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 14.12.2004 rendered by learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamnagar in Special Case No. 2 of 1998. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant had gone to Dared village to show the land to his agent on the scooter and while they were going through Lalpur by-pass, the respondents herein in civil dress had stopped them and respondent No. 1 asked to open the dickey of the scooter and the complainant had opened the same. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 asked as to whether they were carrying liquor with them and also asked for licence which was shown to them. The said licence was taken away by the respondents. It is alleged that thereafter auto-rickshaw was passing by and it had stopped near wherein one lady was there who was unknown to the complainant and his agent. It is alleged that the respondents made allegation that the complainant and his agent had gone there with some bad intention along with the lady and hence the respondents told them to come to the police station as they would be prosecuted. It is alleged that while on their way to police station, respondent No. 1 demanded Rs. 10,000/-, later on the said amount was reduced to Rs. 6000/- by respondent No. 2. It is alleged that said amount of Rs. 6000/- was paid by the younger brother of the complainant to respondent No. 2. Hence, the complainant lodged the complaint against the accused persons. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the respondents 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 statements 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. 3.2 At the end of trial, after recording the statements 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. Hardik Soni, 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 is based upon the presumptions and surmises. He further submitted that learned trial Court has not rightly appreciated the evidence on record. He submitted that there was ample evidence to link the accused with the crime in question as the accused have wrongly implicated the complainant in the crime and, thereby committed cheating as well as demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 6000/- prior to lodging the complaint. 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 respondents are required to be convicted, as such. 6. On the other-hand, Mr. Nirav Thakkar, 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. He 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 respondents accused with the crime in question. He submitted that none of the witness except the police officials have supported the case of the prosecution. He 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 respondents accused with the crime in question. He submitted that none of the witness except the police officials have supported the case of the prosecution. On the contrary, the evidence on record is clearly suggestive of the fact that the complainant and his agent were rightly booked for the offence and for not booking them in the offence, they, on the contrary, offered bribe and, therefore, the complainant and eye witness PW 4 did not support the case of the prosecution and they have been declared hostile. He submitted that as per the evidence of the police officer PW 8 who recorded the complaint against the complainant and his agent, they did not make any complaint that they have been wrongly implicated in the offence. He submitted that there was no demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. He submitted that there is no iota of evidence against the respondents accused to link with the crime in question. 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 respondents accused, and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard Mr. Hardik Soni, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Nirav Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondents - 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 respondents herein have filed false case against the complainant and his agent i.e. PW 3 and PW 4 involving them in the case of molestation and cheating. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondents demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 6000/- from the complainant and hence, the complainant lodged the complaint and thereby the respondents accused have committed the offence, as alleged. 9. PW 1 - Mahammadbhai Rafikbhai has been examined at Exh. 13. The witness has deposed that he was plying rickshaw No. GJ 10 T 1083. 6000/- from the complainant and hence, the complainant lodged the complaint and thereby the respondents accused have committed the offence, as alleged. 9. PW 1 - Mahammadbhai Rafikbhai has been examined at Exh. 13. The witness has deposed that he was plying rickshaw No. GJ 10 T 1083. The witness has deposed that on the day of incident, he carried one Jaishreeben from Khodiyar colony to Lalpur by-pass and while he was on his way, he was intercepted by the respondents herein. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that two scooter riders and one Jaishreeben went behind the petrol pump and after sometime, they arrived nearby his rickshaw, at that time, the present respondents apprehended the said two scooter riders and even carried out the panchnama of arrest. At that time, the said persons who came to be apprehended by the respondents were requesting the witness to settle by way of paying some amount to the respondents, but the respondents did not agree and they prepared the case. 10. PW 2 - Bhikhubhai Bachubhai has been examined at Exh. 14. The witness who was panch did not support the case of the prosecution, but he admitted in his cross examination that two persons who were booked by the respondents were near relatives of the then Minister Mr. Varotariya. The witness has admitted that the persons who were apprehended by the respondents were threatening that the Minister would put them into trouble, though the respondents booked the said persons. 11. PW 3 - Ramsinhbhai Kanabhai Varotariya has been examined at Exh. 17. The witness has not supported his own complaint and he was declared hostile. 12. PW 4 - Mansukhbhai Ambabhai has been examined at Exh. 18 who was eye witness of the incident in question. The witness who accompanied with the complainant has also not supported the case of the prosecution. On the contrary, in the cross examination, the witness has admitted that the present respondents filed the complaint against him and said Jaishreeben which is pending before the competent Court. 13. PW 8 - Rambhai Vashrambhai has been examined at Exh. 26. The witness has deposed that he was serving as police constable in LCB, Jamnagar on 25.2.1993 and that the present respondents were also serving as police constables in LCB. 13. PW 8 - Rambhai Vashrambhai has been examined at Exh. 26. The witness has deposed that he was serving as police constable in LCB, Jamnagar on 25.2.1993 and that the present respondents were also serving as police constables in LCB. The witness has deposed that the respondents booked one lady and two persons under the provisions of section 110 of the Bombay Police Act. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that though he recorded the complaint given by the present respondents against the two persons and lady i.e. PW 3, PW 4 and Jaishreeben, all the said three persons did not state before him that the case against them is false and they did not even state that the respondents demanded or accepted any amount of illegal gratification from them. 14. On overall analysis of the aforesaid evidence on record, it can be seen that neither the complainant nor eye witness have supported the case of the prosecution as regards to wrongly implicating PW 3, PW 4 and one Jaishreeben in the false case as well as the present respondents cheated them and while doing so, the present respondents demanded and accepted Rs. 6,000/- as bribe nor even eye witness PW 4 is supporting the case of the prosecution. On the contrary, the police officer before whom the complaint came to be lodged against PW 3, PW 4 and Jaishreeben had accepted and admitted before learned trial Judge that the said three persons did not complain that the present respondents have filed false case against them and that they had demanded and accepted the amount of illegal gratification from them. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, there appears no iota of evidence against the respondents accused to link them with the crime in question. Under the circumstances, the view taken by learned trial Court acquitting the respondents accused is in consonance with the evidence available on record which calls for no interference by this Court. 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. 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 respondents accused of the charges leveled against them. 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. R & P be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith. Appeal Dismissed