Judgment : 1. By this appeal, the appellant-State has challenged the legality and validity of judgment and order dated 31st August 2000 passed by the Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special Case No. 4 of 1989 whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 5 (i) (d) r/w Section 5 (2) as also Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) (punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that the Special Court erred in holding that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He contends that both demand and acceptance of the amount of Rs. 50/- as illegal gratification has been proved on record. He urged that as per Criminal Manual, only one rupee stamp was required to be affixed on bail bonds and, therefore, demand of Rs. 50/- by the accused for court fee stamp was illegal and it amounted to illegal gratification. He further submitted that accused no. 2 had no authority in law to apply for bail or incur expenses for court fee stamps. He also submits that evidence of pancha witness was not considered. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, therefore, prays that order of acquittal deserves to be converted to conviction and respondents are liable to be sentenced to maximum term. 3. Learned amicus curiae, on the other hand, supported the judgment and order of acquittal. He took me through the impugned judgment and relevant portion of the depositions of witnesses. He has prayed for dismissal of the State appeal. 4. I have perused oral evidence led before the trial Court and the impugned judgment & order of acquittal. Learned trial Court has found discrepancies in the evidence of P. W. 2 Ashok, P. W. 3 Waman and P. W. 4 Jago. Learned Special Judge has noted clear-cut admission in the evidence of complainant that a sum of Rs. 50/- was asked to be brought to meet the cost of court fee stamp and that amount was not demanded as gratification. The court fee stamps were required to be affixed on bail application of respondents no. 1 & 2 who were caught while gambling along with others. It is a matter of record that the currency notes were found in the dustbin which was 12 feet away from the place where accused no. 2 was standing near the door. The court fee stamps were required to be affixed on bail application of respondents no. 1 & 2 who were caught while gambling along with others. It is a matter of record that the currency notes were found in the dustbin which was 12 feet away from the place where accused no. 2 was standing near the door. As per the evidence of Investigating Officer, solution was sprinkled in the dustbin in which currency note was found, but there was no change in the colour of solution. Moreover, the dustbin was not seized. It was, therefore, not probable that accused could have thrown that amount in the dustbin which was at a long distance. Learned trial Court found that there was no corroboration to the evidence of complainant who was interested witness and his sole testimony was not sufficient to base conviction. Learned trial Court has further observed that since the amount of Rs. 50/-was admittedly asked to be brought to bear expenses of court fee stamps, defence of accused became probable that they had not made any demand of illegal gratification and there was no acceptance as such. Demand by accused; voluntary payment of bribe and acceptance thereof as illegal gratification, are essential ingredients to be established to arrive at conclusion against accused on facts which were not established in this case. 5. In the light of above, I find that the learned trial Court has considered entire evidence on record. Considering the vital admission by the complainant and other evidence available on record which is weak in nature, in my opinion, acquittal ordered by the trial Court needs no interference. Judgment and order of the trial Court is well-reasoned. In reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to keep in mind the presumption of innocence available in favour of the accused, stands fortified and strengthened by the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. It is further settled principle of law that unless the High Court arrives at definite conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse, it would not substitute its own view on a totally different perspective. Apart from this, if the evaluation of evidence by the trial Court does not suffer from illegality, manifest error or perversity, the High Court will not disturb the order of acquittal even if another view is possible. 6. Apart from this, if the evaluation of evidence by the trial Court does not suffer from illegality, manifest error or perversity, the High Court will not disturb the order of acquittal even if another view is possible. 6. For all the above reasons, there is no merit in this appeal. Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 7. Mr Sumit Joshi, learned Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae in the matter. His fee is quantified at Rs. 2000/- (Rs. Two thousand only) to be paid by the High Court Legal Services, Sub-committee at Nagpur.