JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 378(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 4th Fast Track Court, Banaskantha at Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special ACB Case No. 78 of 2004 on 16.05.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) 1, 2, 3 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as “the PC Act” for short). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as the accused as he stood in 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 the In-Charge Resident Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Palanpur and the accused no. 2 was a peon at the Civil Hospital, Palanpur and they both were public servants. That the complainant – Azizahmed Khan Firozkhan Sindhi – Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, Palanpur had received secret information that the government employees/officers were taking illegal gratification and had decided to arrange for a decoy trap at the Civil Hospital, Palanpur. That the Police Inspector - Azizahmed Khan Firozkhan Sindhi had received information that the Medical Officers at Civil Hospital at Palanpur were taking illegal gratification for issuing certificates and the same was verified and found to be correct and hence, Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav who was working in the Locust Regulation Officer was confidentially contacted and taken into confidence and he had agreed to cooperate in the matter. That on 16.03.2004, the trap was arranged and the panch witnesses were called to the ACB Office on 17.03.2004. That the decoy - Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav was told to go along with the shadow witness to the Civil Hospital and get his case registered at the window for issuance of cases and to contact the Medical Officer and demand for a medical certificate for rest of one month and if the demand for illegal gratification was made, to give the tainted currency notes and give the predetermined signal. That the decoy was given four currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- and two currency notes of Rs. That the decoy was given four currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- and two currency notes of Rs. 50/- each which were laced with phenolphthalein powder and the decoy - Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav and the panch witnesses were explained about the characteristics of the phenolphthalein powder and the solution of sodium carbonate. That the tainted currency notes were placed in the shirt pocket of the decoy - Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav and the decoy and the shadow witness went to the Civil Hospital and the other panch witnesses and the members of the raiding party followed them. That the accused no. 1 had demanded for the amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 250/- and the accused no. 2 had accepted the same and after the predetermined signal was given, the members of the raiding party rushed and caught the accused red handed. That the complaint was filed under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) 1, 2, 3 and 13 (2) of the PC Act at the ACB Police Station, Palanpur which was registered as I – C.R. No. 1/2004 on 17.03.2004. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses, drew the necessary panchnamas and after the order of sanction for prosecution was received from the Competent Authority, the charge-sheet against the accused was filed before the Sessions Court, Banaskantha at Palanpur which was registered as Special ACB Case No. 78/2004. 2.2 The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and after the procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was followed, a charge at Exh. 17 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused nos. 1 and 2 were recorded at Exh. 18 and Exh. 19 respectively, wherein, the accused have denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.3 The prosecution has produced the following oral evidences in support of their case. Sr. No. PW Particulars Exh. 1. 1 Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav 30 2. 2 Pravindan Ravidan Gadhvi 33 3. 3 Azizahmed Khan Firozkhan Sindhi 52 4. 4 Hathiji Becharji Chavda 61 2.4 The prosecution has produced the following documentary evidences in support of their case. Sr. No. Particulars Exh. 1. Yadi 34 2. Case registered at Civil Hospital by Decoy 35 3. Case registered at Civil Hospital by panch 36 4. 2 Pravindan Ravidan Gadhvi 33 3. 3 Azizahmed Khan Firozkhan Sindhi 52 4. 4 Hathiji Becharji Chavda 61 2.4 The prosecution has produced the following documentary evidences in support of their case. Sr. No. Particulars Exh. 1. Yadi 34 2. Case registered at Civil Hospital by Decoy 35 3. Case registered at Civil Hospital by panch 36 4. Seizure Memo 37 5. Panchnama 38 6. Complaint 53 7. Dispatch note 54 8. Receipt 55 9. Receipt 56 10. Receipt 57 11. Receipt of muddamaal received at FSL 62 12. Letter of FSL 63 13. Report of FSL 64 14. Letter of Deputy Secretary 65 15. Order of sanction for prosecution 66 & 67 2.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis at Exh.68, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and after the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by an judgment and order dated 16.05.2007 was pleased to acquit the accused from all the offences. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the entire evidence produced by the prosecution on record and the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to the law and evidence on record. That the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the complainant had received a secret information that the accused who were discharging their duties at the Civil Hospital, Palanpur were demanding illegal gratification from the persons who wanted to obtain treatment certificate and the decoy had agreed to cooperate with the Police Inspector, ACB Police Station. That the decoy went to the Hospital to take the certificate and he had got his case issued and had gone to meet the accused no. 1 where the accused no. 1 had told him to go with the accused no. 2 and give the amount which was placed in the shirt pocket of the accused no. 2. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated that the tainted currency notes were in fact, recovered from the possession of the accused no. 2 and there is enough evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. 2. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated that the tainted currency notes were in fact, recovered from the possession of the accused no. 2 and there is enough evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. That Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav has fully supported the case of prosecution and has stated that during the course of the conversation, the accused had demanded the amount of illegal gratification and the tainted currency notes were handed over to the accused no. 2 and he had taken them by his left hand and placed them inside the shirt pocket. That only after the acceptance of the tainted currency notes, the predetermined signal was given and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused no. 2 red handed. That even the shadow witness has supported the case of prosecution but the learned Trial Court has not relied on the evidence of the shadow witness. That the complainant and the Trap Laying Officer – Mr. Azizahmedkhan Firozkhan Sindhi have fully supported the case of prosecution and he was the officer to catch the accused no. 2 red handed. That the learned Trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that there are major discrepancies in the deposition of the witnesses even though the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated that the Investigating Officer has followed the entire procedure before arranging the trap which was successfully carried out. That even the sanction for prosecution was given by the Competent Authority and the learned Trial Court has erred in disbelieving the oral and documentary evidence of the prosecution which has resulted into a miscarriage of justice. That the reasons stated by the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused are improper, perverse and bad in law and the acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is unwarranted, illegal and having no basis in the eye of law. That even otherwise, the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be quashed and set aside and the accused must be found guilty for the said offences. 4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for the appellant and learned senior advocate Mr. Tejas Barot assisted by learned advocate Ms. 4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for the appellant and learned senior advocate Mr. Tejas Barot assisted by learned advocate Ms. Riya Patel for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence produced by the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for the appellant has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution and has submitted that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has proved that PW1 – Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav was the decoy and the trap was arranged and the shadow witness and the decoy witness had gone to meet the accused no. 1 and at that time, the accused no. 2 on behalf of the accused no. 1 had demanded for the amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 250/-. That when the decoy - Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav met the accused no. 1, the accused no. 1 had told him to go with the accused no. 2 and at that time, the accused no. 2 had told the decoy to put the amount of illegal gratification in his pocket and the predetermined signal was given and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused no.2. That even the shadow witness has fully supported the case of prosecution and the prosecution has proved the entire case beyond reasonable doubts but the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence and has wrongly acquitted the accused. Learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt has urged this Court to reappreciate the entire evidence and allow the appeal and convict both the accused for all the offences. 6. Learned senior advocate Mr. Tejas Barot assisted by learned advocate Ms. Riya Patel has submitted that as per the settled principles of law and especially the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248. The prosecution must prove the demand which is a sine qua non for the offences under the PC Act. It is mandatory for the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance by a public servant in order to establish the guilt of the accused and the fact can be proved either by direct evidence or the oral evidence. The prosecution must prove the demand which is a sine qua non for the offences under the PC Act. It is mandatory for the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance by a public servant in order to establish the guilt of the accused and the fact can be proved either by direct evidence or the oral evidence. If the entire evidence of the prosecution is perused, it has come on record that the decoy had never met the accused no. 1 and it is the defence of the accused that the decoy has forcibly tried to put the tainted currency notes in the pocket of the accused no. 2 and that defence is probable which has been considered by the learned Trial Court. That there are major contradictions in the evidence of the decoy and the panch witness and the panchnama states a third aspect and the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in correct perspective. That the learned Trial Court, in the well reasoned judgment has considered all the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution and has also considered the fact that the Investigating Officer – Hathiji Becharji Chavda was a member of the raiding party and he was along with the complainant and the other members of the raiding party right from the time when the trap was arranged and the complaint was filed and he had investigated the offence which has cast a shadow of doubt in the credibility of the case of prosecution. That the learned Trial Court has fully appreciated all the evidences in proper perspective and no order of interference is required and learned advocate for the respondent has urged this Court to dismiss the appeal of the appellant. 6.1 Learned advocate for the respondent has relied on P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2015)10 SCC 152 , wherein, the 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. reported in (2015)10 SCC 152 , wherein, the 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. 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. 6.2 Learned advocate for the respondent has relied on K. Shanthamma Vs. State of Telangana reported in (2022) 4 SCC 574 , wherein, the Apex Court in para 17 has observed as under: 17. Thus, the version of PW1 in his examination-in-chief about the demand made by the appellant from time to time is an improvement. As stated earlier, LW8 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. 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. 6.3 Learned advocate for the respondent has relied on Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) through his legal representative Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2017) 8 SCC 136 , wherein, the 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. 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. 6.4 Learned advocate for the respondent has relied on Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. 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. 6.4 Learned advocate for the respondent has relied on Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248, wherein, the Apex Court in para 68 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 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. (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.” 7. The Apex Court in the case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2018, in para 9, has observed as under: 9……. The law with regard to interference by the Appellate Court is very well crystallized. Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with the same would not be warranted. Though, there are a catena of judgments on the issue, we will only refer to two judgments which the High Court itself has reproduced in the impugned judgment, which are as reproduced below: “13. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P. (2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court has held that:- "In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and !aw. 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. 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." 14. Similar, In case of Harljan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat (2016) 12 SCC 665 , the Supreme Court has held that:- "No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the same. However, this does not mean that in all the cases where the trial court has recorded acquittal, the same should not be interfered with, even if the view is perverse. Where the view taken by the trial court is against the weight of evidence on record, or perverse, it is always open far the appellate court to express the right conclusion after reappreciating the evidence If the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt on record, and convict the accused." 8. As discussed above and with regard to the law settled in acquittal appeals and interference of the Appellate Court in acquittal appeal, the evidence adduced by the prosecution on record is required to be reappreciated and the prosecution has produced the evidence of PW1 – Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav at Exh. 30. The witness has stated that he was working as a peon in the Plan Protection Office, Locust Regulation Office, Palanpur for the past 25 years and on 16.03.2004, Police Inspector –Mr. M.M. Joshi of the ACB Office, Palanpur had called him and had told him that there is a report about illegal gratification being demanded by the employees at the Civil Hospital, Palanpur. That he had agreed to cooperate with them and four currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each and two currency notes of Rs. 50/- each were given to him and a shadow witness was sent along with him. That he had agreed to cooperate with them and four currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each and two currency notes of Rs. 50/- each were given to him and a shadow witness was sent along with him. That necessary instruction were given to him and accordingly he went to the General Ward at Civil Hospital, Palanpur and asked someone that he wanted a certificate but he was told to go to the RMO and at that time a constable was with him. That they all had gone to the Civil Hospital, Palanpur in a rickshaw and Police Inspector – Mr. M.M. Joshi, Mr. Sindhi, Mr. Chavda and the constable and the panch witness from the Forest Department were with him. That he had registered his case and he had gone to the RMO and told him that he want the medical certificate but the RMO told him to go outside. That when he went outside, he met the peon who asked him why he had come and he had told him that that he wanted a certificate and he was told that the certificate would cost Rs. 250/-. That he had bargained with the peon who had told him that he would ask the doctor and tell him. That he has identified both the accused before the learned Trial Court. That the accused told him to come to the cash window and when they went to the cash window, the accused no. 2 told him to put the amount in his pocket and hence, he took two tainted currency notes of Rs. 100/- each and put them in the pocket of the accused no. 2. That he bargained with the accused no. 2 and told him to take Rs. 50/- less but the accused no. 2 refused and said that the doctor has said no and hence, he took one currency note of denomination of Rs. 50/- and gave it to the accused no. 2 which was accepted by the hand. That the constable who was standing besides him, immediately caught the accused no. 2 and the other members of the raiding party came and took the accused no. 2 to the chamber of the accused no. 1. That a report was prepared but he does not know what was written in the report. 2 which was accepted by the hand. That the constable who was standing besides him, immediately caught the accused no. 2 and the other members of the raiding party came and took the accused no. 2 to the chamber of the accused no. 1. That a report was prepared but he does not know what was written in the report. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had not told the ACB official that he had gone to the General Ward as the ACB Constable was with him. That the writer was preparing the documents and there were no other persons with him. That around 40 persons were standing in a line at the cash window in the Civil Hospital, Palanpur and in his deposition, in the departmental inquiry at Gandhinagar, he had stated that when he went to the window to get his case papers, there were 40-50-100 persons present there. That Police Inspector – Mr. M.M. Joshi had come to his house at around 08.00 - 08.30 in the morning and he knew Police Inspector – M.M. Joshi since a long time before the case. That the ACB Officer had not instructed him to give the amount if the peon demanded for the same and he had immediately entered the RMO’s chamber and there were two to four persons in the chamber of the RMO. He does not know as to in which hand the peon had taken the currency note of Rs. 50/- and as soon as the peon had taken the currency note of Rs. 50/-, the ACB Officer had caught him. That when he came out of the chamber of the RMO, the ACB personnel were writing something. 8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 – Pravindan Ravidan Gadhvi at Exh. 33 and this witness is the shadow witness who had accompanied the decoy – Kailashdan Dukhandan Yadav. The witness has sully supported the case of the prosecution and has narrated all the events that has unfolded from the time he was called to the ACB Office and has stated that he and the other panch witness R.A. Parghi had gone to the ACB office. The witness has stated that the accused no. 1 had told the decoy to give the amount to the accused no. The witness has stated that the accused no. 1 had told the decoy to give the amount to the accused no. 2 and the accused 2 took the decoy towards the cash window and had accepted the amount of illegal gratification which was recovered from his pocket. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he and the decoy had stood in the line to get the case registered and there was a huge crowd of people and they had to wait for about half and hour. That when the crowd had reduced, the peon had told the decoy to go inside, and he went in and came out immediately. That the accused no.1 had made the sign and asked the decoy to go out and the room of the accused was about 20 feet long and 10 feet wide. That he does not know as to whether the amount that was used in the trap was government money or not and on the date of the trap, the Police Inspector Mr. Chavda and Police Inspector Mr. Sindhi were present from the beginning till the end. That the panchnama was being dictated by Chavda Saheb and his writer was writing the same. That Sindhi Saheb and Chavda Saheb were present at the time they were introduced and Mr. Sindhi did not tell that he had received information that the peon was demanding for any amount of illegal gratification. 8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 – Azizahmedkhan Firozkhan Sindhi at Exh. 52 and this witness is the complainant and the Trap Laying Officer who had received the secret information and had decided to arrange for the trap. The witness has fully supported the case of prosecution and has stated that he had contacted Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav and taken him into confidence and arranged for the trap. That the said Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav had agreed to cooperate in the matter and he had gone to the Civil Hospital with the shadow witness after the entire procedure of phenolphthalein powder and solution of sodium carbonate was explained and carried out in their presence. That the said Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav had agreed to cooperate in the matter and he had gone to the Civil Hospital with the shadow witness after the entire procedure of phenolphthalein powder and solution of sodium carbonate was explained and carried out in their presence. That the currency notes were laced with phenolphthalein powder and given to the said decoy - Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav and after the trap was successful, the complaint was filed by the witness under Section 7, 12, 13(1)(d) 1, 2, 3 and 13(2) of the PC Act. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that on the day of the trap, he and Police Inspector – Mr. Chavda were both posted at the ACB Police Station at Palanpur and Police Inspector – Mr. Chavda was with him from the beginning of the trap till the end. That as he and Mr. Chavda were working together, whenever he is the Trap Laying Officer, Mr. Chavda would be the Investigating Officer and if Mr. Chavda had arranged for the trap, the witness would be the Investigating Officer. That he does not remember exactly as to when he had received the secret information prior to 16.03.2004 and he did not try to get the complaint filed by Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav. That the offence was registered on 17.03.2004 at 17.30 hours and before the complaint was registered, no procedure under Section 154 or Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was done. That he had not verified as to whether any person had paid for any amount of illegal gratification and taken any certificate. That he had not heard the conversation between the accused and the decoy, and the shadow witness did not inform him about the conversation between the accused and the decoy. That when they went to the accused, they did not confirm with the accused that the hands of the members of the raiding party were not laced with phenolphthalein powder. That the muddamaal currency notes were not sent to the FSL and no experiment was done in the first part to confirm whether the presence of phenolphthalein powder was on the currency notes or not. That before the currency notes were given to the decoy, no filter paper was rubbed on the currency notes and no solution of sodium carbonate as sprinkled on the filter paper. That before the currency notes were given to the decoy, no filter paper was rubbed on the currency notes and no solution of sodium carbonate as sprinkled on the filter paper. 8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 – Hathiji Becharji Chavda at Exh. 61 and this witness is the Investigating Officer who has investigated the offence and has recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and after the order of sanction for prosecution was received, the charge- sheet was filed before the Competent Court. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that no sample of phenolphthalein powder was taken and sent to the FSL and no statements of any government employees who had earlier taken the certificate for medical leave were recorded. That on 23.03.2004, he had recorded the statements of Chhaganbhai Valjibhai Parmar and Niravbhai Kaushikbhai Patel who both were staff members of the Civil Hospital. That he was with the raiding party from the beginning of the trap and was in the ACB Office and Civil Hospital with Police Inspector – Mr. Sindhi. 9. On appreciation of entire evidence of the prosecution, it is on record that the decoy - Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav had gone to the Civil Hospital, Palanpur and had met the accused no. 1. There is no iota of evidence that the accused no. 1 had demanded for any amount of illegal gratification to give the certificate to the decoy - Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav. As per the case of prosecution, the accused no. 2 had told the decoy - Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav to come to the cash window and had told him to place the currency notes in his pocket and thereafter the decoy placed two currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- each in the pocket of the accused no. 2 and thereafter, the accused no. 2 demanded for the further amount of Rs. 50/- which was received by him in his hands. There is no clarification as to why the accused no. 2 went to the cash window where there were a number of people and in the presence of a large number of people, had asked the amount of illegal gratification and moreover, in the first instance had told the decoy - Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav to place the currency notes in his pocket and thereafter, immediately had accepted the currency note of Rs. 50/- with his hands. It is on record that there was a huge crowd of people even outside the RMO’s Office and the decoy and the panch witness had to wait for a long time. That the decoy has stated that he had immediately gone into the chamber of the RMO and the shadow witness has not stated that the accused no. 2 had told the decoy - Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav that he would not take the amount of money in his hands and to place it in his pocket. That there are contradictions in the evidence of the decoy - Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav and the evidence of the panch witness - Pravindan Ravidan Gadhvi and the learned Trial Court has discussed all these contradictions in detail. The panch witness has stated that the panch no. 2 was asked to recover the tainted currency notes from the pocket of the accused no. 2, whereas, the decoy is silent about who had recovered the amount from the pocket of the accused no. 2. That even in this aspect, there is contradiction in the evidence of the decoy and the panch witness which has been considered at length by the learned Trial Court. 10. On minute dissection of the evidence, there is nothing on record to suggest that the amount of illegal gratification was demanded by the accused no. 1 and if the defence of the accused no. 2 is perused, the accused no. 2 has stated that the decoy had forcibly placed the currency notes in his pocket which seems to be a plausible defence. The case of the prosecution that the accused no. 2 had told the decoy to place the currency notes in his pocket is not believable as immediately he is said to have accepted the currency note of Rs. 50/- with his hands. Moreover, it has come on record that the Investigating Officer – Police Inspector Mr. Hathiji Becharji Chavda was a member of the raiding party and was with the raiding party and the complainant – Police Inspector – Mr. Azizahmedkhan Firozkhan Sindhi right from the time; the trap was arranged till the investigation was over and this creates a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution and the credibility of the case of prosecution. Moreover, it has also come on record from the deposition of Mr. Azizahmedkhan Firozkhan Sindhi right from the time; the trap was arranged till the investigation was over and this creates a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution and the credibility of the case of prosecution. Moreover, it has also come on record from the deposition of Mr. Azizahmedkhan Firozkhan Sindhi that whenever the trap was arranged by him, the Investigating Officer would be Mr. Hathiji Becharji Chavda and whenever Mr. Hathiji Becharji Chavda would arrange for the trap, the same would be investigated by the complainant - Mr. Azizahmedkhan Firozkhan Sindhi. 11. The learned Trial Court has, in the impugned judgment and order recorded the findings that the prosecution has not proved the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubts and has also observed that the accused have not made any demand for any illegal gratification from the complainant even at the time of the trap. There is no iota of evidence regarding the prior demand, if any, made by the accused and in view of the settled position of law and decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeraj Datta (supra) and appraisal of the evidence produced by the prosecution, the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court are just and proper. This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court is completely justified in acquitting the accused from all the charges levelled against them and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court. This court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court and finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. 12. In view of the above discussions, the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly the same is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 4th Fast Track Court, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Special ACB Case No. 78 of 2004 on 16.05.2007 is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.