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 8.8.2008 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Panchmahal at Godhra in Special A.C.B. Case No. 1 of 2006. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant gave a complaint on 28.3.2005 to the effect that he was residing at village Chelavada and doing agriculture business so also possessing two jeep cars which were using in transportation between Halol and Chelavada and which were plying into the limits of Rajgadh and Halol Police Station. It is alleged that the respondent accused who was PSI of Rajgadh Police Station was demanding Rs. 500/- per jeep from the complainant, but the complainant was not giving the same. It is alleged that on 27.3.2005 while the complainant was standing near the temple of Babadev, at that time, the respondent accused demanded Rs. 500/- per jeep from the complainant and as the complainant did not give the amount, his both the jeeps were detained and memo was issued. It is alleged that as the complainant had asked the respondent accused to reduce the said amount, it was scaled down to Rs. 400/- per jeep. As the complainant did not want to pay the said amount towards illegal gratification, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondent accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet 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. 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. K.P. Raval, 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 though the vital ingredients i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery are proved by the prosecution and the said fact is also getting corroboration from other documentary evidence on record, learned trial Court has taken very hyper-technical view and wrongly recorded the acquittal. He submitted that the finding recorded by learned trial Court is based upon the presumptions and surmises. He further submitted that learned trial Court has not rightly appreciated the evidence on record. 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. Dipak Patel, 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. Patel 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 prosecution has miserably failed to establish vital ingredients as regards to demand, acceptance and recovery as the complainant himself has disowned the complaint which came to be produced at Exh. 36. He submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish vital ingredients as regards to demand, acceptance and recovery as the complainant himself has disowned the complaint which came to be produced at Exh. 36. He submitted that as the complainant himself has stated before the learned trial Court that the complaint is not in his own handwriting and he has not signed the same and that entire writing in the complaint at Exh. 36 is not written by him and therefore precisely, he disowned the complaint itself. He submitted that nothing is revealing from the evidence of PW 3 Mr. Rakesh Sharma who recorded the complaint and therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish predemand. He submitted that so far as the demand and acceptance are concerned, the evidence of the complainant as well as panch is not establishing vital ingredients as genesis of demand which alleged to have been made at Babadev temple is not established as, as per the evidence of the complainant, there was no conversation at the temple. He submitted that there was no uniformity in the evidence of the complainant as well as panch as at the time of trap, the respondent accused was found in uniform, whereas at the time of demand and acceptance, he was found wearing in loose robe and payjama and hence instant demand is also not established. So far as recovery of tainted currency notes is concerned, Mr. Patel submitted that currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein and while the test of phenolphthalein powder was carried out by using sodium carbonate solution, it was found to be negative on the hands of the accused as well as Mr. Gamsing, police official, however, it was found to be positive on the hands of the complainant and therefore recovery should not be made relatable to the accused and the recovery which came to be effected from the loose robe cannot be regarded as effective recovery from 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.P. Raval, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Dipak Patel, learned advocate for the respondent accused. 8. 7. This Court has heard Mr. K.P. Raval, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Dipak Patel, 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 in Rajgadh Police Station whereas the complainant was plying two jeeps from Halol to Chelavada for carrying on passengers and therefore the respondent accused demanded Rs. 500/- per jeep from the complainant as illegal gratification which came to be scaled down to Rs. 400/- per jeep. It is the case of the prosecution that as the complainant was not willing to pay the amount of illegal gratification, he lodged the complaint and during the course of trap on 28.3.2005, the accused caught red handed along with tainted currency notes and thereby the accused has committed the offence as alleged against him. 8.1 PW 1 - Shabbirbhai Isufbhai Kesari has been examined at Exh. 17. The witness has deposed that he was having agricultural land as well as two jeeps which were being used for carrying on passengers. The witness has deposed that the respondent accused demanded Rs. 500/- per jeep which was scaled down to Rs. 400/- per jeep towards illegal gratification and the said demand was raised nearby Babadev temple on 27.3.2005. The witness has deposed that after lodging the complaint and at the time of trap, he was accompanied with the panch No. 1 and when they visited on 28.3.2005, the respondent accused was found absent and hence after sometime, they visited the residence of the accused where the accused was found present. The witness has deposed that thereafter the accused asked the complainant as to whether he has brought the amount or not, in turn, the complainant said yes and thereafter the accused took the amount from his right hand and placed the same in the pocket of loose robe. The witness has deposed that thereafter he raised prearranged alarm and hence other members of the raiding party arrived there and the tainted currency notes were recovered. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that his jeeps were detained twice earlier and he also paid fine and the said detention order was passed by the respondent accused. The witness has deposed that thereafter he raised prearranged alarm and hence other members of the raiding party arrived there and the tainted currency notes were recovered. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that his jeeps were detained twice earlier and he also paid fine and the said detention order was passed by the respondent accused. The witness has admitted that at the time of his first meeting with the accused at Babadev temple, though there was previous acquittance, the accused asked his name. The witness has admitted that when he visited the ACB office, officer Mr. Merunjay was found there and he welcomed the witness and inquired as to why he visited the office. The witness has admitted that he has good relation with Mr. Merunjay. The witness has admitted that the complaint was written by his hands and it was not written by Mr. Sharma, Police Inspector and when he was shown the complaint at Exh. 36, he has stated that it was not the complaint which he wrote before Mr. Sharma and he disowned the complaint at Exh. 36. The witness has admitted that as the respondent accused has detained his cars and issued the memo, he was annoyed. The witness has admitted that Mr. Sharma, Police Inspector deepen the hands of police official Mr. Gemsinh, respondent accused and thereafter the hands of the complainant were deepen and after deepening the hands of the complainant, water turned into pink colour. The witness has admitted that he seen the respondent accused twice on the day of trap and was in uniform and that he lodged the complaint keeping grudge and malicious against him. The witness has admitted that in the compound of the respondent accused, loose robe and payjama were lying there. The witness has admitted that he read the complaint as well as panchnama several times prior to making deposition. The witness has admitted that no signs or marks of phenolphthalein were found over loose robe. 8.2 PW 2 - Sunil Naginbhai Upadhyay has been examined at Exh. 26. The witness has deposed that he was requisitioned as panch No. 1 and that he was requested to accompany the complainant at the time of trap and he was required to view and hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused. 8.2 PW 2 - Sunil Naginbhai Upadhyay has been examined at Exh. 26. The witness has deposed that he was requisitioned as panch No. 1 and that he was requested to accompany the complainant at the time of trap and he was required to view and hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused. The witness has deposed that he was made to understand as to how the trap is to be laid as well as smearing of phenolphthalein powder over the currency notes. The witness has deposed that he accompanied with the complainant on the day of trap at the Rajgadh Police Station where the accused was absent. The witness has deposed that thereafter Mr. Sharma, Investigating Officer directed the complainant and the witness to visit the house of the accused and therefore they visited the quarter of the accused; they knocked the door and hence the accused opened the door and welcomed them. The witness has deposed that the complainant told the accused that he has brought Rs. 800/- as per conversation took place yesterday and handed over the said amount to him. The witness has deposed that the accused accepted the said amount and placed in the pocket of loose robe and thereafter the complainant gave prearranged signal and hence other members of the raiding party arrived there; the tainted currency notes were recovered and thereafter extensive search was carried out. In the examination-in-chief, the witness has deposed that while the hands of the complainant were deepen into solution, water turned pink, but nothing was happened while the hands of the police official as well as accused were deepen. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that panchnama was carried out by Mr. Sharma, Investigating Officer, at that time, he was outside the compound. The witness has admitted that the accused was in uniform and that no marks of phenolphthalein powder were found on the loose robe. 8.3 PW 3 - Rakesh Baldev Krishna Sharma has been examined at Exh. 35. The witness has deposed that he was serving as Police Inspector, ACB, Vadodara. The witness has deposed that the complainant lodged the complaint in writing before him on 28.3.2005 and thereafter he arranged for the trap. 8.3 PW 3 - Rakesh Baldev Krishna Sharma has been examined at Exh. 35. The witness has deposed that he was serving as Police Inspector, ACB, Vadodara. The witness has deposed that the complainant lodged the complaint in writing before him on 28.3.2005 and thereafter he arranged for the trap. The witness has deposed that trap was carried out in his presence wherein tainted currency notes were recovered from the person of the accused and that detailed panchnama was carried out as well as other items regarding disproportionate income were also noted during the course of carrying out panchnama. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that for carrying out illegal passengers, the cases were registered against the complainant and even one case for keeping molasses was also registered against the complainant. 8.4 PW 4 - Vijaykumar Tuljaram Navle has been examined at Exh. 41 who has carried out rest of the investigation and filed the charge-sheet. 8.5 On overall analysis of the evidence on record, it appears that once the complainant himself has disowned his complaint at Exh. 36 and even he has not admitted his signature as well as the contents of the FIR itself, in the considered opinion of this Court, there appears no evidence on record so far as predemand is concerned. So far as instant demand is concerned, in absence of the complaint and taking into consideration the material contradictions as regards to demand and acceptance, more particularly, as per the oral evidence of both the witnesses, the accused was seen in uniform twice on the day of trap, however, contemporaneous record clearly indicates that the accused was seen in loose robe and payjama at the relevant time and therefore, contradictory version is forthcoming on record as regards to cloths which have been wore by the accused at the time of trap. Not only that, but the evidence on record is also clear which indicates that at the time of trap, loose robe and payjama were lying in the compound of the quarter of the accused. Not only that, but the evidence on record is also clear which indicates that at the time of trap, loose robe and payjama were lying in the compound of the quarter of the accused. It can be further be noticed that evidence on record also clearly indicates that hands of accused as well as police official Gamsinh were not found tainted with phenolphthalein powder whereas the hands of the complainant were found to be positive and hence even the theory of acceptance of tainted currency notes by the accused from the complainant becomes doubtful. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, even recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused as per the case of the prosecution is also not reliable as his hands were not found to be tainted with phenolphthalein powder at the time of trap as per the evidence of the complainant as well as panch No. 1. Moreover, the evidence on record also suggests that as the present accused twice detained the jeeps of the complainant as well as complaint was also filed against him for keeping molasses and therefore the complainant was nurturing grudge against the accused and therefore as observed by learned trial Judge, due to inimical relation, the accused was wrongly implicated with the crime in question cannot be ruled out. In this view of the matter, the finding recorded by learned trial Court calls for no interference by this Court and, therefore, the benefit granted by learned trial Court is in accordance with the evidence available on record which calls for no interference. 9. 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. 10. 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. 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. 11. 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