Judgment A.L.Dave, J.—This acquittal appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is preferred by the State of Gujarat to challenge the judgment and order rendered by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Special Case No. 5 of 1988, on 23rd March, 1994, acquitting the present respondents, who were accused before the learned Special Judge. 2. Respondent No. 1 was original accused No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was original accused No. 2 before the trial Court and they are referred to as such in this judgment, for the sake of convenience. 3. Accused No. 1 was working as Medical Officer in the Primary Health Centre at Zolapur, whereas accused No. 2 was working as Auxiliary Nurse-cum-Midwife around the time of the incident, i.e., in the year 1985. It is the case of the prosecution that one Shushilaben, wife of complainant Kamleshbhai Parikh, was working as Auxiliary Nurse-cum-Midwife in the Primary Health Centre at Virochannagar. She had some problem as to salary and some allowances. Her husband Kamleshbhai was asked on 10.3.1985 around 10 - 11 A.M by accused No. 2 to sell certain medicines from the Government medicine stock. The complainant, therefore, asked if there would be any problem in doing so. Accused No. 2, therefore, told him that if he wants the problem regarding salary and allowances of his wife to be solved expeditiously, he must sell those medicines, which are worth Rs. 500/-, for the price of Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/-. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 23.3.1985, the complainant met accused No. 1 and told him that he had brought Rs. 100/- for the medicines. Accused No. 1 asked him to give that money to accused No. 2 and when he approached accused No. 2, she asked him to give it to accused No. 1. But, ultimately, on being told that he had talk with accused No. 1, accused No. 2 accepted the said amount of Rs. 100/-. 3.1 During the interregnum period from 10th March, 1985 to 23rd March, 1985, the complainant had approached Anti-Corruption Bureau and lodged a complaint. It was recorded by P.I. Mr. Nathhuram Patil, who thereafter called two panch-witnesses from the Government Photo-Litho Press, whose names were Kantilal Somabhai Parmar and Purshotam Kalidas Solanki. They were introduced to each other. 100/-. 3.1 During the interregnum period from 10th March, 1985 to 23rd March, 1985, the complainant had approached Anti-Corruption Bureau and lodged a complaint. It was recorded by P.I. Mr. Nathhuram Patil, who thereafter called two panch-witnesses from the Government Photo-Litho Press, whose names were Kantilal Somabhai Parmar and Purshotam Kalidas Solanki. They were introduced to each other. The complainant had no money with him to be given to the accused by way of bribe. Therefore, a currency note of Rs. 100/- was drawn from the Government cash by P.I. Mr. Patil. The same was treated with anthracene powder and put into the left side pocket of the shirt which the complainant was wearing and was asked not to touch the same till the occasion arose to give money to the accused. Panch No. 1 was asked to remain with the complainant and panch No. 2 to remain with the members of the raiding party. A panchnama to this effect was drawn and team went to T.B.Centre, Sanand on 21.3.1985, where family planning camp was going on. The complainant approached accused No. 1 with panch No. 1 and told him that he had brought Rs. 100/- for the medicines. Accused No. 1 told him to give it to accused No. 2. The complainant went to accused No. 2 and told her that he had brought money relating to those medicines. Accused No. 2 told him to give it to accused No. 1. The complainant told accused No. 2 that accused No. 1 had asked him to give it to her. She, therefore, asked the complainant to give. The complainant, therefore, brought out currency note of Rs. 100/-, which was put into the left side pocket of his shirt duly treated with anthracene powder and gave it to accused No. 2, who accepted it with her right hand, folded the same with both hands and put the same into the purse and then into the breast pocket of his blouse. The complainant gave signal. Therefore, the members of the raiding party came there, along with panch No. 2, and checked hands, clothes etc. of accused No. 2 under ultraviolet lamp and found currency note treated with anthracene powder from the purse of accused No. 2 and stains of anthracene powder on the purse, blouse etc. The complainant gave signal. Therefore, the members of the raiding party came there, along with panch No. 2, and checked hands, clothes etc. of accused No. 2 under ultraviolet lamp and found currency note treated with anthracene powder from the purse of accused No. 2 and stains of anthracene powder on the purse, blouse etc. A panchnama was drawn, offence was registered, sanction was asked for and on receiving the same, charge sheet came to be filed. 3.2 Charge was framed by the learned trial Judge against both the accused at Exhibit 30, for the offences punishable under Sections 5(1)(d) & 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 161, 165(A), 409 r.w.section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and came to be tried. 3.3 The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against both the accused and recorded their acquittal. Hence, this appeal. 4. Heard learned A.P.P. Mr. Pujari for the appellant-State and learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt for the respondents. 5. The learned A.P.P submitted that the trial Court committed an error in appreciating the evidence and recording acquittal. According to Mr. Pujari, the trial Court has given undue weightage to the aspect of the complainant and his wife having grievance against accused Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Pujari submitted that the trial Court overlooked the fact that accused No. 2 accepted the amount and, later on, tried to explain the same as the amount due from the complainant’s wife on account of earlier borrowings. He submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate that if that was so, there was no need for accused No. 2 to ask the complainant to give that money to accused No. 1 when the complainant offered that money to her for the first time. It was only upon the complainant telling accused No. 2 that accused No. 1 had asked her to accept that, she accepted the amount and, therefore, the amount which was accepted by accused No. 2 was not of the earlier borrowings or different transaction. Mr. Pujari, therefore, submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal may be set aside. 6. In counter, learned Advocate Mr. Mr. Pujari, therefore, submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal may be set aside. 6. In counter, learned Advocate Mr. D.R. Bhatt for the respondents submitted that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and that the trial Court’s judgment of acquittal cannot be interfered with only on this solitary ground. He submitted that the learned A.P.P has not been able to point out that the view taken by the trial Court is impossible one and the evidence is sufficient to indicate that the accused and the accused alone had committed the offences with which they were charged. He submitted that the incident is of the year 1985. During the trial, both the accused were on bail. The judgment of acquittal was rendered by the trial Court on 23.3.1994 and the same may not be interfered with after pendency of this appeal for about 15 years in this Court. 7. We have examined the record and proceedings and have given close look at the evidence as well as the judgment of the trial Court. At the outset, we must record that the trial Court was right in observing that when accused No. 2 does not dispute the fact of having accepted Rs. 100/- from the complainant, the question of presence or otherwise of anthracene powder etc. pales into insignificance. 8. It has come in evidence that the stock of the medicines is maintained by Auxiliary Nurse and the accounts thereof are also maintained by the Auxiliary Nurse. Differently put, there is no material on record to accept that accused No. 1 had custody or control over the stock of government medicines. This aspect has become clear in the evidence of Smt.Astarben Jethabhai, PW. 3. She admits that one Ms. S.K. Vola was working as Health Visitor and was also looking after the stores and thereafter it was being looked after by Vidhyaben C. Patel. This Vidhyaben has not been examined as a witness though cited as such in the charge sheet. 8.1 It is not the case of the prosecution that accused No. 1 accepted the amount. S.K. Vola was working as Health Visitor and was also looking after the stores and thereafter it was being looked after by Vidhyaben C. Patel. This Vidhyaben has not been examined as a witness though cited as such in the charge sheet. 8.1 It is not the case of the prosecution that accused No. 1 accepted the amount. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused No. 1 asked the complainant to sell the medicines, nor is it the case of the prosecution that it was so asked by accused No. 1 to be done by the complainant if he wanted his wife’s salary problem to be solved. As such, none of the charges can be said to have been proved against accused No. 1. 9. So far as the case against accused No. 2 is concerned, there is no material on record to show that she had any authority to solve the salary problem of the complainant’s wife. There is also no material on record to show that the medicines, which were produced by the complainant, were, in fact, part of the store of the Primary Health Centre, Zolapur. 9.1 It is also worth to note that the case of the prosecution is that the complainant was asked to sell government medicines if he wanted his wife’s salary problem to be solved. Now, in this regard, if the evidence is seen, pay-bill of the complainant’s wife produced at Exhibit 48, whereon an objection is raised by the Treasury, as can be seen from Exhibit 47, the covering letter, and that is relating to the complainant’s wife Shushilaben’s permanent T.A. As such, the problem is not created by any of the accused, nor can it be solved by any of the accused. 10. Thus, the evidence led by the prosecution cannot be considered to be sufficient to prove the charges against the accused persons to the hilt. 11. It is true that as per the evidence led by the prosecution, when the complainant went to give Rs. 100/- to accused No. 2, she asked the complainant to give it to accused No. 1 and upon the complainant telling accused No. 2 that accused No. 1 had asked her to accept the same, she accepted the same. 11. It is true that as per the evidence led by the prosecution, when the complainant went to give Rs. 100/- to accused No. 2, she asked the complainant to give it to accused No. 1 and upon the complainant telling accused No. 2 that accused No. 1 had asked her to accept the same, she accepted the same. But, this by itself will not abrogate the effect of scared or scanty evidence which runs contrary to the original story of the prosecution. 12. In our view, the trial Court was fully justified in recording acquittal of the accused Nos. 1 & 2. It cannot be said that the view taken by the trial Court is impossible one. No circumstances are shown, which would call for interference with the acquittal recorded by the trial Court and that too, after a lapse of about 15 years of the judgment and about 24 years of the incident. The appeal, therefore, must fail and stands dismissed. Bailable warrants stand cancelled.