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 14.9.2004 rendered by learned Special Judge, (ACB, Fast Track Court No. 2), Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad in Special Case (ACB) No. 4 of 1997.

2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant is holding the agricultural land as well as two jeeps and both the vehicles are being plied on rent through the driver and when there vehicles are not on rent, the same are being plied from Dhandhuka to Barwala for passengers. It is alleged that since both the vehicles are being plied frequently for passengers, the police personnel of Barwala Police Station demanded Rs. 1500/- towards illegal gratification. As the complainant did not want to give the said amount of illegal gratification, he lodged the complaint before the ACB office.

3. 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.

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

3.2 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.

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

5. 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.

6. Ms. Bhavini Jani, learned advocate with Mr. Rohan Raval, learned advocate for the appellant has taken this Court through the evidence of the witnesses as well as impugned order and argued that since the complainant has disowned the complaint itself except his signature over the plain paper and that he has not stated anything in his complaint and went to the extent that accused No. 2 was not PSI at the relevant time at the said place and none of the accused has ever demanded any illegal gratification and therefore, in absence of evidence of the complainant, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish vital ingredients as regards to demand, acceptance and recovery. She has submitted that though panch No. 1 who was accompanied with the complainant has fully supported the case of the prosecution, but his evidence is secondary and in view of the clear ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Selvaraj Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2015) 10 SCC 230 as well as in B. Jayaraj Vs. State of A.P., reported in AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 1837, in absence of the evidence of the complainant, though corroborative evidence of panch may be available on record, no conviction can be sustained. Lastly, Ms. Jani requested this Court to allow the present appeal.

7. On the other-hand, Mr. K.P. Rawal, learned APP has supported the judgment rendered by learned trial Court. He submitted that this is a fit case wherein learned trial Court has considered voluminous evidence in its proper perspective and rightly convicted the accused which calls for no interference. He further submitted that finding recorded by learned trial Court is based upon the concrete and clinching evidence. He submitted that learned trial Court has recorded ample reasons based on the evidence on record for convicting the appellant a