JUDGMENT 1. Heard the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant and the Learned counsel for the Respondent/Accused. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Respondent. 2. The Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Original Petition praying for passing an order by this Court to grant Leave to file an Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 29.11.2013 in C.C.No.134 of 2011 (old C.C.No.2 of 2008) passed by the learned Special Judge for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai. 3. According to the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Petitioner, the trial Court acquitted the Respondent/Accused by holding that the Petitioner/Appellant/Prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt in respect of charges under Section 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner/Appellant/Prosecution that one Manimozhi met the Respondent/Accused on 17.8.2005 at about 11.30 a.m. at her office and that at that time, the Respondent/Accused demanded illegal gratification of 1% of amount of Rs.1,300/- from witness S.Manimozhi as a motive or reward for approving purchase order. Further, pursuant to the aforesaid demand on 18.8.2005 at about 12.35 p.m., at her office, the Accused reiterated the demand and obtained the illegal gratification of Rs.1,300/-from witness S.Manimozhi as a motive or reward for issuing the supply orders for the supply of surgical instruments to the witness S.Manimozhi and therefore, the Respondent/Accused committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. It is further alleged on the side of the Petitioner/Appellant that in the course of the same transaction and at the same time and place, the Respondent/Accused by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing her official position as a public servant obtained a sum of Rs.1,300/-from the witness S.Manimozhi as pecuniary advantage for herself in the circumstance mentioned supra and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 6. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Petitioner/Appellant submits that the trial Court had failed to consider the evidence of P.W.2, who had deposed that the Respondent/Accused demanded the bribe amount. Further, the trial Court had failed to take into account the evidence of P.W.3 accompanying official witness, who accompanied the P.W.2 about the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the Respondent/Accused from P.W.2. Further, the trial Court had failed to take into account the evidence of P.W.3 accompanying official witness, who accompanied the P.W.2 about the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the Respondent/Accused from P.W.2. 7. It is also represented on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant that the trial Court had failed to consider that the Respondent/Accused handed over the supply order to P.W.2 after accepting the bribe amount of Rs.1,300/-. 8. In effect, the submission of the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant is that the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant has fair amount of success in the main Appeal and has been so advised in this regard. 9. It is to be noted that the provision seeking Leave to Appeal is to ensure that no vexatious or frivolous Appeals are filed against the Judgments of acquittal as a matter of course. 10. At this stage, it cannot be forgotten that the Hon'ble High Court shall not dismiss a Leave to Appeal petition, in limine, without assigning reasons therefor. 11. Furthermore, in an Appeal against the acquittal, the Hon'ble High Court shall not refuse the Leave Application without ascribing the reasons and without ascertaining the reasons, in the manner known to law. 12. The objection in regard to the maintainability of an Appeal can be raised at any stage and permission, which was granted earlier for preferring an Appeal, could not be pleaded as a bar at the time of hearing of the main Appeal. 13. In reality, when true facts are brought to the notice of this Court, just because as the Leave was granted, it does not prevent a Court of Law to go into the issue whether an Appeal is maintainable in law. Inasmuch as the Petitioner is seeking permission of this Court by filing the present Criminal Original Petition seeking Leave to prefer an Appeal, this Court with a view to examine/ascertain the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court in acquitting the Respondent/Accused in C.C.No.134 of 2011 (Old C.C.No.2/2008), by exercising its Judicial discretion allows the present Criminal Original Petition in the subject matter in issue, in the interest of justice.