prohibition case and he was released on bail on the next day. That, nothing else has happened and the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. The witness has not identified the accused and has stated that he does not know the accused and has never met them. That the Investigating Officer has not recorded his statement on 3rd October 2000. That, nothing else has happened and the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. The witness has not identified the accused and has stated that he does not know the accused and has never met them. That the Investigating Officer has not recorded his statement on 3rd October 2000. After the witness was declared hostile, he has been cross-examined at length by the learned APP but no fact, to support the case of the prosecution, has come on record. 11.2. The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3 Jivrajbhai Bhimjibhai Hirani at Exh: 9 and this witness is the Panch witness, who has stated that on 1st October 2000, he was called to the office by his Deputy Engineer, Mr. Bhimani and was asked to go to the ACB office on the next day. That he and his colleague Bhupatbhai Vajani had gone to the ACB office on the next day and the Trap Laying Officer had introduced them to the complainant Atulbhai. That the characteristic of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp was explained to them and the experiment was done and the complainant had given five currency notes of the denomination of denomination of Rs.500/- each and 10 currency notes of the Rs.100/- each, on which, anthracene powder was applied and the currency notes were placed in the shirt pocket of the complainant. That, the witness was instructed to stay with the complainant and listen to the conversation and the other Panch witness Bhupatbhai was instructed to stay with the members of the raiding party. That he and the complainant went to the Police chowki and spoke to Rajubhai Jamadar and Patel Saheb, who was sitting in the chamber. That, they came out of the chamber and met Rajubhai and they were told to go. That after sometime, Rajubhai came down and told the witness to go. Hence the witness went and stood near a florist shop. That thereafter, Rajubhai and the complainant took the motorcycle and went away, and the LCB officers went in the rickshaw behind him. That he and the other panch Bhupatbhai Vajani stood at the same place, and after 15 minutes, he came back to the Police Station where he met the complainant, and once again, they were separated and met near Darbargadh Circle. That he and the other panch Bhupatbhai Vajani stood at the same place, and after 15 minutes, he came back to the Police Station where he met the complainant, and once again, they were separated and met near Darbargadh Circle. That, after sometime, Rajubhai came with his motorcycle, and they all went to the Police Station , and after sometime, Trivedi Saheb gave him a handkerchief, which he opened, on instructions, from Trivedi Saheb, and the currency notes were in the handkerchief. That, the ultraviolet lamp test was done and the clothes of Rajubhai were also tested and bright powder was found on the clothes i.e. on the shirt and the pant of Rajubhai. That the Panchnama was written. The witness has not fully supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined at length by the learned APP. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that, while they were standing near Police Chowki, it was dark and he had not seen the members of the raiding party. That he does not know which side Rajubhai came from and no person had made any demand in his presence, and he has not witnessed any exchange of currency notes. That his brother Mulraj had earlier filed a case in the ACB Police Station against an employee of Arvind Hospital. 11.3. The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4 Bhupendrabhai Bhagwandas Vajani at Exh: 10. This witness is the second Panch witness and the witness has narrated the events that had occurred after he was called to the ACB Police Station and the witness has stated that the currency notes were shown to them and after the powder was applied, the notes were given to the complainant, Atulbhai, who had placed them in his left side shirt pocket. The witness has stated that he was instructed to stay with the members of the raiding party and they had gone to the Police Station . That he had remained with the ACB staff members and the punch No. 1 and the complainant had gone to the Police Station and thereafter the complainant and panch No. 1 came and stood near the shop of a florist in the chowki. That one policeman came and took the complainant on the scooter and after sometime, the policeman came back alone. That one policeman came and took the complainant on the scooter and after sometime, the policeman came back alone. That, immediately, the ACB officers came and caught the policeman and Trivedi Saheb told them that the amount of Rs.3500/- was recovered from the policeman. That, the experiment of ultraviolet lamp was done on the T-shirt and on the hands of the policeman and the handkerchief and the pant were found with traces of anthracene powder. That the Panchnama was prepared and they had affixed their signatures on the Panchnama. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that, at that time, it was dark and there were ordinary lights at the circle, and any person who was standing far of could not be clearly seen. That he did not see the policeman go on the scooter or the complainant sitting on the scooter or returning on the scooter and had also not seen the ACB officers catching the policeman. That the panchanama was written by the ACB Officer and nobody was dictating the panchnama. 11.4] The prosecution has examined the prosecution witness No. 5 Satishchandra Premchandra Verma at Exh: 12 and this witness is the competent authority, who had given the order of sanction for prosecution of the accused, which is produced at Exh.13. During the cross examination, the witness has stated that the accused No. 2 was transferred on 26.11.2000 to Vadodara and the ACB office had sent the draft order of sanction for prosecution along with the papers. That the accused No. 2 was revealed from his duty on 06.01.2000. 11.5] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6 Gunvantrai Devram Trivedi at Exh: 15 and this witness is the Trap Laying Officer and he has narrated all the events that had occurred right from time the complainant came to file the complaint and he had recorded the complaint in his presence and the complaint is produced at Exh; 16. The witness has stated that he had called the panch witnesses and after the experiment of the anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was done by Head Constable Mr. C.A.Sodha, that the trap was arranged and necessary instructions were given to the complainant and both the panch witnesses and they had gone to Jamnagar City, ‘A’ Division Police Station . The witness has stated that he had called the panch witnesses and after the experiment of the anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was done by Head Constable Mr. C.A.Sodha, that the trap was arranged and necessary instructions were given to the complainant and both the panch witnesses and they had gone to Jamnagar City, ‘A’ Division Police Station . That the panch witness No. 1 and the complainant had gone into the Jamnagar ‘A’ City Division Police Station, which was in the Darbargadh Circle and after some time they both came down near the Darbargadh Choky. That, the accused No. 2 came down after some time and spoke to the complainant and took the complainant to the motorcycle and spoke to him and then they both sat on the motorcycle and went away. That the witness and Police Constable Kishorbhai sat in a rickshaw and followed the motorcycle and they went from Subhash Market to Sajuba School to Chandi Bazaar and the policeman returned to Darbargadh Police Station but the complainant was not seen. That he stopped the policeman and at that time the complainant came walking and the test of ultraviolet lamp was done and the clothes of the policeman and his right side pant pocket and hands were found with traces of anthracene powder. That the policeman was Rajeshbhai Roopchand Verma, who is the Police Constable, Jamnagar City ‘A’ Division Police Station and the tainted currency notes were recovered from his possession. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that when the panch witnesses had come, he had merely asked for their names and addresses and the panch witness No. 2 is residing near to the ACB office. That the panchnama was written by his writter Sukhdevsinh Rana and he was dictating the panchnama. That when he went in a rickshaw, he does not know where the other staff members were and he had not checked the accused as soon as he had come with the motorcycle. That at that time, the test of the ultraviolet lamp was only done on the accused and no other test was done and the right side pant pocket were found with the traces of anthracene powder. That at that time, the test of the ultraviolet lamp was only done on the accused and no other test was done and the right side pant pocket were found with the traces of anthracene powder. That as the crowd gathered, they had to leave the test of ultraviolet lamp and could not complete it and from there they left went to Darbargadh Police Chowki, which was at a distance of 50 mtrs. That the motorcycle was not searched at that place and he does not know as to when they had done the ultraviolet lamp test on the accused and he was on the motorcycle as to whether the sodium lights of the streets were on or not. That the currency notes were not sealed at the time when they were seized. 11.6] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7 Amitabh Chandramani Pathak at Exh; 23 and this witness is the competent authority who has given the order of sanction for prosecution for accused No. 1 and the order of sanction for prosecution is produced at Exh: 24. During the cross examination, the witness has stated that on perusal of the documents, he had found that on the date of the incident, the accused No. 1 was not in his jurisdiction but was in the jurisdiction of Rajkot Range area. That he had not seen the service record of the accused No. 1 at time of giving the order of sanction for prosecution. 11.7] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8 Yasinkhan Ahmedkhan Shekh at Exh: 25 and this witness is the Investigating Officer. This witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution and this witness has stated that had taken over the investigation and recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and after the orders of sacntion for prosecution were received, he had filed the charge sheet before the competent Court. During the cross examination, the witness has stated that before he had taken over the investigation, Trap Laying Officer Mr. Trivedi was investigating the offence and when the panchanama was drawn, no entry was made in the Police Station . During the cross examination, the witness has stated that before he had taken over the investigation, Trap Laying Officer Mr. Trivedi was investigating the offence and when the panchanama was drawn, no entry was made in the Police Station . 12] On perusal of the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and minutely dissecting the same, there is no iota of evidence about the prior demand or demand at the time of the trap made by any of the accused and the prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove that the accused No.1 or the accused No. 2 had in fact made any demand for illegal gratification. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant Atulbhai Kishorbhai Dodiya was arrested in a prohibition case and the accused No. 1 was investigating the offence but it is also on record that the complainant Atulbhai Kishorbhai Dodiya was arrested by the LCB officers and was taken to the Jamnagar City ‘A’ Division Police Station and was produced before the learned Court and he had engaged an advocate and the remand was rejected and he was released on bail. That, the complainant Atulbhai Kishorbhai Dodiya and his brother Pareshbhai Kishorbhai Dodiya have turned completely hostile and there is no iota of evidence in their deposition to show that any demand was made at any point of time by the accused No. 1 or by the accused No.2. That the panch witness, Prosecution Witness No. 3 Jivrajbbhai Bhimjibhai Hirani, who was the shadow witness and had accompanied the complainant has categorically stated that no accused had made any demand in his presence and he has not witnessed any transaction of any currency notes between the complainant and the accused No. 2. There are major contradictions regarding the recovery of the tainted currency notes and as per the case of the prosecution, the currency notes were recovered from the handkerchief but there is no evidence to that effect on record. Moreover, there are major contradictions about the traces of anthracene powder found from the clothes of the accused No.2 and the panch witness says that the anthracene powder was found on T-shirt and pant of the accused No. 2 whereas the Trap Laying Officer says that the anthracene powder was found from the pant of the accused. Moreover, there are major contradictions about the traces of anthracene powder found from the clothes of the accused No.2 and the panch witness says that the anthracene powder was found on T-shirt and pant of the accused No. 2 whereas the Trap Laying Officer says that the anthracene powder was found from the pant of the accused. As per the say of the Trap Laying Officer, he had gone in Rickshaw and followed the accused No. 2 and the complainant, who had fled on the motorcycle with Head Constable Kirshorbhai but the said Head Constable Kishorbhai has not been examined before the learned trial Court. 13. As far as the panchnama is concerned, Trap Laying Officer has categorically stated the he had dictated the panchnama and his writer had written the panchnama and there is evidence on record that the panchnama was not written by the panch witnesses. In view of the above, the prosecution has not proved the demand which is a sine-qua-non for offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and all these aspects have been discussed by the learned trial Court in detail. That, even the aspect of recovery is not proved beyond reasonable doubts and there is no clear evidence that the tainted currency notes were in fact, recovered from the possession of the accused No. 2. 14. As per the settled principles of law, the powers to be exercised by the Appellate Court in a order of acquittal, exists and after reviewing the evidence, if the Appellate Court finds that there is perversity and illegality in the judgment, interference is called for but when the learned trial Court has considered the evidence in right perspective, the testimony of each of the witnesses giving importance to each fact and has acquitted the accused, interference by the Appellate Court is not called for. More importantly in acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence of an accused person is reinforced by the learned trial Court and the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of Justice in criminal cases that when two views are possible on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused must be adopted. In the instance case, the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and in the absence of any evidence of demand, which is a sine-qua-non for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has rightly acquitted both the accused and it can safely be said that there is no reliable evidence produced by the prosecution for conviction of the accused and the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge against the accused. Consequently, the appeal fails and stands rejected. 15. The impugned judgment and order dated 04.03.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Jamnagar in Special (ACB) Case No. 2 of 2001 is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds stand canceled. 16. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.