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 27.8.2004 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge & Fast Track Judge, Court No. 6, Jamnagar in Special Case No. 10 of 1998. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Mr. Jadeja, Police Inspector, ACB received secret information that some traffic police and local policemen are demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 10/- to Rs. 50/- per vehicle in the name of entry fees from the truck drivers who are plying their lignite loaded truck from Kachchh to Mithapur which are passing through Khijadiya bypass etc. Hence, the said Police Inspector arranged a trap wherein the respondents caught red handed and ultimately, the complaint came to be lodged against them. 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. 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 Ms. Chandarana, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 5.1 Ms. Chandarana, 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. She further submitted that learned trial Court has not rightly appreciated the evidence on record. She submitted that learned trial Court while appreciating the evidence has failed to appreciate the evidence of Panch No. 2 who accompanied at the time of trap as well as other two police officials who were also travelling along punter in the truck and who have witnessed the incident and heard the conversation, their evidence has not been believed learned trial Court as the punter as well as panch No. 1 have turned hostile. She submitted that tainted currency notes of Rs. 20/- came to be recovered and that search and seizure were clearly proved and taking into consideration evidence of other eye witnesses, it can be said that both the accused have raised demand and accused No. 2, in fact, accepted the said amount and thereafter on seeing that it was a trap, he thrown away the said tainted currency notes and run away from the place of incident and after about four months, he came to be apprehended. She submitted that involvement of both the accused in the crime in question stands proved because the writing came to be made by the accused No. 2 were produced before learned trial Judge. She further submitted that similarly, demand, acceptance and recovery were also proved from the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses which has not been believed by learned trial Judge. In her 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. Sandeep Limbani, learned advocate for the respondents 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. 6. On the other-hand, Mr. Sandeep Limbani, learned advocate for the respondents 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 since the trap in question was running trap and the complainant - P.W. 6 after completion of the raid has lodged the complaint before himself at Exh. 27, he arranged for the decoy, carried out the trap, recorded the panchnama as well as investigated the case to some extent and thereafter filed the charge-sheet and hence, in view of the decisions in the case of Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan" reported in AIR 1976 SC 985 , followed by this Court in the case of Kanubhai Kantibhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1998 (1) GLH 924 , the entire investigation in the case on hand stands vitiated. 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 submitted that out of five persons who participated in the trap, two independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and even the punter has not at all supported the case of the prosecution. He, therefore, submitted that though the evidence of two police officials is available on record, no reliance can be placed on the same. 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 Ms. Reeta Chandarana, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Sandeep Limbani, 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. 7. This Court has heard Ms. Reeta Chandarana, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Sandeep Limbani, 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, complainant - P.W.6 - Bhikhubha Balubha Jadeja who was serving as Police Inspector, ACB, Jamnagar received secret information from his own source that police officials who were discharging duty in Jamnagar District, more particularly, in Khijadiya bye-pass, Kalavad bye-pass, Lalpur bye-pass, Khambhalia Road and Dwarka are stopping the drivers of trucks and used to collect the amount of illegal gratification ranging between Rs. 10/- and Rs. 50/- and, therefore, he decided on 26.11.1997 to arrange running trap and requisitioned panchas and thereafter he laid trap on 27.11.1997; at that time, accused No. 1 was caught red handed and accused No. 2 after throwing tainted currency, absconded from the place of incident and he came to be apprehended for about four months later on and thereby both the accused have committed the offence, as alleged. 9. P.W. 1 - Ghemabhai Pratapbhai Bhedi has been examined at Exh. 10. The witness has deposed that he was requisitioned as one of the panchas who accompanied with the punter as well as the complainant in the truck at the time of holding running trap who had not supported the case of the prosecution and hence, he was declared hostile. 10. P.W. 2 - Prafulbhai Mohanbhai Gohil has been examined at Exh. 15. The witness was also requisitioned as one of the panchas who also accompanied the complainant - P.W. 6 as well as others who has deposed that on the day of trap while the truck was proceeding within vicinity of Sandhiya Pool, it was intercepted by two police officials. The witness has deposed that one police official was standing there, one was found to be seated over the motor cycle and one police official came nearby the driver of the truck and inquired as to from where the truck is coming and as to where the truck is going and thereafter inquired as regards to load and what has been loaded in the truck, in turn, the punter replied that lignite is loaded and it is within capacity. The witness has deposed that thereafter the person who was sitting over the motor cycle demanded Rs. 50/- as entry, at that time, the punter stated that it is excessive amount and hence, another person who was standing nearby told that as the vehicle in question is passing frequently, give Rs. 20/-. The witness has deposed that thereafter punter has stated that if the police official makes entry in his diary, then he would pay and hence, the said police official made entry in his diary and thereafter punter gave tainted currency notes of Rs. 20/- to the said person who was standing there and raised prearranged signal and hence, other members of the raiding party arrived there. The witness has deposed that at that time, the person to whom tainted currency notes was given thrown away the said currency notes and run away from the place of incident, but his name was known to be Bharatsinh Jadeja - accused No. 2 herein and thereafter the said tainted currency notes were recovered from the road. The witness has deposed that test of ultra violate lamp was carried out on the person of accused No. 1 which was found to be negative. In the cross examination of this witness, certain contradictions have been brought on record which are not required to be detailed as such in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. P.W. 3 - Pankajkumar Pramodrai Pathak has been examined at Exh. 16 and P.W. 4 - Naresh Prabhudas Chauhan has been examined at Exh. 22. Both the witnesses have been examined as panchas wherein it has been brought on record that accused No. 2 was arrested on 7.3.1998 as well as the Investigating Officer requisitioned specimen signature for sending it to the handwriting expert. 12. P.W. 5 - Kirshorsinh Ganubha Jhala has been examined at Exh. 25 to establish that the accused were serving with him and on the day of trap, he was on duty. 13. P.W. 6 - Bhikhubha Balubha Jadeja has been examined at Exh. 26. The witness has deposed that he received secret information and hence, arranged for trap, requisitioned panchas, carried out the trap, drawn panchnama and even carried out part of investigation and ultimately, he filed the charge-sheet. The witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution. 13. P.W. 6 - Bhikhubha Balubha Jadeja has been examined at Exh. 26. The witness has deposed that he received secret information and hence, arranged for trap, requisitioned panchas, carried out the trap, drawn panchnama and even carried out part of investigation and ultimately, he filed the charge-sheet. The witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that since he received secret information, he arranged for the trap, thereafter, he himself has lodged the complaint, carried out investigation and also filed the charge-sheet. 14. P.W. 7 - Rasiklal Naranbhai Guna has been examined at Exh. 29. The witness is handwriting expert who has examined the questioned document and signature of accused No. 2. However, he opined that no opinion could be expressed as regards to disputed signature and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged handwriting appeared on Exhs. 17 and 21 of the accused No. 2. 15. P.W. 8 - Surubha Ganubha Jhala has been examined at Exh. 40. The witness has deposed that he is driving the vehicle for last about 20 years and that he was intercepted by Police Inspector Mr. Jadeja. The witness has deposed that he was requested to act as punter and he agreed to act as punter. The witness has deposed that on the day of trap, three other persons were also being seated along with him in his truck, his truck was intercepted and thereafter he was asked as to what was loaded in the truck, he replied "lignite" and thereafter the said person demanded money for "tea" and hence, he handed over Rs. 50/- to him. The witness was declared hostile as he did not support the case of the prosecution. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that no muddamal diary at Exh. 21 was presented by him to the accused. The witness has admitted that there was no currency note of Rs. 20/- in his pocket. 16. P.W. 12 - Chandubha Akhubha Sodha has been examined at Exh. 56 who was member of raiding party and he was in the truck at the time of trap. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution. 17. P.W. 14 - Sukhdevsinh Bachubha Jadeja has been examined at Exh. 64 who was also member of raiding party and he was in the truck at the time of trap. 56 who was member of raiding party and he was in the truck at the time of trap. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution. 17. P.W. 14 - Sukhdevsinh Bachubha Jadeja has been examined at Exh. 64 who was also member of raiding party and he was in the truck at the time of trap. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution. 18. P.W. 15 - Kantibhai Jesingbhai Patel has been examined at Exh. 65. The witness has deposed that he has carried out part of the investigation and as he was transferred, he did not file charge-sheet. 19. On overall analysis of the aforesaid evidence on record, indisputably, the trap in question was in the nature of running trap for which complainant - P.W. 6 has lodged the complaint before himself and after completion of almost material investigation, he filed the charge-sheet. It is also pertinent to note that though during the course of trap, services of punter as well as two panchas were requisitioned, but out of them, one panch and punter had not at all supported the case of the prosecution. Even, the punter went on saying to the extent that in fact, there was no tainted currency notes of Rs. 20/- with him and he has not handed over the tainted currency notes to the accused. The same is the evidence of another panch, however, the second panch as well as two police officials and complainant have supported the case of the prosecution. 20. One another disturbing feature comes out from the Record and Proceedings of the case is regarding the fact that P.W. 6 - complainant-Police Inspector has assumed all roles right from the stage of recording the complaint at Exh. 27 before himself, arranging trap as well as members of raiding party, carrying out material part of investigation till filing of the charge-sheet. This course of action goes against the basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence and fair investigation. The credibility of the case of the prosecution becomes suspicious on this count only. In the facts of the present case, the status of the investigating officer could not be placed on any pedestal higher than of a complainant and the complainant himself cannot be the sole agency of investigation. There should be no occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation. In the facts of the present case, the status of the investigating officer could not be placed on any pedestal higher than of a complainant and the complainant himself cannot be the sole agency of investigation. There should be no occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation. The said view is fortified by the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of "Bhagwan Singh (supra) followed by this Court in the case of Kanubhai Kantibhai Patel (supra). Therefore, in this case, the prosecution case suffers from the aforesaid basic infirmity which itself is sufficient to vitiate the whole investigation and accordingly the whole proceedings based on such investigation deserves to be quashed and set aside on this count only. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. 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.