JUDGMENT : The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order in Special Case No. 34 of 1992 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No. 8, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, dated 2.11.1999 recording acquittal on the grounds stated in the appeal. 2. The facts of the case briefly summarised are as follows: 2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that one Harendrakumar Bhikhabhai Vyas, complainant, lodged a complaint with A.C.B. Police Station alleging that he had decided to purchase 1/4th share of the house of one Dineshchandra Trivedi for which an agreement to sell was executed. However, the said agreement to sell was sought to be registered and the respondent accused is said to have informed that the legal expenses will be to the tune of Rs. 100/-and in all the expenses would be Rs. 200-300. Therefore, as the complainant did not desire to give any such money demanded by the accused, he had lodged the complaint with ACB. 2.2 Thereupon, on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant with the ACB, Ahmedabad, a trap was arranged. After the trap it was registered as Special Case No.34 of 1992. The learned Special Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, after framing the charges and also amending the charges, proceeded with the trial. 2.3 After hearing the learned APP and the learned advocate for the defence, the learned Special Judge recorded acquittal of the accused for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. It is this judgment and order which has been assailed in this appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that the court below has failed to appreciate the material and evidence on record with regard to the demand and acceptance. It is also contended that the tainted currency notes have been recovered from the table of the respondent accused and the acceptance and recovery has corroborated the prosecution case fully. Therefore, it has been contended that the impugned judgment is erroneous and the appeal may be admitted. 4. Heard learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the appellant-State and learned counsel Shri KB Anandjiwala for the respondent-accused. 5. Learned APP Ms. Bhatt referred to the impugned judgment and order in detail and has also referred to the testimony of the complainant, PW 1. Exh. 14, who has turned hostile. 4. Heard learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the appellant-State and learned counsel Shri KB Anandjiwala for the respondent-accused. 5. Learned APP Ms. Bhatt referred to the impugned judgment and order in detail and has also referred to the testimony of the complainant, PW 1. Exh. 14, who has turned hostile. She has also referred to the testimony of panch No. 1, PW 2, Exh. 20 and the I.O. at Exh. 23. She has, referring to this testimony, submitted that though the complainant has turned hostile, the case of the prosecution is supported by the testimony of the panch witness with regard to the demand. She pointedly referred to the fact that it has been stated in the testimony as to what had transpired. She emphasised that Rs. 90 was legal dues for which the receipt was given. She however submitted that further amount has been lying on his table which he had accepted and the marks of anthracene powder was found on his finger tips and the tainted currency notes have been recovered which would clearly establish the case of the prosecution. She emphasised that Rs. 90 as well as Rs. 150 were placed on the table and this additional amount was towards illegal gratification/bribe. She submitted that after the initial work was over for which receipt of Rs. 90 has been given, the complainant was asked to wait outside and thereafter he was called inside his chamber. She submitted that at that time further amount is given and therefore the court below ought to have accepted the prosecution case when the acceptance and recovery are established. She therefore submitted that the court below has totally proceeded on the footing that there was no demand of any fixed amount and has failed to consider the evidence of witnesses resulting in the acquittal. 6. Learned counsel Shri Anandjiwala, however, referred to the impugned judgment and order as well as the testimony of witnesses and has contended that the court below has, on appreciation of evidence, clearly emphasised that there was no meeting between the complainant and the accused with regard to the exact amount of bribe for which the demand was made. In fact, the panch witness in his testimony at Exh. 20 has clearly admitted in the cross-examination that the accused had issued the receipt of Rs. 90 towards legal dues. In fact, the panch witness in his testimony at Exh. 20 has clearly admitted in the cross-examination that the accused had issued the receipt of Rs. 90 towards legal dues. Further, it has been categorically stated by the panch witness that the accused has not made any demand for any other due. He, therefore, submitted that till that time there was no demand at all as stated by the panch witness also. Learned counsel Shri Anandjiwala submitted that thereafter as per the prosecution case the complainant was asked to wait outside and was called again when the demand is said to have been made requires a closer scrutiny. He emphasised that even at that time, as admitted by the panch witness in his testimony at Exh. 20, there was no demand for any specific amount. He also tried to point out from the testimony of the complainant as well as the panch witness about the confusion about the exact amount of money which is said to have been demanded and offered and the amount which is recovered. He submitted that the complainant had stated that he had put Rs. 200-300 on the table of the accused. The panch witness in his testimony at Exh. 20 has stated about Rs. 90 + 150. Learned counsel Shri Anandjiwala submitted that however the fact remains that in all as per the theory and the charge framed by the prosecution the amount was Rs. 150 and there is a different version with regard to the demand by the complainant and panch No. 1. However, he emphasised that there is no demand raised as stated by the panch witness in his evidence and the complainant has turned hostile. 7. He, therefore, submitted that the demand and acceptance are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. He submitted that therefore the impugned judgment and order recording acquittal on appreciation of material and evidence cannot be said to be perverse. Learned counsel Shri Anandjiwala submitted that if the view taken by the court is plausible, it would not call for any reversal in the acquittal. He has therefore submitted that the present appeal may not be entertained. 8. Learned counsel Shri Anandjiwala submitted that if the view taken by the court is plausible, it would not call for any reversal in the acquittal. He has therefore submitted that the present appeal may not be entertained. 8. In view of the rival submissions and having perused the impugned judgment and order and the findings and conclusion arrived at on the basis of the reasons recorded therein, it cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material and evidence on record. As discussed above, the complainant has turned hostile. The testimony of panch No. 1 has, on scrutiny, not supported the prosecution case as regards the specific demand. He has clearly admitted that earlier there was no conversation between the complainant and the accused. On the day of the trap, admittedly, the accused has not demanded any specific amount and there is some confusion with regard to the amount offered and accepted which has been discussed in the impugned judgment. This aspect is required to be considered in background of the special mention made by the court below about Shri Dineshchandra Trivedi and his credentials. 9. Therefore, without any elaboration, when there is doubt even with regard to the genuineness of the agreement to sell which was sought to be registered for which the alleged demand is sought to be made, it raises doubt about the prosecution case. Therefore, the mere fact that the tainted currency notes are found from the table of the accused and marks are found on his finger tips by itself would not be sufficient. 10. Therefore, considering the explanation offered by the respondent accused and also the broad guidelines with regard to the approach in such acquittal appeals including the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed.