JUDGMENT : 1. Shri A. S. Gokhale, learned counsel for the applicant - SPE (Lokayukt).Shri Navneet Kishore, learned counsel for the non-applicant. Heard on the question for grant of leave to appeal. This is an application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 filed by the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27-11-2014 passed in Special Case No. 16/2013 whereby, learned Special Judge acquitted the non-applicant - Amit Singh Chouhan from the charges framed under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Hemant Kumar Gupta (complainant) made a complaint on 1-8-2012 that one cow belonging to his friend has been retained by Nagar Palika Nigam in the Kanji House and for releasing the same, the non-applicant, who was Daroga (Assistant Revenue Inspector) in the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain is demanding Rs. 1,000/- as bribe. 3. Upon this, the applicant after completing the formalities of verification of the complaint arranged a trap after registering an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On 1-8-2012 itself, the non-applicant was apprehended by the team of SPE (Lokayukt), Ujjain and he was caught red-handed and the tainted notes were recovered from the pocket of his shirt. 4. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the non-applicant and after recording the evidence, learned Special Judge has acquitted the non-applicant from the above-mentioned charges by impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the findings recording by the learned Special Judge in Para-59 onwards and submits that the learned Special Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence and committed a legal error in acquitting the non-applicant. 6. It is not in dispute that the complainant (PW-12) belongs to Vishwa Hindu Parishad and member of Bajrang Dal. In the complaint, he has stated that one Sheshnarayan came to his place and narrated the incident and at his instance, he has lodged the complaint but, when he was extensively cross-examined, he very categorically admitted that he does not know Sheshnarayan nor he know about his whereabouts. No investigation about whereabouts of Sheshnarayan nor his police statement was recorded nor he was cited as a witness by the applicant. No investigation about whereabouts of Sheshnarayan nor his police statement was recorded nor he was cited as a witness by the applicant. It has also come on record that charges for releasing of cow from the Kanji House is around Rs. 300/- to Rs. 500/-. If that be so, then why victim will pay Rs. 1,000/- as bribe instead of paying the fine amount to the Municipal Corporation, which is lesser than the amount of demand made by the non-applicant. The complainant (PW-12) also did not support the case of the prosecution and there are material contractions and omissions in his statement. On the basis of material contractions and omissions in the statement of complainant and other witnesses, learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt against the non-applicant and benefit of doubt was given to the non-applicant. 7. After appreciating the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant, we have perused the impugned judgment and findings recorded in Para-59 onwards. On going through the findings, we are of the view that the same is based on admissions made by the prosecution witnesses. Learned Special Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence and gave benefit of doubt to the non-applicant. No case to interfere with the aforesaid well reasoned finding, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant is made out. M.Cr.C. No.2011/2015 has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed.