JUDGMENT V. Jagannathan, J.— This appeal is by the Lokayukta police, Tumkur, calling in question the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The prosecution case in short is that, the Respondent accused while working as a Typist in the office of the Block Development Officer, Chikkanayakanahalli and being entrusted with the work of preparing salary bills of the employees in the Government College Hostel, Chikkanayakanahalli, while working in that capacity, demanded Rs.600/-as bribe amount from the complainant K.N. Lakshmana in order to send the arrears of salary bill of the complainant. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, the accused demanded the amount on 6.9.93 and accepted the same on 7.9.93 at 3.15 p.m. Based on the complaint lodged by PW-1 Lakshmana, the Lokayukta police registered the case and got prepared the entrustment mahazar Ex.P2 and thereafter the complainant and the shadow witness PW-5 were sent to the office of the accused and finally the amount of Rs.600/-, which was kept in a cover in the almirah of the accused, was taken out and the trap was successful. Ex.P3 is the trap mahazar and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted. 3. The accused denied the charge levelled against him. The prosecution to prove its case, examined 10 witnesses and 11 documents were marked. Accused statement was recorded and accused denied the prosecution case. On behalf of the accused, Ex.D1 and D2 were marked. 4. Learned trial judge, after appreciating the evidence on record, took the view that the prosecution held not brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt because the shadow witness PW-5 did not support the prosecution case and the evidence of PW-1 was also found not very reliable one. 5. Another aspect taken note of by the trial court was that, the accused was exonerated in the departmental enquiry and the statement made by the witnesses in the departmental enquiry was altogether different than what they deposed before the court. The trial court did not find the evidence of PW-10, the sanctioning authority very convincing in respect of the sanction order which was marked as Ex.P11. The trial court did not find the evidence of PW-10, the sanctioning authority very convincing in respect of the sanction order which was marked as Ex.P11. Thus, the trial court acquitted the accused after observing that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 6. I have heard learned Counsel Sri. T.M. Gayathri for the Lokayukta police and none appears for the Respondent and there is no representation either. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant Lokayukta argued that, the entire case of the prosecution depends upon the acceptance or otherwise of the evidence of PW-1 and, the shadow witness PW-5 did not support the prosecution case and as far as the amount that was found in the almirah of the accused is concerned, submission made is that, PW-1 has stated that, he gave the amount in a cover to the accused and accused took it and kept in the almirah Later, when the Lokayukta police came, the accused took out the said cover and gave it to the Lokayukta police. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1, if believed, then there is a case for the prosecution. Learned Counsel also took this Court to the evidence of other witnesses in this regard and submitted that the trial court committed the error in acquitting the Respondent. 8. In the light of the aforesaid submission put forward and after going through the evidence of the witnesses, it is seen that PW-5, who is the shadow witness, has deposed in his evidence that he did not see the accused receiving the amount from the complainant and accused also did not demand money from the complainant. Only when PW-5 saw the cover M.O.17 in the hands of the accused, PW-5 suspected that the cover must have contained the amount. Apart from this, this witness has also stated in the course of cross examination that, before the enquiry officer, in the departmental enquiry, this witness has stated that the cover was given by the complainant to the accused by stating that the complainant's uncle would come and take the amount and therefore cover be kept by the accused. 9. Apart from this, this witness has also stated in the course of cross examination that, before the enquiry officer, in the departmental enquiry, this witness has stated that the cover was given by the complainant to the accused by stating that the complainant's uncle would come and take the amount and therefore cover be kept by the accused. 9. This witness has further admitted that, he has also stated before the enquiry officer that, when 1 he complainant was about to give the amount to the accused, the accused refused to take it, but told the complainant to keep the amount in the almirah Thus, the evidence of PW-5 is of no use to the prosecution. 10. PW-1 is the complainant and in the course of his evidence, though the complainant has stated that he went to the office of the accused and the accused asked him to put the money in a cover and accordingly complainant put the amount in a cover and gave the cover to the accused and the accused kept the cover in the almirah in the cross examination, PW-1 has admitted that he never made any statement before the police to the effect that the accused demanded the money, but on the other hand, he made a statement stating that he himself had brought the amount to be given to the accused. Although this witness has stated in the course of his evidence that, when the police inspector came, the accused took out the cover from the almirah and gave it to the police, still the evidence of this witness does not indicate that the accused demanded the money and accordingly the complainant gave it to him. 11. Learned trial judge has taken note of this evidence of PW 1 and has observed that, it would be difficult to accept the testimony of PW-1 with regard to the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused. The presence of PW 5, shadow witness, is also ruled out by the complainant himself in the course of his evidence. 12. PW-1 has also deposed in his evidence that, the responsibility of preparing the arrears bill was with the Office Manager and it is the Manager who had to pay the amount to the complainant. The presence of PW 5, shadow witness, is also ruled out by the complainant himself in the course of his evidence. 12. PW-1 has also deposed in his evidence that, the responsibility of preparing the arrears bill was with the Office Manager and it is the Manager who had to pay the amount to the complainant. Yet, another defect noticed by the trial court in the prosecution case is that, though the demand was said to have been made by the accused on 6.9.93, it has come in the evidence of PW-9 that PW-9 had made the endorsement on the application forwarded only on 17.9.93. Therefore, when the application of the complainant for arrears of money was forwarded only on 17.9.93, the trial court wondered as to how it was possible for the accused to have demanded and accepted the bribe amount on 6.9.93. 13. The trial court also noticed that the witnesses for the prosecution had deposed quite contrary to what they had staled before the enquiry officer in the departmental enquiry. The fact that the departmental enquiry conducted was in favour of the accused and accused was exonerated in the departmental enquiry, which is also not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. 14. On a careful examination of the evidence on record and as the evidence of PW-1 complainant is not supported by the shadow witness and, other witness viz., PW-6, not stating that he had seen the accused receiving the amount from the complainant, the view taken by the learned trial judge therefore can be said to be a possible view emerging from the evidence on record. 15. As such this Court sitting in appeal over the judgment of trial court cannot interfere with the view taken by the trial court unless the evidence on record indicates that the view taken by the trial court was not: a possible view at all. As the learned trial judge has carefully considered the entire evidence on record and disbelieved the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-1. As the learned trial judge has carefully considered the entire evidence on record and disbelieved the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-1. PW-6 and PW-7 and as the shadow witness did not support the prosecution case with regard to the material aspect of the matter and further the accused having been exonerated in the departmental enquiry on the basis of the very statement made by the same witnesses, and the question of the work being pending with the accused also not having been established beyond all reasonable doubt, the acquittal of the Respondent by the trial court therefore does not call for any interference. 16. Appeal therefore is dismissed.