JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under section 378(1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.1.2005 rendered by learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Valsad in Special (Corruption) Case No. 38 of 2002. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent accused was serving as Police Sub Inspector, Valsad Rural Police Station. It is alleged that as the wife of complainant Ramesh was indulging into selling of country made liquor and the accused used to collect installments for permitting her to carry on such illegal business, initially, it was for Rs.2000/-, then it was increased to Rs.3000/- and again while the complainant met the accused on 23.8.1999, the accused raised such installment to Rs.4000/- and collected Rs.2000/- from the complainant was directed to hand over Rs.2000/- on 25.8.1999. As the complainant was not willing to pay the amount of illegal gratification, he lodged the complaint. The trap was arranged and during the course of trap, the accused was caught red handed. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the respondent accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 3.2 At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 5.1 Mr. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 5.1 Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Learned APP has taken this Court through the paper-book and evidence on record and argued that the finding recorded by learned trial Court has not rightly appreciated the evidence on record. He submitted that though the complainant was declared hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution, but the shadow panch has supported the case of the prosecution and learned trial Court could have believed that the vital ingredients like demand and acceptance are being proved in his evidence as well as taking into consideration the evidence of the trapping officer. He further submitted that seizure and recovery which came to be effected from the person of the accused is also established beyond reasonable doubt and on that ground also, learned trial Judge has committed an error in acquitting the respondent accused. In his submission, learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the judgment of acquittal which is required to be reversed and the respondent is required to be convicted, as such. 6. On the other-hand, Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, learned advocate for Mr. Virat Popat, learned advocate for the respondent accused has taken this Court through the entire evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper. Mr. Sharma submitted that learned trial Judge has recorded ample reasons while delivering the judgment and based its findings on the evidence available on record and that there is no evidence on record to link the respondent accused with the crime in question. Mr. Sharma submitted that learned trial Judge has recorded ample reasons while delivering the judgment and based its findings on the evidence available on record and that there is no evidence on record to link the respondent accused with the crime in question. He submitted that the complainant himself was declared hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution as he has disowned the complaint and event the complainant went to saying to the extent that the accused has never demanded any amount from him and he has never handed over the amount to the accused and, therefore, the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.R. Purushotham v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 247 . He further argued that the evidence of the shadow panch is also not trustworthy as his evidence is not spelling out as regards to the fact whether any clear demand was raised by the accused and in pursuance thereof, the complainant handed over the money to the accused and therefore the vital ingredients like the demand and acceptance are not proved. He submitted that search and seizure is also not proved by the prosecution as the prosecution has not examined the second panch who accompanied with the complainant at the time of trap and that the evidence of the shadow witness is not taking the case of the prosecution any further for establishing search and seizure as well as the test of ultra violate lamp on the person of the accused. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in passing the impugned order acquitting the respondent accused, and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, learned advocate for the respondent accused. 8. This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment and order rendered by learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper book. As per the prosecution version, the respondent accused was serving as Police Sub Inspector, Valsad Rural Police Station. Kuldeep Sharma, learned advocate for the respondent accused. 8. This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment and order rendered by learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper book. As per the prosecution version, the respondent accused was serving as Police Sub Inspector, Valsad Rural Police Station. It is alleged that as the wife of complainant Ramesh was indulging into selling of country made liquor and the accused used to collect installments for permitting her to carry on such illegal business, initially, it was for Rs.2000/-, then it was increased to Rs.3000/- and again while the complainant met the accused on 23.8.1999, the accused raised such installment to Rs.4000/- and collected Rs.2000/- from the complainant was directed to hand over Rs.2000/- on 25.8.1999. As the complainant was not willing to pay the amount of illegal gratification, he lodged the complaint. The trap was arranged and during the course of trap, the accused was caught red handed and thereby, the respondent accused has committed the offence as alleged. 9. PW 1 - Rameshbhai Ravjibhai Patel has been examined at Exh. 24. The witness has identified the accused before learned trial Court, but he denied that he has ever lodged any complaint against the accused. The witness also denied that he has visited the ACB office for lodging the complaint against the accused, however, he has admitted his signature over the complaint. The witness has deposed that for about five years back, he had visited the police station to stand as surety, at that time, he placed tainted currency notes over the table of the accused. Thereafter, the witness was declared hostile. Extensive cross examination was carried out by learned Public Prosecutor, but the witness did not support the case of the prosecution. However, in the cross examination carried out by learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that he visited the accused for getting bail of his wife as she was involved in prohibition case. The witness has admitted that he visited the accused to stand as surety for his wife, at that time, while the accused was busy in conversation with others, he placed tainted currency notes over the table of the accused and thereafter Valsad Rural Police visited him and obtained his signature, but he did not know as to for what purpose, his signature was obtained. 10. 10. PW 2 - Yashwantbhai Akhatubhai Ganvit - shadow witness has been examined at Exh. 25. The witness has deposed that he was serving in the District Industrial Center, Valsad at the relevant time and he was requisitioned as shadow panch. The witness has deposed that on the day of trap, he visited the office of the accused along with the complainant and the complainant appraised the accused with his name and told him that as per previous conversation, he has brought Rs. 2000/- and handed over to him which the accused accepted and put into his pocket. The witness has deposed that thereafter other members of the raiding party arrived. However, in the cross examination carried out by learned advocate for the accused, several contradictions have been brought on record as regards to search and seizure as well as ultra violate lamp test on the person of the accused. 11. PW 4 - Sumanbhai Rambhai Patel has been examined at Exh. 28. The witness has detailed as to how he has carried out the trap as well as part of investigation. 12. PW 5 - Mahavirsinh Pravinsinh Raol has been examined at Exh. 32. The witness has deposed that he had undertaken the part of investigation and after conclusion of investigation, he has filed the chargesheet. 13. On overall analysis of the aforesaid evidence on record and on going through the oral testimony of the complainant in light of the complaint at Exh. 31, it appears that the complainant while recording his testimony before learned trial Court has not at all supported the case of the prosecution and virtually he disowned the complaint itself except identifying his signature. On the contrary, the complainant went on saying to the extent that the accused had never demanded any amount of illegal gratification and he never collected any amount of installment from him. The complainant has further admitted in his deposition that he has not filed any complaint against him and that he has not at all visited previously the office of the ACB. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, so far as the vital ingredients like demand and acceptance are concerned, the case of the prosecution leads no further. 14. The evidence of the shadow witness is also not out of doubt as in his evidence, several contradictions have been brought on record. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, so far as the vital ingredients like demand and acceptance are concerned, the case of the prosecution leads no further. 14. The evidence of the shadow witness is also not out of doubt as in his evidence, several contradictions have been brought on record. Even otherwise also, so far as the evidence as regards to demand and acceptance is concerned and if the same is taken into consideration in toto, then also, there appears no initiation of conversation by the accused with the complainant for demanding any amount of illegal gratification. On the contrary, the shadow witness has deposed that the complainant voluntarily told that as per the previous agreement, he has brought money and handed over the same to the accused. Merely such sort of conversation is not sufficient to establish the vital ingredients like demand and acceptance. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial Judge has rightly not believed the case of the prosecution. It is by now well settled that demand has to be proved by adducing clinching evidence. Under the circumstances, in absence of specific and clinching evidence to prove all such acts by the respondent accused, acquittal recorded by learned trial Judge cannot be converted into conviction. Furthermore, the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the decision in the case of M.R. Purushotham (supra). 15. 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. 16. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent accused of the charges leveled against him. This Court finds that the findings recorded by learned trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by learned court below and hence finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 17. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by learned court below and hence finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 17. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith. Appeal Dismissed.