Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 826 (GUJ)

Balvantsinh Vakhatsinh Rathod v. State of Gujarat

2024-04-09

S.V.PINTO

body2024
JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Vadodara, (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Case No. 15 of 2004 on 12.11.2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(ii)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act”). The appellant is hereinafter referred to as the accused as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under: 2.1 That the accused was working as an Unarmed Head Constable in the Panvad O.P. Kavanth Police Station, Vadodara Rural and was a public servant and Kandubhai Malubhai Rathva - the complainant was a panch witness in a case filed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by a prosecutrix who was a resident of Raisa village. That the complainant was the panch of the panchnama by which the clothes were seized by the police and on 14.02.2004, the complainant had gone to Chhotaudepur and at that time, the accused had come to his village and as the complainant was not found, he had left a message to send the complainant to Panvad O.P. That on 15.02.2004, the complainant went to Panvad O.P. and met the accused and at that time, the accused told him that as he was a panch witness in Sessions Case No. 62/2003, he had to go to the Court at Chhotaudepur on the date of adjournment i.e. 20.02.2004 and gave him the summons and took his thumb impression on the summons. That the accused took him aside and demanded for an amount of Rs. 1,000/- for expenses of petrol as he had come to Kanalva village for serving the summons. The complainant told him that he was poor but the accused demanded for the amount and as the complainant did not have the amount, the accused told him to come on Wednesday to the Panvad O.P. and give him the amount of Rs. 1000/- and threatened to file a case against him and put him behind bars if the amount was not paid. 1000/- and threatened to file a case against him and put him behind bars if the amount was not paid. The accused also told him that when he brought the amount of illegal gratification he was to call him aside and give the amount to him only and he took the summons and went home. That the complainant did not want to give the amount of illegal gratification and hence, went to the ACB Police Station, Vadodara and filed the complaint which was registered at C.R. No. 4/2004 on 18.02.2004 under Sections 7, 15 and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act. That the complainant only had Rs. 300/- and the Trap Laying Officer arranged for the remaining amount of Rs. 700/- and called the panch witnesses and the experiment of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate was done and explained to the panch witnesses and the complainant and the currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- which were ten currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each were laced with anthracene powder and given to the complainant. That the shadow witness and the complainant went to the Panvad O.P. and at that time the accused suspected the complainant and the panch witness and did not accept the amount of illegal gratification and the trap failed. That as the accused had demanded the amount of illegal gratification, the Investigating Officer carried out the necessary investigation, recorded the statements of the connected witnesses, drew the panchnama and after the order of sanction for prosecution was received, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the Sessions Court, Vadodara which was registered as Special Case No. 15/2004. 2.2. That 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.6 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.7. The accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.3 The prosecution produced the following oral evidence to bring home the charge against the accused: S. No. PW Particulars Exhibit 1. 1 Kandubhai Malubhai Rathva 11 2. 2 Siddharth Mohanlal Khatri 16 3. 3 Virsingbhai Lalsingbhai Damor 18 4. 4 Govindbhai Varvabhai Barot 23 5. 2.3 The prosecution produced the following oral evidence to bring home the charge against the accused: S. No. PW Particulars Exhibit 1. 1 Kandubhai Malubhai Rathva 11 2. 2 Siddharth Mohanlal Khatri 16 3. 3 Virsingbhai Lalsingbhai Damor 18 4. 4 Govindbhai Varvabhai Barot 23 5. 5 Vijaykumar Tuljarav Navle 24 2.4 The prosecution also produced the following documentary evidence to bring home the charge against the accused: S. No. Particulars Exhibit 1. Complaint 12 2. Panchnama 19 3. Seizure Memo 20 4. Order of sanction for prosecution 25 5. Attendance Sheet 26 2.5 That after the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.27, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and after the arguments of learned APP and learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court was pleased to convict the accused and sentenced the accused to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment of one month for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction, the accused has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order is against the provisions of law and against the evidence on record and the allegations leveled by the prosecution are prima facie not believable and probable and the learned Trial Court ought to have acquitted the accused. That the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery are not proved and the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not trustworthy, reliable and dependable. That there are basic improbabilities and infirmities in the evidence of the prosecution and as per the case of the prosecution, the trap failed on 18.02.2004. That thereafter, the trap was arranged on 29.02.2004 and there is no evidence to show that after the first trap failed, the complainant had ever contacted the accused. That if the accused had in fact, demanded the amount of illegal gratification, he would have remained present on 18.02.2004 and would have accepted the same and this shows that the allegations leveled against the accused regarding demand of illegal gratification is false and baseless. That if the accused had in fact, demanded the amount of illegal gratification, he would have remained present on 18.02.2004 and would have accepted the same and this shows that the allegations leveled against the accused regarding demand of illegal gratification is false and baseless. That even on 29.02.2004, when the second trap was arranged, the accused did not accept the amount, even though, the complainant had offered the amount and this itself proves that the allegations made against the accused are baseless. There is nothing on record to suggest that the accused had suspected and did not accept the amount of illegal gratification and if the second attempt had failed, the prosecution ought to have made a third attempt to substantiate their case which was not done after the second after the second attempt failed. The learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice and a wrong order of conviction which is contrary to law and against the express provisions of law. That the impugned judgment and order is required to be set aside and the accused must be acquitted from all the offences. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.J. Panchal for the appellant and learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent-State. 5. Learned advocate Mr. K.J. Panchal for the appellant has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution and has submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the accused had gone to serve the witness summons to the complainant and a message was left to send the complainant to the Panvad O.P. This fact is not stated by the complainant, the panch witness or the Investigating Officer and there is no person who has been examined from the family of the complainant to prove that in fact, the accused had gone to serve the summons. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant met the accused on 15.02.2004 where the summons was given to the accused but this fact is also not stated by the complainant, the panch witness or the Investigating Officer before the learned Trial Court and during the cross-examination of the complainant it has come on record that Police Constable - Bakorbhai Bhagabhai had served the witness summons to the complainant. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution has not examined Police Constable - Bakorbhai Bhagabhai to prove as to whether he had served the summons to the complainant or not. That there is no iota of evidence regarding the prior demand and after the say of the complainant that he had gone to the ACB Office and filed the complaint, the complaint was not registered immediately and the first trap was arranged on 18.02.2004, when the accused had gone for investigation to some other place and hence, the trap failed. That there is no evidence that after the first trap had failed, the complainant had met the accused and as per the case of the prosecution, the date of adjournment before the learned Sessions Judge, Chhotaudepur was 20.02.2004 when the complainant had given his evidence in the Sessions Case where he was the panch witness. That once again the trap was arranged on 29.02.2004 and as per the case of the prosecution, the trap had failed in the market place as well the police chowki and the evidence of the panch witness does not support the case of the prosecution and hence, the panch witness has been declared hostile. That there is no evidence regarding the demand, acceptance or recovery of any illegal gratification from the accused and hence, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and the impugned judgment and order is against the settled principles of law and the same is required to be quashed and set aside. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr. K.J. Panchal has relied on P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2015) 10 SCC 152 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in Para 25 and 26 as under: 25. In our estimate, to hold on the basis of the evidence on record that the culpability of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) has been proved, would be an inferential deduction which is impermissible in law. Noticeably, the High Court had acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 7 of the Act and the State had accepted the verdict and has not preferred any appeal against the same. The analysis undertaken as hereinabove qua Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the Act, thus, had been to underscore the indispensability of the proof of demand of illegal gratification. 26. The analysis undertaken as hereinabove qua Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the Act, thus, had been to underscore the indispensability of the proof of demand of illegal gratification. 26. In reiteration of the golden principle which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases, this Court in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 had held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of “may be” true but has to upgrade it in the domain of “must be” true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It was held, that the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. 5.2 Learned advocate for the appellant has relied on Kanu Ambu Vish vs. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 1 SCC 503 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 10 has observed as under: 10..........This conclusion cannot be justified on the assumption implicit in the observation that “when the contents of such a document (the Panchnama) are proved and the evidence of Panch Harishchandra has gone counter to that document it was necessary for the learned Judge to consider in the first instance whether Harishchandra is a witness of truth or Panch Patil is a witness of truth.” It may be pointed out that any statement made in the Panchnama cannot be used in evidence except for the purposes of contradicting the witness whose statement is contained in Panchnama but if it is intended to contradict him by the writing his attention must before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for contradicting him. This is what is required under Section 145 of the Evidence Act but even where a witness is confronted by his previous statement and given an opportunity to explain, that part of the statement that is put to him does not constitute substantive evidence. We think the High Court was not justified in its comment on the appreciation of the evidence of these witnesses by the learned Special Judge even though it observed that the better course would have been to seek permission to cross- examine Panch Harishchandra. We think the High Court was not justified in its comment on the appreciation of the evidence of these witnesses by the learned Special Judge even though it observed that the better course would have been to seek permission to cross- examine Panch Harishchandra. 5.3 Learned advocate for the appellant has relied on K. Shanthamma vs. State of Telangana, (2022) 4 SCC 574 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 17 has observed as under: 17. Thus, the version of PW-1 in his examination-in-chief about the demand made by the appellant from time to time is an improvement. As stated earlier, LW-8 did not enter the appellant’s chamber at the time of trap. There is no other evidence of the alleged demand. Thus, the evidence of PW1 about the demand for bribe by the appellant is not at all reliable. Hence, we conclude that the demand made by the appellant has not been conclusively proved. 18.......... 19.......... 20. Thus, this is a case where the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant was not proved by the prosecution. Thus, the demand which is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 was not established. 5.4 Learned advocate for the appellant has relied on Mukhtiar Singh (Since Deceased) through his Legal Representative vs. State of Punjab, (2017) 8 SCC 136 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 24 has held as under: 24. It would thus be patent from the materials on record that the evidence with regard to the demand of illegal gratification either of Rs. 3,000/- which had been paid or of Rs. 2,000/- as made on the day of trap operation is wholly inadequate to comply with the pre-requisites to constitute the ingredients of the offence with which the original accused had been charged. Not only the date or time of first demand/payment is not forthcoming and the allegation to that effect is rather omnibus, vague and sweeping, even the person in whose presence Rs. 3,000/- at the first instance is alleged to have been paid i.e. Santosh Singh Lamberdar, has neither been produced in the investigation nor at the trial. In other words, the bald allegation of the complainant with regard to the demand and payment of Rs. 3,000/- as well as the demand of Rs. 2,000/- has remained uncorroborated. 3,000/- at the first instance is alleged to have been paid i.e. Santosh Singh Lamberdar, has neither been produced in the investigation nor at the trial. In other words, the bald allegation of the complainant with regard to the demand and payment of Rs. 3,000/- as well as the demand of Rs. 2,000/- has remained uncorroborated. Further to reiterate, his statement to this effect lacks in material facts and particulars and per se cannot form the foundation of a decisive conclusion that such demand in fact had been made by the original accused. Viewed in this perspective, the statement of complainant and the Inspector Satpal, the shadow witness in isolation that the original accused had enquired as to whether money had been brought or not, can by no means constitute demand as enjoined in law as an ingredient of the offence levelled against the original accused. Such a stray query ipso facto in absence of any other cogent and persuasive evidence on record cannot amount to a demand to be a constituent of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act. 6. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the State has submitted that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidences properly. The prosecution has proved all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery and the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Trial Court has considered all the evidences in its true perspective. That no order of interference is required in the judgment and order and the appeal of the appellant must be rejected and the judgment and order of conviction must be confirmed. 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 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. 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 the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), 2022 (0) Supreme (SC) 1248, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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. (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. 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 in-turn 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. (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. 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. In view of the above settled principles of law, in a Criminal Appeal, it is necessary to dissect and re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidences produced by the prosecution and to bring the home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW-1 the complainant - Kandubhai Malubhai Rathva at Exh.11 and this witness has stated that a rape case was filed by a prosecutrix of Raisa village and the police had seized clothes and he was the panch witness for the panchnama by which the clothes were seized. That he had gone to Kavanth and met the accused where the accused had demanded for an amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/- towards petrol expenses. That the complainant did not want to give the amount and filed the complaint which is produced at Exh.12. That the complainant went with the amount and other officers and at that time, the accused said that he would take the amount later on and they went Pavi Jetpur. That the experiment with the powder was done and they went to Panvad and met the accused and the complainant told the accused that he had brought the money but the accused said “later.” That thereafter, the complainant went to the officers and the officers had caught the accused and brought him to Vadodara. That the experiment with the powder was done and they went to Panvad and met the accused and the complainant told the accused that he had brought the money but the accused said “later.” That thereafter, the complainant went to the officers and the officers had caught the accused and brought him to Vadodara. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the complainant has stated that he had gone to give his evidence in the Court at Chhotaudepur on 20.02.2004 and the summons is produced at Exh.13 which was served to him by Constable Bakorbhai Bhagabhai and he had gone to give his evidence on 20.02.2004 as stated in the summons. That when he went for the first time, he did not meet the accused and Barot Saheb had told him that they would go after a week and will catch the accused. That when they went for the second time, the accused was in the market. That the complainant was recalled and in the examination-in-chief, after being recalled, the complainant had stated that the ACB Office had given him the amount to give as the bribe and the currency notes were smeared with powder and placed in his left side shirt pocket. That when he went to meet the accused, two panch witnesses were with him and the accused had told him that he would accept the amount “later.” That even when they went to the Police Station, the accused had told him that he would accept the amount later and hence, they came out of the Police Station. That the amount that was kept in his pocket was taken by the ACB Officers and thereafter, they went to the market and brought the accused and whatever writing was done, was done by the ACB Officer. 9.1 The prosecution has examined PW-2 Siddharth Mohanlal Khatri at Exh.16 and the witness is the Competent Authority who had given the order of sanction for prosecution which is produced at Exh.17. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the documents were received by him from the Director, ACB Office and there was no muddamaal along with the papers. That after studying the papers, he felt that the accused did not accept the amount. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the documents were received by him from the Director, ACB Office and there was no muddamaal along with the papers. That after studying the papers, he felt that the accused did not accept the amount. 9.2 The prosecution has examined PW-3 Virsingbhai Lalsingbhai Damor at Exh.18 and this witness is the panch witness who had accompanied the complainant as a shadow witness. The witness has narrated the events as per the case of the prosecution right from the time he was called as a panch witness to the ACB Office at Vadodara and he and the other panch witness - Jitendrasing Gohil had gone to the ACB Office That the experiment of phenolphthalein powder and solution of sodium carbonate was done in their presence and explained to them and they had gone to Panvad O.P. but the accused was not there and the trap had failed on 18.02.2004. That once again, they were called on 29.02.2004 and both the panch witnesses went to the ACB Office and the tainted currency notes were placed in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant. That they went to the Panvad O.P. but the accused was not there and on inquiry, they were told that as there was a market (haat), the accused was in bandobast duty and hence, they waited. That after some time, the accused came and the complainant told him that he had brought the amount but the accused told the complainant to go to the market and finish his purchases and to meet him thereafter and hence, the complainant and the witness went to the market and returned to the police chowki after about 1½ to 2 hours. That they met the accused but the accused told the complainant to go and meet him once again. That they returned to the ACB Officer and the ACB Officers came to the Panvad Police Chowki and caught the accused. The witness has stated that when they returned from the market, the accused did not demand for the amount and the accused did not ask the complainant as to whether he had brought the amount. That they returned to the ACB Officer and the ACB Officers came to the Panvad Police Chowki and caught the accused. The witness has stated that when they returned from the market, the accused did not demand for the amount and the accused did not ask the complainant as to whether he had brought the amount. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and during the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that his hands were dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate and the water had turned pink and no currency notes were recovered from the accused. 9.3 The prosecution has examined PW-4 Govindbhai Varvabhai Barot at Exh.23 and the witness is the Trap Laying Officer who has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has narrated all the events that had unfolded and were undertaken by him from the time the complainant came to the ACB Office to file the complaint till the accused was arrested. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that after the complaint was recorded and before arranging for the trap, he did not make any inquiry regarding the veracity of the complaint of the complainant. As per the complaint, the accused had called the complainant to the Panvad O.P. and accordingly, the trap was arranged on 18.02.2004 but the accused was not found at Panvad O.P. and hence, the trap had failed. That after the raid, the tainted currency notes were not found from the possession of the accused and his statement has not been recorded by the Investigating Officer. 9.4 The prosecution has examined PW-5 Vijaykumar Tuljarav Navle at Exh.24 and this witness is the Investigating Officer who has recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and after the order of sanction for prosecution was received, had filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the learned Sessions Court. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that the trap had failed and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the complainant. 10. On minutely scrutinizing the entire evidence of the prosecution, PW-4/Trap Laying Officer - Govindbhai Varvabhai Barot had arranged for the trap twice, on 18.02.2004 and once again on 29.02.2004 and on both the occasions, the complainant had met the accused but the accused did not accept or demand for the amount of illegal gratification. 10. On minutely scrutinizing the entire evidence of the prosecution, PW-4/Trap Laying Officer - Govindbhai Varvabhai Barot had arranged for the trap twice, on 18.02.2004 and once again on 29.02.2004 and on both the occasions, the complainant had met the accused but the accused did not accept or demand for the amount of illegal gratification. There is no iota of evidence to prove that the complainant had in fact, gone to the Panvad O.P. on 15.02.2004 and had met the accused where the accused had made the prior demand of Rs. 1000/- as illegal gratification. The say of the complainant that the summons of Sessions Case No. 62/2003 was to be served by the accused, is also not proved as from the documents produced at Exh.13 which is the summons served to the complainant, it appears that the summons was served by Police Constable - Bakorbhai Bhagabhai and not by the present accused. Hence, the very reason for the demand of illegal gratification by the accused as petrol expenses for serving the summons is doubtful as it appears that the accused was never in charge of serving the summons to the complainant. There is no evidence that after 18.02.2004, the accused had ever met the complainant and it is admitted by the complainant that he deposed in Sessions Case No. 62/2003 before the learned Sessions Court at Chhotaudepur on 20.02.2004. There is no evidence to suggest that the complainant had contacted and met the accused after 20.02.2004 where the accused had made any demand of illegal gratification from the complainant. Moreover, the panch witness has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution and in the entire evidence of the panch witness, there is nothing to suggest that the accused had made any demand from the complainant for any illegal gratification. That the evidence of the complainant is also vague and except for the bald allegations that the accused had demanded for the amount, there is no evidence to corroborate the say of the complainant. 11. The learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction mainly relying on the say of the complainant that the demand for illegal gratification of Rs. 11. The learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction mainly relying on the say of the complainant that the demand for illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/- was made but if the evidence of the complainant is minutely perused, it does not appear to be truthful and does not inspire the confidence of the Court and in fact, it appears that the complainant had himself told the accused that he had brought the money. That if the accused had demanded for the amount of illegal gratification, on 18.02.2004, the accused would have remained present in the Panvad O.P. and would have accepted the amount but the trap had failed on 18.02.2004. Even on 29.02.2004, the accused had ample opportunity of accepting the amount of illegal gratification, if in fact, a demand was made but it appears that once again the complainant had volunteered and told the accused that he had brought the amount. The factum of demand is not proved at all in the entire evidence of the prosecution and it appears that the accused did not have any intention of accepting the amount of illegal gratification and except for the bald allegations of the complainant, there is no evidence to prove the demand in any manner. 12. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), suspicion however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution is bound to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. That if the demand is not forthcoming, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence and in the instant case, the prosecution has completely failed to prove the factum of demand beyond reasonable doubts. The entire evidence placed by the prosecution on record, when judged on the touchstone of the principles settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, leave no manner of doubt that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification and it would be wholly unsafe to sustain the conviction of the accused under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The learned Trial Court has completely misread the evidence and in the considered opinion of this Court, the conviction of the accused cannot be sustained. The learned Trial Court has completely misread the evidence and 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 Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Vadodara in Special Case No. 15 of 2004 on 12.11.2008 is quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Fine to be refunded to the appellant after due verification. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the Trial Court forthwith.