Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 925 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Girishbhai Popatbhai Bhalia

2024-04-18

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 dated 20.02.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 7, Rajkot (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 6 of 1994, 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 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 was a Talati-cum-Mantri of Raiya Gram Panchayat in the year 1994 and was a public servant. That the complainant Hussainbhai Sultanbhai Saiyad was residing at Nooranipara Mafatiyapara, Rajkot and was a tenant of Qismat Cement Centre and his father was doing the business in that shop. That the shop needed some repairing and he had filed an application for loan in Lakshmi Sahkari Sarafi Mandali and the certificate of Talati-cum-Mantri of the Raiya Gram Panchayat was required. That he had met the Talati-cum-Mantri of Raiya Grama Panchayat for the certificate and at that time, the accused had demanded for an amount of Rs. 100/- as illegal gratification for the certificate, and the accused had told him that he would come to the shop in the evening between 4 and 5 PM and at that time, to give the amount of Rs. 75/- as illegal gratification. That the complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification. Hence the complainant went to the ACB office at Rajkot and filed the complaint under sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act, which was registered at C.R. No. 4 of 1994 on 8/3/1994. That the Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and the characteristic of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp were explained to the panch witness and the complainant and the experiment was carried out and the complainant had given the currency note, which were one currency note of the denomination of Rs. 50/- two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. That the Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and the characteristic of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp were explained to the panch witness and the complainant and the experiment was carried out and the complainant had given the currency note, which were one currency note of the denomination of Rs. 50/- two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10/- each and one currency note of the denomination of Rs. 5/- and anthracene powder was applied on the currency notes and given to the complainant and the trap was arranged. That on 8/3/1994 at 16:25 hours, the accused came to Qismat Cement Center situated at Brahma Samaj Society at Rajkot and demanded for the amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 75/- and accepted the same, and after the pre-determined signal was given, the accused was caught red handed. 2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and drew the necessary Panchnama and after the order of sanction for prosecution was received from the competent authority, the charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Session Court, which was registered as Special ACB Case No. 6 of 1994. 2.3 That the accused was duly served with the summon 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.6 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.7. The accused denied all contents of the charge and the evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4 The prosecution has examined 5 witnesses and has produced 14 documentary evidence in support of their case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh.48, 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 was heard, the learned Special Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 7, Rajkot, by the impugned judgment and order, acquitted the accused vide order dated 20.02.2006 passed in Special (ACB) Case No. 6 of 1994. 3. 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 judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that the complainant has deposed that the accused had demanded for the illegal gratification of Rs. 75/- and had come to the shop and accepted the same. That the panch witness and the Trap Laying Officer have also supported the case of the prosecution and the Investigating Officer has also corroborated the version of the witnesses. That the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused and has wrongly believed that the evidence of the complainant and the panch witness is not corroborated by any evidence and is doubtful. That the learned trial Court has given undue importance to some portion of the deposition of the panch witnesses, wherein they have not supported the case of the prosecution and the Investigating Officer has categorically stated that the tainted currency notes were recovered from the posession of the accused. That the learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the demand, acceptance and recovery and the traces of anthracene powder were found on the currency notes as also the shirt of the accused, and hence the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and is required to be quashed and set aside, and the accused must be found guilty for the said offences. 4. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant-state and learned advocate Ms. Shivangi Vyas for learned advocate Mr. Nishant Lalakiya for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated 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 and has stated that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and the recovery, but the learned trial Court has merely based on minor contradictions, passed the judgment and order of acquittal. 5. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court through the entire evidence and has stated that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and the recovery, but the learned trial Court has merely based on minor contradictions, passed the judgment and order of acquittal. That even if the complainant has not identified the accused and has admitted that the accused has not demanded any amount of bribe from him, the recovery of the tainted currency notes of Rs. 75/- from the possession of the accused proves that the accused has in fact demanded for the amount of illegal gratification and the same were recovered from the possession of the accused and this shows that the accused had, in fact demanded for the amount of illegal gratification. The prosecution has also produced the order of sanction for prosecution and the panch witness, who is an independent person, has fully supported the case of the prosecution. That the Trap Laying Officer has also supported the case of the prosecution and if the entire evidence of the prosecution is viewed in toto, the prosecution has proved the demand, acceptance and recovery and the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts, and hence the appeal must be allowed and the judgment and order of acquittal must be quashed and set aside and the accused must be guilty for the said offences. 6. Learned Advocate Ms. Shivangi Vyas for learned advocate Mr. Nishant Lalakiya for the respondent has submitted that the complainant, who has been examined at Exh.18 has categorically stated that the person, who had demanded a bribe from him was not present in Court, and he has admitted that the accused had not demanded any amount of bribe from him. That the property tax was to be paid and the receipt of the bills was also given to him. That the prosecution has examined witness Harishbhai Shantilal Pancholi and he has not deposed in what manner, the sanction was granted. That he was posted in a different department, and there is no evidence that the sanction for prosecution was granted after the proper application of mind. The Investigating Officer has also conducted the trap and was the Investigating Officer and it was a specific case of the accused that the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs. That he was posted in a different department, and there is no evidence that the sanction for prosecution was granted after the proper application of mind. The Investigating Officer has also conducted the trap and was the Investigating Officer and it was a specific case of the accused that the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs. 625/- towards the tax bill, for which, the accused had informed the complainant and the receipt of tax bills was also given by the accused and when the complainant has categorically stated that the accused has not demanded any amount of bribe of Rs. 75/- from him, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence as the prima facie basic ingredient of the offence that is demand is not established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. That the learned trial Court has rightly considered and appreciated the entire evidence led by the prosecution and there is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and order of acquittal by the learned trial Court and hence no interference is required in the judgment and order of acquittal and the appeal of the appellant must be rejected. 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 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 defense. 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 Honourable Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2022 (0) Supreme (SC) 1248, has observed in Para No. 68 as under: “68. 8. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 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. (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. 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. (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. (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 trial Court in acquittal appeals and the Honourable 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. 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. 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.” 10. In view of the above settled principles of law in acquittal appeals under the PC Act, the evidence is required to be delved into and to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined the Prosecution Witness No. 1 Hussainbhai Sultanbhai Saiyad at Exh.18 and this witness is the complainant, who has stated that he is residing in Nooranipara Mafatiyapara and has a General Store near Anil Gyan Mandir Brahma Samaj and he wanted to repair the said shop, for which, he had filed an application for loan of Rs. 10,000/- from Lakshmi Sahakari Sarafi Mandali. That, he had to give a certificate for the loan and he had gone to the accused and had demanded for the certificate. That he had met Mr. Bhaliya, who had demanded for an the amount of Rs. 100/- and after bargaining, the amount was fixed at Rs. 75/-. That the Talati-cum-Mantri had told him that he had to pay an amount of Rs. 625/- as tax of the gram Panchayat and he had an amount of Rs. 550/- with him, which was given to him, and the receipt for the same was also given. That, he wanted to file a complaint and he went to the ACB Police Station and filed a complaint, which is produced at Exh.19. That, the panch witnesses were called and he had given an amount of Rs. 75/- which were one currency note of the denomination of Rs. That, he wanted to file a complaint and he went to the ACB Police Station and filed a complaint, which is produced at Exh.19. That, the panch witnesses were called and he had given an amount of Rs. 75/- which were one currency note of the denomination of Rs. 50/- 2 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10/- each and one currency note of the denomination of Rs. 5/- and the characteristic of anthracene powder were explained to them. That the anthracene powder was applied on the notes and the experiment was done and he and the panch witness went to his shop. That he and the panch witness were sitting in the shop, and at that time, the Talati-cum-Mantri came and he gave the amount of Rs. 75/- which was received by Talati-cum-Mantri and placed in the left pocket of his “Kurta.” That he came out from his shop and gave the predetermined signal, and the members of the raiding party came there and caught the accused red-handed. That the amount of Rs. 550/- which were 11 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/- were found from the pocket of the accused, and the complainant has identified the accused before the learned Court. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the complainant has stated that the person, who had demanded for the amount of Rs. 75/- at the Raiya Gram Panchayat was not present in the Court and the person who had accepted the amount of Rs. 75/- was present in the Court. That the accused had not demanded for any amount of illegal gratification from him and the amount of Rs. 550/- which were recovered from the pocket of the accused were the same currency notes, which he had given to the accused. That, when he returned to the shop, the accused was present, and he had demanded for the amount of tax, which was Rs. 625/-. That he had given the accused Rs. 550/- and the accused had given the receipt of Rs. 625/- but he did not have the remaining amount and hence had a verbal altercation with the accused. That the accused came to his shop and had demanded for the receipt, but he had not given the receipt and when the accused came to his shop in the afternoon, the amount of Rs. 625/- but he did not have the remaining amount and hence had a verbal altercation with the accused. That the accused came to his shop and had demanded for the receipt, but he had not given the receipt and when the accused came to his shop in the afternoon, the amount of Rs. 75/- which was to be paid as tax, were given to the accused and the accused had also given him the certificate. 10.1 The prosecution examined Prosecution Witness No. 2-Dhirubhai Naranbhai Bakutara at Exh.26 and this witness is the panch witness, who had accompanied the complainant as a shadow witness. The panch witness has supported the case of the prosecution and has narrated all the events that had taken place from the time he and other panch witness Jaideepbhai Jani were called to the ACB office and the experiment of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp was done and he had accompanied the complainant to the shop of the complainant. The witness has stated that when he and the complainant were seated at the shop of the complainant, the accused came and the complainant gave the amount of Rs. 75/- to him, and after the predetermined signal was given the members of the raiding party came and the amount of Rs. 550/- was also found from the accused. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the tainted currency notes and an amount of Rs. 550/- which were all currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/- each were found from the possession of the accused. 10.2 The prosecution examined Prosecution Witness No. 3 Hareshbhai Shantilal Pancholi at Exh.33 and this witness has stated that he was working as a Junior Clerk in the District Panchayat Office and he has produced the order of sanction for prosecution of the Deputy District Development Officer at Exh.36. During the cross examination, this witness has stated that at the time of the incident, he was not in the office and he does not know as to what correspondence was exchanged between the ACB and the District Panchayat Office. That, he does not know what documents were studied by the competent authority and the competent authority has not signed the order of sanction for prosecution in his presence. That he had merely produced the record and had deposed as per the record. That, he does not know what documents were studied by the competent authority and the competent authority has not signed the order of sanction for prosecution in his presence. That he had merely produced the record and had deposed as per the record. 10.3 The prosecution examined the Prosecution Witness No. 4 Mansukhlal Harilal Tank at Exh.45 and the witness who was working as a PSI in the LCB Police Station and he was called by Police Inspector Mr. Charan in his chamber when the complainant Hussainbhai Sultanbhai Saiyed had come. That he had done the experiment of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp, and the witness has conducted and supported the case of the prosecution, and has narrated all the acts that he had done. That he was the member of the raiding party and has stated that the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused. During the cross examination, the witness has stated that he does not know as to who had demanded for any amount of illegal gratification from the complainant and in his statement before the Investigating Officer, he has not stated all the details about the test of ultraviolet lamp. 10.4 The prosecution examined Prosecution Witness No. 5, Dhanidan Bhawanidan Charan at Exh.46 and this witness has stated that on 8/3/1994, when he was in his office, Trivedi Saheb, the Assistant Director had called him and had introduced the complainant Hussainbhai Sultanbhai Saiyad to him. That his complaint was recorded and P.S.I. Mr. Tank was called and the panch witnesses were called and thereafter the panchnama was written and the complainant had produced the amount, which was to be paid as illegal gratification. That the necessary experiment was done and the trap was laid and the panch witness No. 1 and the complainant went to the shop, and the members of the raiding party were outside, and when the predetermined signal was given, he had gone along with the other members of the raiding party and caught the accused red handed with the tainted currency notes. That the experiment of ultraviolet lamp was done and both the hands of the accused were found with traces of anthracene powder. That the panchnama was written and they came to the ACB office and he himself had taken over the investigation. That the experiment of ultraviolet lamp was done and both the hands of the accused were found with traces of anthracene powder. That the panchnama was written and they came to the ACB office and he himself had taken over the investigation. That he had made the necessary correspondence for the order of sanction for prosecution but on 4/6/1994, he fell ill and was on sick leave, and at that time, Police Inspector, Mr. C.M. Zala had taken over the investigation, and after the sanction for prosecution was received, the accused was called, arrested, and the charge-sheet was filed. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, this witness has stated that in the Panchnama, the address of the panch is merely written as Morbi and in the Form of 154, there is an improvement in the date and time of the offence. That he had arranged for the trap and had investigated most of the offences. 11. On minute dissection of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the prosecution has not produced any evidence regarding the prior demand or the demand of illegal gratification, which is a sine-qua-non for a case under the PC Act. What emerges from the record is that the complainant Hussainbhai Sultanbhai Saiyad had gone to the gram Panchayat and had met the accused who was the Talati-cum-Mantri and had demanded for the certificate which he wanted to produce at Lakshmi Sahakari Sarafi Mandali for the loan of Rs. 10,000/- which he wanted to take for repairing his shop. That at that time, the accused had told him that an amount of Rs. 625/- is pending, which was to be paid as a tax to the Gram Panchayat and the complainant had Rs. 550/- which he had given to the accused. That the accused had made a receipt, but as the accused did not have remaining amount of Rs. 75/- the accused went to collect the amount of Rs. 75/- from the complainant at his shop. That accused was entitled to collect the revenue on the property and it is on record that at the time of the trap an amount of Rs. 550/- was seized from the pocket of the accused and as per the say of the complainant, they were 11 notes of the denomination of Rs. 75/- from the complainant at his shop. That accused was entitled to collect the revenue on the property and it is on record that at the time of the trap an amount of Rs. 550/- was seized from the pocket of the accused and as per the say of the complainant, they were 11 notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/- each which were paid by the complainant to the accused towards the outstanding amount of tax. That the defence of the accused is plausible and when the complainant has categorically stated that the accused did not demand any amount of illegal gratification from him, but when he had gone to Gram Panchayat office in the morning, some other person had demanded the amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 75/- from him. The complainant has also stated that he had verbal altercation with the accused and hence he had filed a case against the accused. 12. That, even at the time of the trap, in the presence of the panch witness, no demand for illegal gratification was made and the accused had merely given the certificate to the complainant and without demanding for any illegal gratification, the complainant had given the amount of Rs. 75/- which were the tainted currency notes which was accepted by the accused and placed in his pocket. That even at that time, there is no evidence that the accused had demanded for any amount of illegal gratification from the complainant. The prosecution has not examined the competent authority who had granted the sanction for prosecution and Prosecution Witness No. 3 Hareshbhai Shantilal Pancholi was the Junior Clerk who was merely produced the documents. There is no iota of evidence that the order of sanction for prosecution was given after proper application of mind by the competent authority and it is on record that Prosecution Witness No 5 Dhanidan Bhavanidan Charan was the person before whom the complainant had filed the complaint and had thereafter arranged for the trap and had thereafter conducted most of the investigation. That only the sanction for prosecution was received by next the Investigating Officer i.e. Police Inspector, Mr. C.M. Zala, who had filed the charge-sheet. That only the sanction for prosecution was received by next the Investigating Officer i.e. Police Inspector, Mr. C.M. Zala, who had filed the charge-sheet. That this creates a huge doubt on the case of the prosecution and the credibility of the Investigating Officer as in his deposition, he himself has categorically stated that he was present when the complaint was filed, was a member of the raiding party and after the trap was successful, he had taken over the investigation. In the entire evidence, the basic ingredients of demand is not established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts, and when the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand beyond reasonable doubts, the recovery of tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused would not be sufficient to convict the accused and the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act would not be available to the case of the prosecution. That the learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. 13. 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 dated 20.02.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 7, Rajkot in Special (ACB) Case No. 6 of 1994 is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds stand canceled. 14. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.