JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THE State through Lokayuktha calls in question the acquittal of the respondent-accused by the trial Court in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13 (l) (d) read with 13 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. ( 2. ) THE case of the prosecution in brief is to the effect that the respondent herein, while working as the Food Inspector, Srirangapatna town, demanded and accepted Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification from complainant Govindaraja for doing an official favour in the form of enabling the complainant to secure the licence as a kerosene dealer as the accused was required to forward the application. Based on the complaint lodged by P.W. 1 Govindaraja with the lokayuktha Police as per Ex. P-2, the entrustment mahazar was conducted and thereafter, the complainant, accompanied by the shadow witnesses and the trap officials, went to the place of the accused and it is alleged that the accused demanded and accepted the illegal gratification in the form of Rs. 500/- from the complainant in order to forward the application of the complainant towards securing the licence as a kerosene dealer. ( 3. ) THE trap mahazar was drawn as per Ex. P-10 and, as the hands of the accused were tested positive when immersed in sodium carbonate solution and as the currency notes worth Rs. 500/- were recovered from the pocket of the accused, on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the respondent in respect of the offences first above mentioned. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 6 and 21 documents were marked in evidence apart from producing 9 materials objects, including the currency notes (M.O.4). The accused's stand was one of denial when questioned under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. and he led no evidence in support of his defence. ( 4. 1 to 6 and 21 documents were marked in evidence apart from producing 9 materials objects, including the currency notes (M.O.4). The accused's stand was one of denial when questioned under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. and he led no evidence in support of his defence. ( 4. ) THE learned trial judge, after appreciating the evidence on record, found that the complainant did not support the prosecution case and so also the shadow witness P.W. 5, and coupled with that, the Court also found defect in the sanction order and all these led to the trial Court taking the view that the prosecution had not brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, the order of acquittal was passed in favour of the respondent and thereby driving the State to prefer this appeal. I have heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri P. M. Nawaz for the State and the learned Counsel Shri C.G. Sundar for the respondent and perused the entire material on record. ( 5. ) THE submission of the appellant's Counsel is that the currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the accused and the lands of the accused were also tested positive when immersed in sodium carbonate solution and, therefore, the presumption arises by virtue of Section 20 of the P. C. Act. Even the complainant as well as the shadow witness have also spoken to the fact of the currency notes being found in the pocket of the accused. No explanation was forthcoming from the accused as to how the currency notes got into his pocket. Therefore, the trial Court could not have acquitted the accused. ( 6. ) THE further submission made is that the trial Court erred in finding infirmity in the sanction order when the sanctioning authority i. e. , P.W. 3 shanthakumari, has deposed in her evidence about the documents which were perused by her before coming to the conclusion with regard to the prima facie case in existence against the accused. Therefore, the said finding of the trial Court cannot be sustained in law particularly having regard tot he law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State by Police inspector Vs. T. Venkatesh Murthy, reported in 2005 (1) Kar. L.J. 41. Therefore, the said finding of the trial Court cannot be sustained in law particularly having regard tot he law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State by Police inspector Vs. T. Venkatesh Murthy, reported in 2005 (1) Kar. L.J. 41. Hence, the appellant's Counsel sought for reversing the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and to convict the respondent-accused for the offences with which he stood charged. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent, while supporting the judgment of the trial Court, contended that as the complainant as well as the shadow witness have failed to support the prosecution case, both with regard to the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification by the accused, mere recovery of currency notes from the possession of the accused itself will not be sufficient to hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and there is a lot of difference between "may be true" and "must be true" and the said distance has not been travelled by the prosecution in the instant case. ( 7. ) FURTHERMORE, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the accused had no role to play insofar as the application submitted by the complainant is concerned because, it has come in the evidence of the I.O. examined as P.W. 6 that the application had been forwarded by the accused on 25. 8. 1992 and a report was submitted by the food Inspector on 8. 10. 1992 and an order was also passed on 27.11.1992 and, therefore, the question of the accused having to do anything with the application of the complainant that too after a group of two years does not arise. ( 8. ) IT is then contended by the learned Counsel that the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand by the accused and, therefore, the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act is not available for the prosecution to press into service. Once the complainant and the shadow witness turned hostile, there is no other evidence to support the prosecution case. No independent corroboration was also placed on record through any of the witnesses. As such, the acquittal of the respondent requires no interference by this Court having regard to the scope of the appellate Court in interfering with ah order of acquittal. No independent corroboration was also placed on record through any of the witnesses. As such, the acquittal of the respondent requires no interference by this Court having regard to the scope of the appellate Court in interfering with ah order of acquittal. In support of the above submissions, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the decisions reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5824, 1996 SCC (Cri.) 897, 2006 ) 3 KCCR 1445, (2007)3 SCC (Cri) 175, 2000 SCC (Cri.) 878 and 2000 (4) Crimes 162. One other submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the respondent had been exonerated in the departmental proceedings held on the very same charges and, therefore, he could not be convicted even on this score and in support of the said submission, the learned Counsel drew my attention to a decision of this Court in Cri. R. P. No. 1047/2002 dated 11. 8. 2005 and also referred to the ruling of the Apex court in the case of P. S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1996 SCC (Cri) 897, in this connection. ( 9. ) HAVING thus heard both sides, the only point for consideration is whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court calls for interference at the hands of this Court. ( 10. ) HAVING examined the evidence placed on record carefully, I find that complainant Govindaraja, examined as P.W. 1, has failed to support the prosecution case by deposing to the effect that the accused did not demand any money nor talk anything about the money and also says that even when the complainant tendered the currency notes, the accused refused to take them and they were then kept on the table drawer of the accused. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 1 fails to establish the first ingredient of demand being made by the accused. P.W. 5 Narasappa is the shadow witness and he also tows the line of the complainant by stating that the accused did not demand any money from Govindaraja, though this witness that says the currency notes were removed from the pocket of the accused. The evidence of P.W. 5, shadow witness, therefore, is of no avail to the prosecution. ( 11. The evidence of P.W. 5, shadow witness, therefore, is of no avail to the prosecution. ( 11. ) THE rest of the evidence on record, though brings out the fact of the currency notes being recovered from the pocket of the accused and his hands being tested positive, yet, they themselves are not sufficient to hold that the accused did demand illegal gratification of Rs. 500,/- from the complainant and received the same. Since the complainant and the shadow witnesses do not speak about the demand made by the accused, I am of the view that the evidence of the other witnesses placed on record cannot in any way help the prosecution in order to establish the demand made by the accused. ( 12. ) THE trial Court has, therefore, considered the position in law by referring to various decisions of the Apex Court in this regard and the view taken by the trial Court cannot be said to be an unreasonable view of the material on record. The decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent are also in support of the findings recorded by the trial court. Once the demand is not proved and the complainant and the shadow witness failed to support the prosecution case, it cannot be said on the basis of mere recovery of the currency notes from the pocket of the accused that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The order of acquittal passed, therefore does not call for any interference. As far as the sanction order is concerned, it has to be mentioned that P.W. 3 has deposed in the course of her evidence about the documents referred to by her before according sanction to prosecute the accused. In view said evidence of P.W. 3, I do not see any defect in the sanction order and, as such, insofar as the said finding of the trial Court is concerned, the same cannot be held to be sustainable in law. Unfortunately, for the other reasons stated by me, notwithstanding the sanction order being valid in law, the same cannot undo the damage caused to the prosecution case by P.W. I complainant and P.W. 5 shadow witness. ( 13. Unfortunately, for the other reasons stated by me, notwithstanding the sanction order being valid in law, the same cannot undo the damage caused to the prosecution case by P.W. I complainant and P.W. 5 shadow witness. ( 13. ) AS far as the decision referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent with regard to the respondent being exonerated in the departmental proceedings and, therefore, no criminal case could have been initiated against him is concerned, the said submission is being made too late in the day inasmuch as the accused did take part in the trial and it is only after the prosecution led evidence and upon an appreciation of the evidence on record that the trial Court rendered the judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused. ( 14. ) IN the light of the aforesaid reasoning, I am of the view that the order of acquittal passed does not call for any interference as the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view emerging from the totality of the evidence on record. Hence, I pass the following order: