JUDGMENT 1. - State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the order dated November 27, 2001 of Special Judge Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota in Sessions Case No. 54 of 1997 whereby the accused respondent was acquitted of the charge under sections 13(1)(e) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on April 5, 1996 the Dy. Superintendent of Police at 4.00 p.m. On receiving an information from informant that Suraj Prakash Mathur, Ex. En. PHED Sawai Madhopur is going to Jodhpur with heavy bribe money in a brief case with him. On this information Dy. S.P. Called two independent witnesses namely Deepak Gandhi, Junior Accountant and Shyam Sunder, LDC of Assistant Labour Commissioner Sawai Madhopur in whose presence at Railway Station Sawai Madhopur the accused respondent was checked and in his brief case Rs. 1,56,307 in cash and pass book No. 11820 of Post Office and 19 Unit of Bhartiya Unit Trust of Rs. 10,000 and Four six yearly National Saving Certificate of Rs. 57,000 and Four Indra Vikas Patra of Rs. 800 were found. The accused respondent could not give satisfactory answer for this money. In this manner the accused respondent was charged for having huge money with him received through illegal sources. An FIR was registered and thereafter case No. 3 100/96 for offences under sections 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered and after investigation the statements of witnesses Shyam Sunder and Deep Gandhi under section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused respondent was again asked about the money with him on which he could not give satisfactory answer about receiving of money Rs. 1,44,250/- with him and only stated that this money is of his savings. Thereafter the accused respondent submitted written letter that he has received Rs. 1,50,000 from one Umesh Vijay for treatment of his wife on April 3,1996, for which he has also applied for privilege leave on March 8, 1996 for 15.4.96 to 14.5.96. As the department could not receive satisfactory answer from the accused respondent after receiving sanction from the Govt. filed challan against him. On January 15, 1998 the trial court heard arguments on framing of charge against the accused respondent for the offence under sections 13(1)(e)and 4 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As the department could not receive satisfactory answer from the accused respondent after receiving sanction from the Govt. filed challan against him. On January 15, 1998 the trial court heard arguments on framing of charge against the accused respondent for the offence under sections 13(1)(e)and 4 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial court framed the charge against him and the accused respondent denied the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined 12 witnesses. The statement of accused respondent under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and in defence the accused respondent produced 14 witnesses. After hearing arguments the trial court acquitted the accused respondent vide judgment dated November 27, 2001 and acquitted the accused respondent for the charges levelled against him and his defence case was accepted. Against this order of acquittal the State preferred leave to appeal and after leave was granted the same was registered as appeal and hence this appeal. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the trial court has not appreciated the prosecution witnesses in a proper manner. The prosecution has been 5 able to prove his case by independent witnesses but even then the trial court accepted the defence version and acquitted the accused respondent for the charges levelled against him. The trial court gave a finding that the accused respondent taken money from Umesh Vijay for treatment of his wife and thereafter his wife was also treated at Bombay. The Public Prosecutor dis-satisfied with the defence version argued that the explanation given by the accused respondent was not satisfactory and hence he should be convicted for the charges levelled against him. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Nawab Ali, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondent, contended that the trial court has considered each and every aspect of the case and nothing remains more to be considered by this court in appeal. The trial court by a detailed judgment accepted the defence version of the 6 accused respondent. The trial court rightly acquitted the accused respondent for the charges levelled against him in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The judgment passed by the court below is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. The trial court rightly acquitted the accused respondent for the charges levelled against him in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The judgment passed by the court below is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the trial court. The court's attention was drawn on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that "it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below." 6. For these reasons the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is dismissed after confirming the judgment dated November 27, 2001 passed by the Special Judge, Sessions 7 Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota.State Appeal Dismissed. *******