JUDGMENT 1. - The State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 05.09.2008, passed by the Presiding Officer, Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused-respondent, Dhannu Singh, for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short). 2. Mr. Javed Chaudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that the allegation against the accused-respondent is that he had demanded Rs. 2,500/- from the complainant for presenting a negative final report in the case in which the complainant was arrayed as an accused. However, eventually Rs. 1,400/- was paid to the accused-respondent for illegal gratification. Despite the ample evidence being available on record, the accused respondent has been acquitted by the learned trial court. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Girish Khandelwal, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent, has contended that not only the complainant, but even others, such as Heera Singh (PW-6), Bharat Singh (PW-7) and Bhikam Chand (PW-12), who had accompanied the complainant to the Police Station, have not supported the prosecution and have turned hostile. Therefore, the learned trial court was justified in acquitting the accused-respondent for lack of evidence. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that Devendra Singh (PW-5) had turned hostile during the course of trial. In his testimony, he had clearly stated that the accused-respondent neither demanded, nor did he pay any illegal gratification to him. Moreover, Heera Singh (PW-6), Bharat Singh (PW-7) and Bhikam Chand (PW-12) have also stated, in their testimonies, that when they went to the Police Station, the accused-respondent did not demand any bribery. Considering the fact that there was no evidence available on record, which proves the fact that any illegal gratification was demanded or taken by the accused-respondent, the learned trial court was certainly justified in acquitting the accused-respondent for the aforementioned offences. 6. Hence, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment. This appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******