Judgment A.L. Dave, J.—This is an Appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code to challenge acquittal of the respondents in Special Case No. 8 of 1988 by the Presiding Officer, Special Court Ahmedabad (Rural) by judgment and order dated 12.7.1991 where they came to be tried for offences punishable under Sections 161 and 165A of Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 Sub-section (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case against the respondents - original accused was that complaints were received by the Director of Anti-Corruption Bureau that bribe is demanded from the driver/owner of the truck carrying cattle from Saurashtra to South Gujarat like Jetput, Gondal, Atkot, Jasdan, Vichhiya, Paliyad, Raipur, Dhandhuka, Bagodara, Vadodara etc. by either Police Personnel or from the Regional Transport Authority. On the basis of such information complaint was lodged and it was decided to have raid with a decoy trap. The panch witnesses were called who showed their readiness to participate in such a running trap and on the date of incident i.e. 26.9.1987 such a trap was arranged with the help of the driver of truck No. GTG-2619 who agreed to work as decoy. A preliminary panchnama in this regard was drawn at Nani Parabdi Seva Sahkari Mandli’s Office where five currency notes of denomination of Rs. 20/- and ten notes of denomination of Rs. 10/- were treated with anthracene powder and put in the pocket of driver - Bhanubhai Devdanbhai Ahir, who was directed to give these notes if such demand is made on the way and then to give a signal to the members of the raiding party. When the truck reached near Dhandhuka cross roads at about 5:25 a.m. on 26.9.1987 it was intercepted by two persons wearing uniform and one person in plain clothes who ultimately turned out to be accused Nos. 2 and 3 and accused No. 1 respectively. An amount of Rs. 20/- was demanded from the driver - Bhanubhai Devdanbhai Ahir by them. The driver requested to exempt him in light of the drought situation but they persisted their demand. The driver, therefore, took out a currency note for denomination of Rs. 20/- which was put in his pocket after treating with the anthracene powder and gave it to person in uniform. The driver requested to exempt him in light of the drought situation but they persisted their demand. The driver, therefore, took out a currency note for denomination of Rs. 20/- which was put in his pocket after treating with the anthracene powder and gave it to person in uniform. It is, however, the case of the prosecution that the person not in a uniform intervened and took that money from the driver and put it in his pocket. He was accused No. 1. The driver of the truck gave signal to the raiding party by clearing his throat loudly and the members of the raiding party immediately went there. The accused No. 1 was caught on the spot whereas accused Nos. 2 and 3 fled away. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No. 1 was then taken to the official jeep car, was made to sit, was examined under anthracene powder and panchnama was drawn on the spot. Thereafter, the accused No. 1 was taken to the ACB office, and was formally arrested and other procedure followed. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 came to be arrested later on and T.I. Parade was conducted on 10.12.1987 where they were not identified by any of the witnesses. Ultimately charge-sheet was filed and the respondents came to be tried before the trial Court. The trial Court framed charge against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and came to be tried. The trial Court after considering the evidence led before it came to the conclusion that the prosecution was not successful in establishing the charge against the accused persons and recorded their acquittal. Against the said acquittal present Appeal is preferred. 2. When the Appeal came up for admission hearing on 8.4.1992 this Court admitted the Appeal only in respect of the original accused No. 1 - Respondent No. 1 - Pravinsinh Mohansinh and dismissed it in respect of other two accused persons, namely, Vikramsinh Amarsinh and Abdulbeg Umravbeg. 3. This Court is, therefore, required to examine the Appeal only in respect of original accused No. 1 - Respondent No. 1 herein. 4. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.R. Pujari and learned Advocate Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala, for the Respondent No. 1. We have been taken through the record and proceedings. 3. This Court is, therefore, required to examine the Appeal only in respect of original accused No. 1 - Respondent No. 1 herein. 4. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.R. Pujari and learned Advocate Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala, for the Respondent No. 1. We have been taken through the record and proceedings. On perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution we find that as per the evidence no sooner Respondent No. 1 caught hold of the currency note offered to him by the driver the Head Constable - Ghanshyamsinh Natubha apprehended him and then took him to Jeep Car nearby where allegedly Respondent No. 1 was examined under anthracene powder. The prosecution failed to examine Head Constable - Ghanshyamsinh Natubha. Failure on the part of the prosecution to examine such an important witness will have its own bearing on the prosecution case. We also find that as per the evidence of the Investigating Officer he admits that second part of the panchanama was drawn at the office of the Dhandhuka Police Station whereas the original prosecution as emerged from the papers of charge-sheet and FIR is that the second part of panchanama was drawn at the spot itself. This would be a major lacuna in the prosecution case. When the T.I. Parade was arranged in respect of accused Nos. 2 and 3, Head Constable - Ghanshyamsinh Natubha was not called as witness to identify the same for the reasons best known to the prosecution or investigating agency. It also emerges from the evidence that Rs. 20/- note offered to and accepted by accused No. 1 was then taken by Head Constable - Ghanshyamsinh Natubha. Contrary to this, driver - Bhanubhai Devdanbhai Ahir says that this note was taken by Shri G.K. Raval - Police Inspector and then it emerges in evidence that stains of anthracene powder were not found on the fingertip or palm of Shri G.K. Raval. It also appears that Shri G.K. Raval has put this currency note in the suitcase, despite that there are no stains of anthracene powder noticed on his fingertips or palm. Evidence of the Investigating Officer also reveals that the panchnama was drawn at Dhandhuka Police Station and some gap had remained between the signature and the body of the panchanama wherein he had subsequently filled up certain details. Evidence of the Investigating Officer also reveals that the panchnama was drawn at Dhandhuka Police Station and some gap had remained between the signature and the body of the panchanama wherein he had subsequently filled up certain details. He, therefore, admits interpolation in the panchanama in absence of panch witness and this aspect is fortified by the fact that the panch witness says that the panchnama contains certain things which did not appear when he put the signature. It is also worthy to note that one of the panch witnesses chose not to support the prosecution case. 5. If the above aspects are considered, it would certainly draw a cloud of doubt in the manner in which the investigation is carried out. The trial Court, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any error in recording acquittal of the accused persons. The view that is taken by the trial Court is not an impossible one or that the finding given by the learned trial Judge cannot be said to be contrary to evidence on record. In these set of circumstances we are of the view that no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to disturb the judgment of acquittal impugned herein. The Appeal must fail and stands dismissed. Bailable warrant shall stand cancelled.