R.P. Dholaria, J.

1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 19.1.2004 rendered by learned Special Judge, Amreli in Special Case No. 97 of 2001.

2. Today, when the matter is called out, it is pointed out by Mr. Panchal, learned senior advocate that the appellant - original accused has died on 23.11.2005 and his heirs and legal representatives have been brought on record vide order dated 16.12.2005 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14738 of 2005 and hence, the present Criminal Appeal is continued and pending for final disposal.

3. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that accused No. 1 demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1500/- for running two stage carriage buses of the complainant from Savarkundla to Ahmedabad. It is alleged that as the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he lodged the complaint. It is the case of the prosecution that in pursuance of the complaint, on 23.8.1996 around at 19.30 hours, the trap was carried out and during the trap, tainted currency notes were found and thereby the accused has committed the offence, as alleged.

4. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the appellant accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

4.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined three witnesses and also produced documentary evidences.

4.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court.

6. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of conviction. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is required to be reversed, as such.

7. Mr. J.M. Panchal, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. K.J. Panchal, learned advocate for the appellant has taken this Court through the evidence of the witnesses as well as impugned order and argued that in the present case, there is no iota of evidence available on record to link the accused with the crime in question. He submitted that in such case of bribery, vital ingredients i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. He submitted that so far as predemand is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove the same as it is the case of the prosecution that predemand was raised on 19.8.1996 in the evening time, however, at the relevant time, the accused was present in the meeting called by the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Mahuva which is the distant place from Savarkundla i.e. 60 kms. and the accused attended the conference from 4.00 pm to 7.30 pm and hence, predemand as alleged in the complaint at Exh.11 is not being established. He further submitted that in view of the evidence of the complainant himself, the complainant firstly tried to hand over the money to the accused No. 1 at the time of trap but accused No. 1 directed the complainant to hand over it to accused No. 2 and thereafter the complainant came out from the chamber of accused No. 1 and proceeded on the open road and again the complainant entered into the chamber of accused No. 1 and then came out and gave prearranged signal and hence members of the raiding party as