JUDGMENT 1. - This is leave to appeal against the judgment dated 23.3.99 passed by learned Sessions Judge (Anti Corruption Cases), Bikaner In Regular Anti Corruption Case No. 892 whereby the respondent Ashok Kumar has been acquitted of the offence under section 7 and 13(1)D read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and also learned counsel for the accused-respondent. The allegation against the respondent is that, while working in the office of Dy. District Education office (Rural), Padampur, he demanded Rs. 400/- from the complainant Angrej Singh, PW/1 teacher in Govt. Middle School, Jalloki for passing and making payment of his fixation arrear bill. it is alleged that Dy. S.P. Anti Corruption, Sriganganagar arranged a trap on 1.2.91 in which the respondent accepted a illegal gratification of Rs. 400/- from Angrej Singh and he was immediately caught, the money was recovered from his pocket and all other formalities and investigation was also completed. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the respondent-accused was prosecuted for the alleged offences, which ended in acquittal as stated above. 3. The learned Sessions Judge has formulated three points for determination and appreciated the statements of Had Ram Dy. S.P Angrej Singh complainant and all other prosecution witnesses. The following conclusion was drawn by the learned trial court. 1. Since the petitioner had passed bill of one Shri Sunit Khanna prior to the bill of the complainant, the petitioner felt annoyed and he had threatened the respondent to be ready to face consequences. 2. The learned trial court while dealing with the prosecution evidence has considered the contradictions in the statements, particularly about the acceptance of illegal gratification by the respondent from the complainant, Angrej Singh. The complainant in his written report Ex.P. 1 stated that the last demand was made on 1.2.91 but, in the statement in the court he stated that the last demand was made on 22-23.1.91. 3. It has been proved by the prosecution witnesses that the bill No. 333 Ex.P. 1 for sum of Rs. 91,000/- including the arrear amount of complainant was passed well before 1.2.91 i.e. on 25.1.91 and cheques were also issued on 31.1.91. It is also established that the pay-day was 8.2.91. Therefore, already necessary action had been taken for passing the bill and issue cheques for payment. 91,000/- including the arrear amount of complainant was passed well before 1.2.91 i.e. on 25.1.91 and cheques were also issued on 31.1.91. It is also established that the pay-day was 8.2.91. Therefore, already necessary action had been taken for passing the bill and issue cheques for payment. Therefore, the complainant is unbelievable that the respondent accused demanded illegal gratification on 1.2.91 on the day when trap was laid by Dy. S.P. Hari Ram. All these facts have been proved by the prosecution witnesses. 4. As soon as the money was recovered from the respondents, he immediately gave explanation that Angrej Singh had returned the money which he had borrowed from him. This fact has also been fully supported by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Trial Court has not found the testimony of Angrej Singh reliable and held that it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the money was delivered by the complainant Angrej Singh towards the demand of alleged illegal gratification. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has mainly argued that the explanation of the respondent is false because on the one hand he says that Angrej Singh was enemical to him and on the other hand, it cannot be accepted that Angrej Singh borrowed money from him. The amount has been recovered from his pocket, and the colour of phenophthal in was found on his hands. But, in my view this circumstance is not sufficient to fasten the guilt upon the respondent.In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case emerging from the prosecution witnesses itself and the findings given by the learned Sessions Judge, I find that there is no cogent reason to grant leave to appeal. The findings given by learned Sessions Judge are well merited and based on proper appreciation of the prosecution evidence. In my opinion, I do not see any scope to hold a different view. The impugned judgment does not suffer any infirmity of misreading or ignoring any prosecution evidence or appreciation of evidence against the well established principles laid down for so evaluating it. In the result, the leave to appeal is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******