The present State ap peal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12-12-1980 passed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, ac quitting the respondent Ishwar Din from the charges under Section 161, I. P. C. and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corrup tion Act. The State, aggrieved by the said judgment and order filed the present ap peal. 2. It is said that respondent Ishwar Din, being Lekhpal in Tnhsil Sadar, Lucknow, on 24-2-1978 at about 2. 00 accepted the illegal gratification of Rs. 50 from the complainant Chandra Kumar Shukla (P. W. 1) in front of the Kanungo Office situated in the office of Tahsil, Police Sta tion Wazirganj, Lucknow. 3. According to the case of the prosecution, complainant Chandra Kumar Shukla (P. W. I) was appointed on the post of Co-operative Auditor in the office of the U. R Co-operative Societies Department on 22-2- 1978. It is said that he was required to furnish a certificate with regard to the immovable properties belonging to him and his family members. Therefore, Chandra Kumar Shukla (P. W. 1) approached the respondent for issue of the said certificate. He accordingly applied to the Tahsildar, Tahsil Sadar, Lucknow for issue of the said certificate on 22-2-1978. On the said application the Reader of the Tahsildar made some endorsement and directed him to approach the Supervisor Kanungo and then he Supervisor Kanun go forwarded his application to the Lekhpal Ishwar Din respondent. It is said that respondent Ishwar Din made enquiry and thereafter he demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 50 from the com plainant for submitting a favourable report. It is said that Chandra Kumar Shukla then moved an application Ext. Ka-1 to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Lucknow, on 24-2-1978 pointing out that the accused demanded illegal gratification for submitting favourable report. The S. P. (Vigilance) made an endorsement on the said applica tion directing A. P. Chaturvedi and Yadupal Singh, Inspectors Vigilance to look into the matter and take necessary action. Both these Inspectors thereafter arranged a trap and reached Tahsil Office alongwith the complainant. They also called two public witnesses namely Gopal Pandey and Gur Prasad. It is said that Inspector A. B. Chaturvedi took Rs. 50 from the complainant which consisted of two notes of Rs. 20 each and one note of Rs. Both these Inspectors thereafter arranged a trap and reached Tahsil Office alongwith the complainant. They also called two public witnesses namely Gopal Pandey and Gur Prasad. It is said that Inspector A. B. Chaturvedi took Rs. 50 from the complainant which consisted of two notes of Rs. 20 each and one note of Rs. 10 and after putting his initials on them and applying Phenophthelein powder thereon, handed over the same to the com plainant. It is said that ishwar Dm was working in the verandah in front of the office of Supervisor Kanungo, therefore, the complainant approached him there and gave Rs. 50 as bribe money to Ishwar Din. It is further said that Ishwar Din ac cepted the said money and kept them in the pocket of his coat. All the above men tioned facts were fully witnessed by the Vigilance Inspector as well as public wit nesses by the Vigilance Inspectors ap peared before Ishwar Din and disclosed their identity. A search was made of the person of Ishwar Din and on search they recovered Rs. 50 from the left side lower pocket of the coat of the respondent-ac cused along with some notes. The numbers of the notes noted in the memo, were tallied with the notes recovered from the possession of the accused and the hands and the coat pocket of the accused as well as the hands of the complainant Chandra Kumar Shukla were got washed in separate solution of sodium carbonate and the same were kept in separate phials. The Vigilance Inspectors also prepared memo Ext. Ka-3 on the spot. Thereafter Inspec tor Yadupal Singh along with the accused went to Police Station Wazirganj and lodged a written report Ext. Ka-4 on the basis of which case Crime No. 158 under Section 161, Cr. P. C. and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered on 24-2-1978 at 3. 25 p. m. Here it may be pointed out that as soon as Vigilance Inspector Yadupal Singh along with the accused left the Tahsil building, some qurrel took place between the offi cials of the Tahsil Sadar on one side and Chandra Kumar Shukla complainant and A. B. Chaturvedi Inspector on the other on the ground that they had snatched away money from the Nazir of Tahsil Sadar. Both officers were detained in the office and, thereafter, an information was sent to the Police Station for help. An entry was made in the General Diary at about 4. 00 p. m on the same day. It is said that finally S. P. Yogendra Pal moved an application for sanction before the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate granted sanction for prosecution of the respondent. On receipt of the said sanction the Investigat ing Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused-respondent. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined eleven witness, P. W. 1 Chandra Kumar Shukla is the person who moved application before the Vigilance Officer informing him that the respondent was demanding illegal gratification for issue of certificate. He also stated that he offered illegal gratification to the respon dent. P. W. 2 Gopal Pandey is the public witness who stated that he accompanied the raiding party and Shri Shukla handed over Rs. 50 to the accused-respondent as illegal gratification. P. W. 3 Chandra Pal Singh is the Vigilance Inspector and he was one of the members of the raiding party P. W. 4 Gur Prasad is another witness who accompanied the raiding party. P. W. 5 Ram Ajore Tewari is the Upper Divisional Clerk P. C. E Co-operative Societies who stated that Chandra Kumar Shukla was selected and appointment letter was is sued and he was asked to submit a certifi cate with regard to his properties. P. W. 6 Raja Ram Singh, is the Head Moharir Police Station Wazirganj who stated that the F. I. R. was lodged in this case and on report of the F. I. R. , he registered as case and made other entries in the General Diary, P. W. 7 Yogendra Narain was the District Magistrate, Lucknow, who proved the sanction granted by him for the prosecution of the respondent-accused. P. W. 8 Raj Bahadur Singh was the Con stable Vigilance Department. He stated that he brought two phials and one en velope to the office of the Chemical Ex aminer, Agra and handed over the same to the Chemical Examiner and thereafter again handed over the report of the Chemical Examination at the Police Sta tion. P. W. 9 Beni Bahadur Singh was the Head Constable Police Station Wazirganj, Lucknow. He stated that he sent Rs. P. W. 9 Beni Bahadur Singh was the Head Constable Police Station Wazirganj, Lucknow. He stated that he sent Rs. 50 two phials containing the solution of sodium carbonate and the phenophthelein pow der and the coat of the accused to the Chemical Examiner, Agra through Con stable Lal Singh and made entry in the General Diary. P. W. 10 Constable Lal Singh stated that he brought the above mentioned things to Agra and thereafter returned the same to the Police Station Wazirganj. P. W. 11, S. I. , M. P. Singh is the Investigating Officer who investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against the accused. 5. On the other hand, the accused denied the prosecution case and stated that he had not received any application for submitting report as alleged by the complainant Chandra Kumar Shukla (P. W. 1 ). He also stated that the story of the prosecution about the acceptance of the illegal gratification is fictitious one and he was implicated falsely in this case. He fur ther stated that he was sitting in the Tahsil Room and was doing his work. Shri Shukla approached him and prayed for issue of a certificate but on his enquiry as to whether any application has been moved or not, he stated that he had already moved applica tion yesterday (23-2-1978 ). He further stated that Shri Shukla that he moved and application only yesterday but he needed certificate immediately and, therefore, the same be issued. As the accused refused to issue the certificate without enquiry, therefore, Shri Shukla started quarrelling with the respondent and in the meantime some Vigilance persons reached there and fabricated this case against the respon dent- accused. 6. The learned VI Additional Ses sions Judge, Lucknow, after considering the evidence on record came to the con clusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, ac quitted the accused-respondent giving him benefit of doubt. 7. The State, aggrieved by the said judgment and order filed the present ap peal before this Court. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the State as well as the counsel for the respondent Shri Parmeshwar Dayal. 9. He, therefore, ac quitted the accused-respondent giving him benefit of doubt. 7. The State, aggrieved by the said judgment and order filed the present ap peal before this Court. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the State as well as the counsel for the respondent Shri Parmeshwar Dayal. 9. The State counsel tried to show that the Court below committed an error in appreciating the evidence of the wit nesses who stated that a trap was organized and an amount of Rs. 50 was recovered from the pocket of the respondent. But we find no force in the said contention. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has al ready considered the evidence of two public witnesses as well as Vigilance Of ficer and thereafter recorded a finding that all these witnesses are not worthy to be relied upon and it appears that some of the public witnesses were either not present on the spot and were got up witnesses or they were introduced falsely in this case. P. W. 1 Chandra Kumar Shukla stated that he moved an application on 22-2-1978 before the Tahsildar upon which the Pesh- kar of the Tahsildar made some endorse ment and directed him to meet respondent Ishwar Din. It is not disputed that the said application has neither been recovered from the possession of the respondent Ish war Din nor it was placed before the Court. However it is not disputed that on 28-2-1978 Chandra Kumar Shukla moved an application before the Registrar Co operative Societies for issue of appoint ment letter and the same was issued to him on the same day. If no such application was moved before 28-2-1978, then the ques tion of issue of certificate does not arise. P. W. 1 Chandra Kumar Shukla admits that after moving the application before the Tahsildar, the said application was never seen by him. According to P. W. 1 Chandra Kumar Shukla money was handed over to the respondent openly and at the said time, several persons were going and coming to the said place. According to P. W. 1. P. W. 1 Chandra Kumar Shukla admits that after moving the application before the Tahsildar, the said application was never seen by him. According to P. W. 1 Chandra Kumar Shukla money was handed over to the respondent openly and at the said time, several persons were going and coming to the said place. According to P. W. 1. Chandra Kumar Shukla, respondent was sitting in the room and in fact money was handed over to him in the room and the said money was also recovered from the room, whereas the other witnesses stated that the respondent was sitting in the Verandah and in the Verandah itself he was arrested but thereafter he was brought to the room and thereafter, all the papers were prepared inside the room. One of the witness further stated that the respondent was brought to the room and the money was with the Vigilance Inspector and thereafter the Vigilance Inspector driven out all the persons from the room and the room was locked from inside and there after all the memos were prepared. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting the respondent has considered this aspect in great detail and we find no illegality in the said finding. Apart from the P. W. 2 Gopal Pandey initially stated that he was not familiar with P. W. 1 Chandra Kumar Shukla prior to the date of the incident and he had never talked with P. W. 1. However, it is not disputed that both these witnesses are the residents of the same Mohalla Chhilwapur Khas. Apart from this P. W. 1 Chandra Kumar Shukla admitted that he was familiar with P. W. 2 Gopal Pandey. It is surprising that the persons residing in the same Mohalla and familiar with each other met at the Tehsil and they were made witnesses in this case. The witnesses tried to conceal this fact, therefore, in our opinion, the learned Court below committed no illegality in holding that these witnesses are not telling the correct facts. P. W. 4 Guru Prasad is another public witness. He is admittedly a resident of village Raipur Police Station Mall Districts Lucknow which is situate at a distance of 31 Kilometers from Lucknow City. P. W. 4 Guru Prasad is another public witness. He is admittedly a resident of village Raipur Police Station Mall Districts Lucknow which is situate at a distance of 31 Kilometers from Lucknow City. It is also admitted by him that he was an accused in a case under Section 302, I. P. C. It is also admitted that constable Shukla who called this witness was pre viously posted at Police Station Mall and was familiar to this witness. P. W. 4 Guru Prasad further stated that he did not see from where the Vigilance Inspector picked up the notes but he admitted that when he reached there he found the notes in the hands of the Inspector. He also admitted that no altercation took place on the spot. This fact also not correct because there was some altercation and even Marpit took place at the said time and both the parties lodged counter claims at Police Station Wazirganj, District Lucknow. Again one more damaging fact for the prosecution is that the articles sent for chemical examination were returned back by the Examiner unexamined because, the same were not sealed. It is also not dis puted that only the currency notes which and phials were sent for Chemical Ex amination but coat alleged to be taken possession of, on the spot was not sent for Chemical Examination. Apart from this it is also pointed out that the prosecution has tried to show that required empty phials were not available to the raiding party but there is nothing on record to show that there was any shortage of phials or how the party tried to obtain these required num ber of phials but failed to get it. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while considering all these facts of the case and the fact that in view of the lack of chemical test and negligence of the raiding party and further in view of the contradictory stand of the witnesses later that it is not possible to say that the prosecution has successful proved the guilt against the respondent and we find no illegality in the said finding. 10. 10. It is settled law that the High Court is always reluctant to interfere in the finding recorded by the trial Court unless the approach made by the lower Court to he consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusions recorded by the Court below are such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting judicially. Apart from this it is also the settled law that if there are two views possible on appraisal of the evidence and the Court below has taken a view which is possible one, then it will not be proper for the appellate Court to interfere into the said finding. In the instant case as pointed out above the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is a well reasoned judg ment and order and is based on evidence. The State Counsel has failed to find out any illegality or perversity as mentioned above and, therefore, in our opinion, the State appeal has no force and deserves to be dismissed. 11. The appeal has no force and is, therefore, dismissed. The respondent is on bail. He need not surrender. Appeal dismissed. .