JUDGMENT (ORAL) Ashok Agarwal, J. - An order of acquittal for an offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is impugned in the present appeal. 2. The learned Judge of the trial Court has given several cogent reasons for arriving at the order of acquittal. In my view, for the purposes of disposing of the present appeal only one ground may be mentioned, as, in my view, the same is sufficient to up-hold the order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused. 3. According to the prosecution the accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 100/- for the purpose of doing an official act namely to issue an extract of record of rights in favour of the complainant in respect of Gat No. 492 by deleting the name of his father who had did on the 29th of July, 1978. According to the complainant - P.W. 2 -Dongar Sonu Dhangar the amount was demanded and accepted, for doing the aforesaid official act. As far as the accused is concerned, he has accepted the fact that he received the amount on the date of the trap. According to him, he asked the complainant to invest an amount of Rs. 100/- in small Savings. He promised to get the extract of the record of rights issued in favour of the complainant through the Talathi Shri Thorat. In this context, this is what the complainant has stated in P.W.s 4 in his cross-examination. I am reproducing the relevant portion of the notes of evidence ad verbatim. "Q: - Whether the accused had told you that if you invested Rs. 100/- then he shall give a certified copy of the 7/12 extract? A:- The accused so saying, but I felt that he is making some pretext for extracting the amount. (The learned P.P. objected to the ambiguity of the word 'Invested' (Hindi Word) in the question). It is true that accused had said me that he shall get my work done through one Thorat. I was not knowing Mr. Thorat whom accused was referring to. I did not ask any explanation either to the accused or to Sakharam Chavan as to what the accused, was saying to me i.e. he shall issue me certified copy of 7/12 extract on investment of Rs. I was not knowing Mr. Thorat whom accused was referring to. I did not ask any explanation either to the accused or to Sakharam Chavan as to what the accused, was saying to me i.e. he shall issue me certified copy of 7/12 extract on investment of Rs. 100/- and he shall get done my work through Mr. Thorat." It would, thus, appear that the above admission makes good the defence of the accused that what he received was not towards an illegal gratification but was towards an investment in small, savings. This is just one of the grounds which has been taken into account by the learned Judge of the trial Court for recording the order of acquittal. The said ground, in my view, is sufficient to uphold the said finding. In the circumstances, in my view, the impugned order of acquittal deserves to be uphold and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. In the result, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, passed on the 24th of June, 1983, by the learned Special Judge, Dhule, in Special Case No.1 of 1982 acquitting the respondent/original accused, of the offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is maintained and the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if executed shall stand cancelled. Appeal dismissed.