JUDGMENT Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. 1. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29-7-2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Fast Track Court No. 12, Gandhinagar in Special (ACB) Case No. 7/1999, whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the original accused-respondents herein, of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that both the accused had threatened the complainant by saying that since you are giving 'Hafta' for selling the Jaggery for the production of liquor to the previous officers, you have to give 'Hafta' to us and if you do not do so, then case/action will be initiated against you. Thereafter, on 14-4-1999, both the accused persons met the complainant at his village and demanded for Rs. 650/- and told him to come and give the said amount on 15-4-1999 at 14:50 hours at Gandhinagar Prohibition Police Station. Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint with ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural), Gandhinagar against accused for demanding such bribe and accordingly, the ACB Police Station arranged a trap and that on the success of the trap, the accused was caught red-handed. 2. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned Additional Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Fast Track Court No. 12, Gandhinagar, which was, thereafter, numbered as Special (ACB) Case No. 7 of 1999. Since opponents-accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried, they were tried for the alleged offences. 3. At the time of trial, in order to bring home the charges levelled against the original accused, the prosecution examined 4 witnesses as well as the prosecution also produced 6 documentary evidences. 4. At the end of the Trial and after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of all the charges levelled against them. On completion of the trial, the Sessions Court passed the judgment and order acquitting opponents-accused. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court, the appellant-State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 6. On completion of the trial, the Sessions Court passed the judgment and order acquitting opponents-accused. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court, the appellant-State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 6. Learned APP submitted that the judgment and order of the Trial Court is against the provisions of law; the Trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself, it is established that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of alleged charges against the present accused. She has also relied on the evidence of the Investigating Officer-complainant and panchas. She further submitted that the trial was conducted against the accused pursuant to the charges against the accused. She further submitted that all the panchas have supported the case of the complainant and the complainant stated in his deposition that the demand was made by the accused. She further submitted that all the procedures were followed by the police personnel and the demand and acceptance were proved as stated by the complainant and accused accepted the bribe amount. She further submitted that PW:1-Dipakbhai Balvirsinh Jadeja at Exh.10 stated in his deposition that the complainant has given the amount to original accused No. 1 and original accused No. 1 took away the amount and kept the same on the left side of his T-shirt and upon making a gesture, the Police Inspector Shri. Mysoorwala, member of the raiding party arrived there and caught original accused No. 1 red-handed with bribe money, which are found to be continued with the anthracene powder and accordingly, the panchnama was carried out. She further submitted that complainant-Ambalal Saakraji Thakor at Exh.16 stated in his deposition that both the accused persons approached him and demanded the money and this witness asked the accused persons that how many amount is to be given to the police personnel and to this query, they stated to have told him that original accused No. 1 would get Rs. 100/- and original accused No. 2 would get Rs. 200/-, Chaturbhai, Kadambhai and Ratansinh would get Rs. 50/- each and Mehtaji would get share of Rs. 200/-. 100/- and original accused No. 2 would get Rs. 200/-, Chaturbhai, Kadambhai and Ratansinh would get Rs. 50/- each and Mehtaji would get share of Rs. 200/-. Thus, the testimony of these witnesses cannot be impeached during the course of the cross-examination and thus, the ingredient of the demand and acceptance have been proved categorically by the testimony of this witness. She further submitted that the learned Trial Judge ought to have appreciated the version of PW.3 Shri Kerman Khursed Mysorewala at Exh.19, Police Inspector, who laid down the trap and caught red-handed the accused persons, accepting bribe in presence of the panchas. Thus, this witness is the prime witness and nothing would be elicited during the course of the cross-examination. She further submitted that the learned Trial Judge ought to have believed the fact in the context of the offences, wherein the demand has been made by the accused persons and they have been caught red-handed while accepting the bribe of Rs. 650/- in presence of panchas and the offences have been proved against the accused persons. She further submitted that the learned Trial Judge erred in not considering the fact that the demand, acceptance and recovery of the illegal gratification made by the accused are not proved, learned APP has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence and submitted that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is required to be quashed and set aside. 7. As against that, learned counsel for the respondents-accused submitted that the respondents-accused have never demanded the amount. The finding of fact cannot be found fault with. According to the learned counsel that very foundation of the fact that the accused No. 1 was demanding money, is not correct. He further submitted that there are serious contradictions and there is no question of demand. He supported the judgment and order of the Trial Court submitting that the same was passed after appreciating the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution. Hence, no interference is called for with the same at the hands of this Court. He further submitted that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is required to be confirmed. 8. Hence, no interference is called for with the same at the hands of this Court. He further submitted that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is required to be confirmed. 8. I have heard learned APP for the appellant-State and the learned advocate for the accused-respondents and perused the material on record. 9. As far as accused No. 2 is concerned, he died during the pendency of the trial. Therefore, his case is ordered to be abated. 10. The principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of an appeal by this Court, against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon alias Mani v. State of Kerala & Anr., (2006) 6 SCC 39 : ( AIR 2006 SC 3366 , Para 59), the Apex Court has narrated the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In Para-54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under: "54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well settled principles of law that where two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below." 11. Further, in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 111), the Apex Court laid down the following principles. 42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; [1] An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. [2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. [2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. [3] Various expressions, such as, substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusions, glaring mistakes, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of flourishes of language to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. [4] An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. [5] If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court." 12. Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate powers, even if two reasonable views/conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. 13. Even in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr., reported in (2007) 3 SCC 755 : (AIR 2007 SC (supp) 61, Para 15), the Apex Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In Para-16 of the said decision, the Court has observed as under: "16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with." 14. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Veer Singh & Ors., 2007 AIR SCW 5553 : ( AIR 2007 SC 3075 ) and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs. v. State of M.P., 2007 AIR SCW 5589 : ( AIR 2007 SC 3106 ). Thus, the powers, which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal, are well settled. 15. In the case of Luna Ram v. Bhupat Singh and Ors., reported in (2009) 3 SCC 749 : (2009 AIR SCW 2119, Para 8), the Apex Court in Paras-10 and 11 has held as under: "10. The High Court has noted that the prosecution version was not clearly believable. Some of the so called eye-witnesses stated that the deceased died because his ankle was twisted by an accused. Others said that he was strangulated. It was the case of the prosecution that the injured witnesses were thrown out of the bus. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem and examined the witnesses had categorically stated that it was not possible that somebody would throw a person out of the bus when it was in running condition. 11. Considering the parameters of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The view of the High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on the evidence." 16. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookkiah and Anr. v. State, Rep. 11. Considering the parameters of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The view of the High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on the evidence." 16. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookkiah and Anr. v. State, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 2013 SC 321 , the Apex Court in Para-4 has held as under: "4. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led in by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges levelled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellants very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be reappreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal. [Vide State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and others (2004) 5 SCC 573 : ( AIR 2004 SC 4520 )]". 17. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the Appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. 17. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the Appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Hema Reddy, AIR 1981 SC 1417 , wherein it is held as under: "...This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi v. Bigendra Nandini Choudhary (1967) 1 SCR 93 : ( AIR 1967 SC 1124 ) that it is not the duty of the Appellate Court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice." 18. In a recent decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shivasharanappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, JT 2013 (7) SC 66 : ( AIR 2013 SC 2144 ) has held as under; "That appellate Court is empowered to reappreciate the entire evidence, though, certain other principles are also to be adhered to and it has to be kept in mind that acquittal results into double presumption of innocence." 19. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary. 20. I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the Trial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellant-State. The complainant no doubt has supported the case of the prosecution, however, from his evidence, it has nowhere brought out that there was a predemand by accused. In view of the ratio laid in the case of M.R. Purushotham v. State of Karnataka (2015 Cri LJ 72) : (AIR 2015 SC (Cri) 139), which will have to be applied to the facts of this case, the present criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Judge is required to be confirmed. The demand of illegal gratification by the accused has not been proved and some currency notes were handed over to the accused to make it as acceptance of gratification; prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid amounted to gratification and such a question does not rise for consideration in this case. In this case, it is not in dispute that the muddamal currency notes were not found from the possession of accused. There was no demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount from accused. The learned Trial Court, while discussing the issue in Paragraph-25 and on appreciation of evidence on record, has rightly acquitted the accused. It emerges that there is no perversity in the judgment. I am unable to accept the submission made by the learned APP that the judgment lacks appreciation of proper evidence and she has taken this Court through the grounds urged in the appeal. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Panchas have not supported the case of the complainant. As far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, the possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7 of the Act. So far as the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act is concerned, in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established and the possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 3(1)(d) of the Act. It is not proved that accused had made any demand. On going through the entire evidence, the finding of facts cannot be interfered with and cannot be said to be perverse. The judgment of the learned Trial Judge cannot be found fault with. The learned Trial Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons, more particularly, the main fact that the prosecution has examined several witnesses and it goes without saying that the accused are Government servants. Some of the witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the complainant. The charges levelled against accused have not been brought home by the prosecution successfully even before this Court. Some of the witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the complainant. The charges levelled against accused have not been brought home by the prosecution successfully even before this Court. Learned APP has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Kalusinh Rahevar, reported in 2014 (3) GLH 76 : (2015 Cri LJ 1520 (Guj)) and requested that this Court should at least upturn the judgment of the Trial Court as he was found accepting the bribe money. It goes without saying that the learned Trial Judge, while dealing with the discrepancy which has come on record, has rightly discussed the same in the impugned judgment and order and the learned Trial Judge has very elaborately discussed that there was no acceptance. This takes this Court to the main aspect whether the accused had demanded and accepted the money and the said amount was recovered from his possession. The learned Trial Judge has given its finding in the impugned judgment and order. In Para-25 of the impugned judgment and order of the learned Trial Court, no case is made out against the accused. There is discrepancy in recording the evidence of complainant. The learned Trial Judge has, in my opinion, rightly acquitted the accused. Further, the place from where the currency notes were found, has been deliberately added. Further, the learned Trial Judge has rightly held that the complainant has improved his version which was never there in the complaint naming that he has given money to accused, which is concocted one. On the touchstone of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Murlidhar alias Gidda and another v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2014 SC 2200, wherein parameters to interfere in acquittal appeals are reiterated, are kept in mind by this Court, and therefore, when there was no demand, no acceptance and no evidence against the accused, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. I am fortified in my view by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Muralidhar alias Gidda and another v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2014 SC 2200, and in the case of Satvir Singh v. State of Delhi thru CBI, reported in AIR 2014 SC 3798 . 21. I am fortified in my view by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Muralidhar alias Gidda and another v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2014 SC 2200, and in the case of Satvir Singh v. State of Delhi thru CBI, reported in AIR 2014 SC 3798 . 21. In light of the decision of this Court in the case of Bhanushankar Popatlal v. State of Gujarat rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 1978, I do not find any merits in the submissions made by the learned APP to upturn the judgment of the learned Trial Judge. The impugned judgment being in consonance with the principles of Indian Evidence Act also cannot be found fault with. The documentary evidence on record will not permit this Court to take a different view than that taken by the learned Trial Judge. Even in the present appeal, nothing is produced or pointed out to rebut the conclusion of the Trial Court. Even looking to the evidence on record, learned APP is not able to bring home the charge levelled against the accused and persuaded this Court to take a different view than that taken by the learned Trial Judge. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 22. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges levelled against them. I find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. In the result, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal is confirmed. The respondent-accused is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. R & P to be sent back to the Trial Court. Bail and bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Surety also, if any given, stands discharged. Appeal Dismissed