JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.11.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Session Court (Prevention of Corruption Act), Udaipur in Special Case No. 5/97 by which the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges for the offence u/s. 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(D)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1947'). 2. It arises in the following circumstances:- On 7.4.1988, PW-1 Madhav Singh lodged a written report Ex.P/2 in the office of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti-corruption Department, Udaipur stating inter alia that his brother Khuman Singh had 4 1/2 bighas of land in village Kareli and for getting electric connection for that land, an application was filed by his father in the year 1981 in the office of the Assistant Engineer, RSEB, Sarada and thereafter, requests were being made regularly for releasing the connection, but the connection was not given so far. However, on 30.3.1988, a demand notice of Rs. 800/- was received by him at his house at Jhadol through AD from Electricity Department and that amount was to be deposited before 31.3.1988 and that notice was in the name of his brother Khuman Singh. It was further stated in the report Ex.P/2 by PW-1 Madhav Singh that though on 31.3.1988, there was holiday on account of Mahaveer Jayanti, but even then he went to the office of the Assistant Engineer, Electricity Department, Sarada for depositing the said amount, where he met with Peon, who took him to the house of the Assistant Engineer P.C. Pali (accused-respondent) and the accused-respondent demanded Rs. 2,000/- for releasing the connection, upon which PW-1 Madhav Singh told the accused-respondent that he had no money and ultimately, it was settled that Rs. 1,000/- would be given by PW-1 Madhav Singh to the accused-respondent. Thereafter, Rs. 800/-, which was demanded through notice, and Rs. 50/- for "L" Form, were taken by the accused-respondent from PW-1 Madhav Singh and got deposited in the date of 29.3.1988 and the accused-respondent also gave receipt to PW-1 Madhav Singh for the said amount. Thereafter, the accused-respondent used to demand again and again bribe of Rs. 1,000/- for releasing the connection and it was settled that on 7.4.1988, PW-1 Madhav Singh would give Rs. 1,000/- to the accused- respondent in his office. Thereafter, the accused-respondent used to demand again and again bribe of Rs. 1,000/- for releasing the connection and it was settled that on 7.4.1988, PW-1 Madhav Singh would give Rs. 1,000/- to the accused- respondent in his office. On this report Ex.P/2, PW-12 Gopal Lal Tiwari, Addl. SP made further proceedings and the report Ex.P/2 was read over to PW-1 Madhav Singh, who admitted it to be correct. For making trap proceedings, PW-12 Gopal Lal Tiwari vide letter dated 7.4.1988 through PW-5 Jitendra Kumar made a request to Director, S.I.E.R.T., Udaipur to make available two Gazetted Officers as witnesses and upon this, PW-2 Homi Kawasji and PW-3 Jagdish came and they were introduced to the complainant PW-1 Madhav Singh and the report was also read over to them and both of them were agreeable to become witnesses to the trap proceedings. Thereafter, PW-1 Madhav Singh handed over 10 notes of 100/- each denomination and on each note, PW-12 Gopal Lal Tiwari put his initial below "Ashok emblem". Thereafter, PW-12 Gopal Lal Tiwari demonstrated the use of phenolphthalein powder to the complainant PW-1 Madhav Singh and the witnesses PW-2 Homi Kawasji and PW-3 Jagdish and then, sprinkled the phenolphthalein powder on the ten currency notes and thereafter, handed over the ten currency notes to the complainant PW-1 Madhav Singh, who kept the same in the watch pocket of the pent. The complainant PW-1 Madhav Singh was instructed to give the currency notes when the bribe was to be demanded by the accused-respondent and then gave signal to the members of the trap party by scratching the head and he was also instructed not to shake hand with the accused-respondent. The complainant PW-1 Madhav Singh was also given tape recorder and he was also explained its use and he was also instructed to start the tape recorder when he was to enter the room of the accused-respondent. The complainant PW-1 Madhav Singh kept the tape recorder in his bag. A trap panchanama was also not prepared. Thereafter, on 7.4.1988 at about 2.10 p.m., PW-12 Gopal Lal Tiwari, Addl.SP alongwith motbiran Dinesh Chandra Choudhary (PW-4) independent witnesses PW-2 Homi Kawasji and PW-3 Jagdish Dutt Sharma, complainant PW-1 Madhav Singh and others proceeded in a jeep towards Sarada. The complainant PW-1 Madhav Singh kept the tape recorder in his bag. A trap panchanama was also not prepared. Thereafter, on 7.4.1988 at about 2.10 p.m., PW-12 Gopal Lal Tiwari, Addl.SP alongwith motbiran Dinesh Chandra Choudhary (PW-4) independent witnesses PW-2 Homi Kawasji and PW-3 Jagdish Dutt Sharma, complainant PW-1 Madhav Singh and others proceeded in a jeep towards Sarada. At about 3.45 p.m. they reached Sarda, where they got down PW-1 Madhav Singh from the Jeep near Panchayat Samiti and asked him to go to the office of the accused-respondent and the members of the trap party followed him and the members of the trap party took positions outside the office of the accused-respondent waiting for the agreed signal from the complainant PW-1 Madhav Singh. At about 4.15 p.m. the complainant PW-1 Madhav Singh gave agreed signal by scratching the head and upon this,members of the trap party and motbiran entered the room of the accused- respondent and PW-5 Jitendra Kumar and PW-6 Bhanwar Singh caught hold the accused-respondent's hand above wrist and PW-4 Dinesh Chandra Choudhary gave his introduction by showing his identity card and on being asked, the complainant PW-1 Madhav Singh informed that he had given notes in bribe to the accused-respondent, but the accused-respondent denied to have taken notes. Thereafter, trap box was got arranged through PW-8 Bharat Singh. Thereafter, one glass of water was got arranged through Peon Kodar and one spoon sodium carbonet powder was put in the water and thereafter, the right hand of the accused-respondent was got washed in that glass of water, as a result of which the water became dirty and that water was kept in two separate bottles and sealed separately on the spot and marked as R.H. 1 and R.H. 2. Thereafter, one glass of water was also got arranged through the said Peon Kodar and in that glass of water also, one spoon sodium carbonet powder was put and then, the left hand of the accused-respondent was got washed in that glass of water, as a result of which, the colour of the water became light pink and that water was kept in two separate lottles and sealed separately on the spot and marked as R.H. 1 and R.H. 2 On being asked as to where the notes were kept, the accused- respondent told that he did not take any bribe and he further told that if anybody came to his office for electric connection and kept anything for that he was not responsible. Thereafter, on being asked, the complainant PW-1 Madhav Singh told that the accused-respondent kept the bribe notes under the iron tray of files lying on the table and upon this, PW-3 Jagdish Dutt Sharma was asked to make search near and under the tray and upon this, he found Rs. 1,000/- there and on these notes, under the "Ashok emblem", initials of PW-12 Gopal Lal Tiwari, Addl. SP were found and the same were seized and sealed on the spot. The electric connection file pertaining to Khuman Singh, brother of the complainant PW-1 Madhav Singh, was also seized by the police. The cassette of the tape recorder was also sealed separately on the spot. The accused-respondent was arrested and he was released on bail. Thereafter, a report was sent to the Head Officer for registering FIR against the accused-respondent for the offence u/ss. 161 IPC and 5(1)(D)(2) of the Act of 1947 and on this, FIR Ex.P/22 was chalked out. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused-respondent for the offence u/s. 161 IPC and 5(1)(D)(2) of the Act of 1947 in the Court of Special Judge, ACD Cases, Udaipur. On 15.12.1989, learned Special Judge, ACD Cases, Udaipur framed charges for the offence u/s. 161 IPC and 5(1)(D)(2) of the Act of 1947 against the accused-respondent. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-respondent. who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 12 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-respondent u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence, one witness was produced by the accused-respondent. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-respondent. who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 12 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-respondent u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence, one witness was produced by the accused-respondent. After conclusion of trial, the learned Special Judge, Session Court (Prevention of Corruption Act), Udaipur through judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.11.1998 acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges for the offence u/ss. 161 IPC and 5(1)(D)(2) of the Act of 1947 holding inter alia:- (i) that there is no dispute on the point that formalities for releasing the electric connection to Khuman Singh, brother of the complainant PW-1 Madhav Singh, had already taken place on 31.3.1988 and Rs. 800/- had already been deposited on 29.3.1988. (ii) That there is also no dispute on the point that work order was issued on 30.3.1988 and order for releasing the connection was issued on 31.3.1988. (iii) That there is also no dispute on the point that on 31.3.1988, PW-1 Madhav Singh went to the office of the accused-respondent and this facts was admitted by the accused-respondent himself. (iv) That from the statements of PW-10 Devilal and PW-1 Radhamohan Sharma, it is established that on 31.3.1988, PW-1 Madhav Singh was making noise in the office of the accused-respondent and he was stating "You all are thief' and he made quarrel. It was also established that when PW-1 Madhav Singh made much hue and cry, the accused-respondent asked the Peon to shunt PW-1 Madhav Singh out from the office and upon this, he gave warning while leaving the office. (v) That most of the prosecution witnesses have stated that at the time of alleged trap, many people assembled there and they all were saying that actually the main culprit was JEN Mahesh Chandra Sidhana and the police had arrested wrong person (accused-respondent) and this fact was even stated by the complainant PW-1 Madhav Singh and PW-12 Gopal Lal Tiwari. (vi) That PW-1 Madhav Singh has further admitted in his statement recorded in Court that it is not clear who had come in the house of his father on 29.3.1988. (vii) That the fact that accused-respondent demanded bribe on 4.4.1988 while he was passing through Bapu Bazar is not found in the report Ex.P/2. (vi) That PW-1 Madhav Singh has further admitted in his statement recorded in Court that it is not clear who had come in the house of his father on 29.3.1988. (vii) That the fact that accused-respondent demanded bribe on 4.4.1988 while he was passing through Bapu Bazar is not found in the report Ex.P/2. Therefore, from this point of view also, the statement of the complainant PW-1 Madhav Singh was not believed by the learned Special Judge. Thus, the learned Special Judge gave benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent and acquitted him of the charges framed against him. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.11.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Session Court (Prevention of Corruption Act), Udaipur, this appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan. 3. In this appeal, it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that since Rs. 1,000/- were recovered below the iron tray of the files lying on the table belonging to the accused-respondent, therefore, that was sufficient evidence to connect the accused-respondent with the commission of crime and thus, the learned Special Judge has committed illegality in acquitting the accused-respondent. Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal be set aside and the accused-respondent be convicted and sentenced for the offence u/ss. 161 IPC and 5(1)(D)(2) of the Act of 1947. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent has supported the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Session Court (Prevention of Corruption Act), Udaipur. 5. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and gone through the record of the case. 6. To establish the offence u/s. 161 IPC and under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act for which the accused-respondent was charged, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients:- (i) The accused was a public servant or expected to be a public servant at the time when the offence was committed. (ii) The accused accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain illegal gratification from some person. (iii) for himself or for any other person. (iv) Such gratification was not a remuneration to which the accused was legally entitled. (ii) The accused accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain illegal gratification from some person. (iii) for himself or for any other person. (iv) Such gratification was not a remuneration to which the accused was legally entitled. (v) The accused accepted such gratification as a motive or reward for, (a) doing or forbearing to do an official act, or (b) doing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to someone in the exercise of his official functions, or (c) rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to some one with the (Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or with any public servant." 7. Apart from this, the principles of law regarding the appreciation of evidence in bribery or trap cases may be summarised as follows:- (a) That the burden of proving the prosecution case, generally lies on the prosecution even in case of trap or bribery this burden is not shifted by Section 4 of the Act of 1947 (now Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1988'); (b) That Section 4 has not limited application only for raising of presumption regarding the motive of the taking of money provided it is proved that the money was obtained or accepted by the accused. (c) That even in raising the presumption u/s. 4 of the Act of 1947 acceptance or obtaining must be wilful, voluntary and with conscious mind; (d) That even where such a presumption is drawn, the accused can rebut it by showing there is a plausible explanation and the basis of preponderance of probability of other theory. (e) That the accused is not required to rebut this presumption by leading evidence beyond reasonable doubt. But all that is required to show is to establish preponderance of probability in his favour. (f) That the witnesses of trap are not to be discharged as accomplice but in a given case the Court can insist on independent corroboration for believing their testimony." 8. Keeping the above principles of law in mind, the facts of the present case are being examined. 9. PW-1 Madhav Singh, who lodged the report Ex.P/2, has admitted the following facts : (i) That on the day of alleged incident, many people assembled and they all were saying that wrong person had been arrested. Keeping the above principles of law in mind, the facts of the present case are being examined. 9. PW-1 Madhav Singh, who lodged the report Ex.P/2, has admitted the following facts : (i) That on the day of alleged incident, many people assembled and they all were saying that wrong person had been arrested. (ii) That his father told him that a person of the office of Electricity Department was demanding money and he did not disclose the name of that person. (iii) That a demand of Rs. 2,000/- as bribe was made by JEN. (iv) That his father told him that JEN was demanding money, but he did not mention his name. 10. PW-2 Homi Kawasji is an independent witness. He has been declared hostile. He has stated that it is correct to say that when the accused-respondent was arrested, about 400-500 persons were assembled. Another independent witness is PW-3 Jagdish Dutt Sharma. 11. PW-4 Dinesh Chandra Choudhary has admitted the fact that outside the office of the accused-respondent, many persons assembled and they all were saying that JEN was also thief. Similar is the statement of PW-10 Devi Lal and PW-11 Radha Mohan Sharma. 12. PW-12 Gopal Lal Tiwari is the IO in this case and he has admitted that before the alleged incident, electric connection had already been released to Khuman Singh, brother of PW-1 Madhav Singh and when the alleged incident took place, many persons assembled there and they were all saying that wrong person had been made accused in this case. 13. On the basis of the above evidence, the learned Special Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused-respondent for the offence u/s. 161 IPC and 5(1)(D)(2) of the Act of 1947 and this, by giving benefit of doubt, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused-respondent of the said charges. 14. In my considered opinion, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous especially keeping in mind the discussion of evidence just made above. 14. In my considered opinion, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous especially keeping in mind the discussion of evidence just made above. When there is a clear cut evidence of the prosecution witnesses that JEN might be the accused and the person, who went to the house of the father of the complainant PW-1 Madhav Singh for demanding bribe, was JEN, therefore, in these circumstances, if the learned Special Judge has given the benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent, no illegality has been committed by the learned Special Judge in doing so. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Autar Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1979 SC 1188 has held as under:- "..... In an appeal against acquittal the powers of the High Court in dealing with the case are as extensive as of the trial Court, but before reversing the acquittal, the High Court should bear in mind that the initial presumption of the innocence of the accused is in no way weakened, if not reinforced, by his acquittal of the trial, and further, the opinion of the trial Court which had the advantage of observing the demeanour of the witnesses, as to the value of their evidence should not be lightly discarded. Where discarded. Where two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, and the trial Court has opted for one favouring acquittal, the High Court should not disturb the same merely on the ground that if it were in the position of the trial Court, it would have taken the alternative view and convicted the accused accordingly." 16. In Dhan Kumar v. Delhi Municipality, AIR 1979 SC 1782 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "It is well-settled that if two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, one favouring acquittal and the other conviction, the High Court should not reverse the order of acquittal." 17. In Ramji Suriya v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1983 SC 810 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "While there is no doubt that the jurisdiction of an appellate Court is coextensive with that of the trial Court, in the case of an appeal against a judgment of acquittal it cannot totally brush aside the appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court. The reasons for reversing a judgment of acquittal should be cogent and if two views are reasonably possible, the appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the judgment of the trial Court even if it is possible for it to take a different view after a process of laborious reasoning ....." 18. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases,.the impugned judgment and order of acquittal do not require any interference by this Court as the findings of acquittal are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record. It cannot be said that the approach made by the learned Special Judge to the consideration of the evidence in the present case is vitiated by manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the learned Special Judge is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and thus, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal cannot be characterised as perverse. If two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence available on record and the Court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the Appellate Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal. 19. For the reasons stated above, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.11.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Session Court (Prevention of Corruption Act), Udaipur and thus, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******