JUDGMENT : A.P. Thaker, J. 1. This acquittal Appeal is filed by the State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, against order dated 30.11.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Godhara in Special Case No. 2 of 2002. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: Raysingbhai Abhabhai Patel, resident of Kotada, Taluka: Godha, District: Panchmahal had given a complaint at ACB, Police Station, Godhara vide CR. No. 2 of 2002 on 12.02.2002 stating that his father Abhabhai is sick and hence he is taking care of agricultural activity. The property of the joint family of his father is land Survey Nos. 81, 86, 198 and 236 of Kotda village. The said lands were of new tenure land and therefore, the procedure for converting it into old tenure land was carried out. In the said proceedings the order of converting the lands into old tenure land had been passed with regard to the land survey Nos. 81, 86, 198 (Except land Survey No. 236) and therefore the complainant had contacted the accused - Talati Shri Solanki of village gram Panchayat on 11.02.2002 at his residence at Jain Samrat Society, Godhara at about 5.00 p.m., because he was keeping the records at his home. On demand of the 7/12 extract with regard to the land converted into the old tenure, it was informed by the accused that, "land Survey Nos. 81, 86, 198 is still shown as new tenure land in the record". Therefore, the complainant has asked that, "the order has been passed with regard to these lands for converting it into old tenure lands". At that time the accused had stated that, "I am not going to make entries without taking money, I am not concerned with the order". Therefore, on demand of 7/12 extract with regard to the land survey Nos. 81, 86, 198 he had shown the said land by new tenure land and therefore the complainant had requested for showing the tenure of land properly. On request made by the complainant, the accused had stated that, if you want to introduced the entry of old tenure land, pay Rs. 5000/-. Therefore, the complainant had stated that, "the amount is excessive, it would be proper if you reduce the amount". Therefore, accused had stated that, "initially you have to pay Rs. On request made by the complainant, the accused had stated that, if you want to introduced the entry of old tenure land, pay Rs. 5000/-. Therefore, the complainant had stated that, "the amount is excessive, it would be proper if you reduce the amount". Therefore, accused had stated that, "initially you have to pay Rs. 2000/- and thereafter payment of remaining amount and I will introduce your entries". It is also alleged that complainant told to the accused that he had no money and he would pay the same after making arrangements. At that point of time, the accused told him to make payment on 12.02.2002 at 5.00 p.m. at his residence and if he did not make the payment he would not make entries of old tenure, at that time the complainant agreed for the same. 3. It is alleged that as complainant was not willing to make payment to the accused he approached the ACB Office, wherein he narrated his complaint. 4. Thereafter ACB office has prepared necessary primary panchnama and led trap at the resident of accused and at that point of time accused has directed the complainant to put the amount on teapoy. At that relevant time complainant and Panch No. 1 were present. After signal was given by the complainant, raid was carried out and thereafter making necessary procedures regarding the examinations of the notes under ultraviolet lamp, etc, necessary panchanama was prepared and ultimately accused was arrested. 5. After due procedure, case was committed to the Special Court, where it was registered as Special Case No. 2 of 2002. 6. The Special Judge has framed the charges against the accused and as the accused pleaded not guilty and prayed for Trial, thereupon, the prosecution has produced oral and documentary evidences. Upon closure of the evidence by the prosecution, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure statement was recorded, wherein, also the accused did not admitted the commission of an offence and stated that when he was preparing copy of extract of 7/12, without his knowledge complainant had put currency notes on the teapoy and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. 7. 7. After considering the evidence and hearing the learned advocates for the parties, ultimately the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 1, 2, 3, 13(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 8. Heard learned APP Mr. K.P. Raval for the State and Mr. Pinak Raiyani for Mr. Hriday Buch for the respondent and perused evidences and the decisions relied upon both the sides. 9. Learned APP Mr. Raval vehemently while reading entire evidence on record submitted that Trial Court had committed serious error of fact and law in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against him. According to him, the complainant has initially turned hostile, but during his cross examination on the part of the prosecution he has supported the version of the prosecution and the acceptance as well as of the demand made by the accused as well as the fact that at the instance of accused the amount was put up on the teapoy and thereafter its recovery has been established. 9.1. Mr. Raval APP has vehemently submitted that panch No. 1 has specifically supported the case of the prosecution regarding the demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount from the residence of the accused. There is no contradiction in the version of the complainant and Panch-witness and according to him the learned Trial Court ought to have believed the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses. He has submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law in not believing the evidence of the Panch-witness. 9.2. According to him, the evidence of Police witness supported the evidence of witnesses and specifically proved the case that complainant has lodged the complaint of demand of bribe by the accused and thereupon after carrying out necessary procedure of primary panchnama, raid was conducted at the residence of the accused, and from his residence the bribe amount was found on teapoy. He has submitted that the demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount has been duly proved from the evidences produced on the record and the Court below has committed serious error in appreciating the evidence of Panchas and Police witnesses as well as the documentary evidences. He has submitted that the demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount has been duly proved from the evidences produced on the record and the Court below has committed serious error in appreciating the evidence of Panchas and Police witnesses as well as the documentary evidences. According to him, at the instance of the accused the amount was put on the teapoy and therefore, It can be presumed that the accused has accepted the amount from the complainant. According to him the learned Trial Court has materially erred in not believing the prosecution case, merely on the basis of minor contradiction in the evidence of witness. He has submitted that on re-appreciating the evidence on record, the impugned judgment of acquittal may be set aside and accused may be convicted and proper sentence be imposed on him as offence is serious one and it affects the society at large. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Pinank Raiyani has vehemently submitted that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in its true perspective and the learned Special Judge has not committed any mistake of facts and law in acquitting the accused. He also submitted that the learned Trial Court placed reliance on the decisions which includes decisions of this Court and also Supreme Court, on the basis of that proposition of law he acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him and there is no any error of facts or law in the impugned judgment. According to him, the impugned judgment and order does not require any interference by this Court. He also submitted that this being the acquittal appeal, the powers of the Appellate Court is very much limited and when two views are possible, the appellate Court would not take the view, which would upset the view taken by the Trial Court of acquitting the accused. 10.1. Mr. Pinank Raiyani learned advocate for Mr. Hriday Bhuch, learned advocate for the respondent, while referring to the further statement of the accused and the evidence on record has vehemently submitted that as accused was giving extract of village Form No. 7/12 of the land survey No. 97/1 as has been demanded by the complainant, the complainant has put currency notes on the teapoy without the knowledge of the accused and at that point of time, raiding party came there. He has also contended that the accused has never demanded any amount of bribe nor accepted and nor any amount has been recovered from him. 10.2. He has also contended that the sanction given by the DDO is not legal one as the competent authority for issuing sanction against the accused is Deputy DDO. He has submitted that there is contradiction in the evidence of complainant and panch-witness. He has further submitted that in this case, the Investigating Officer is a same person who has actively taken part in the entire trap. He has also contended that the panchnama cannot be read in evidence as it was not dictated by the Panchas, but dictated by the Police Officer. While relying on the following decisions, he has contended that the learned Trial Court has not committed any error of law in appreciating the evidence and reaching ultimate conclusion of acquittal of the accused from the charges levelled against him. According to him, there is no need to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court acquitting the accused. He has submitted to reject the present appeal and confirm order of the acquittal. 1. Kanubhai Kantibhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1998 (1) GLHA 924. 2. Satvir Singh vs. State of Delhi reported in 2014 (13) SCC 143 . 11. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court 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. 12. Further, 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. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. 12. Further, 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. Further, 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 with which he is charged. 13. In law prosecution has to establish charge beyond reasonable doubt. What is required to be proved has been made clear by the Supreme Court in the case of Rabindrakumar Dey vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 170 as under: "Three cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence are well settled namely: (1) that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defence version while proving its case; (2) that in a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty; and (3) that the onus of the prosecution never shifts." 14. It is also well settled principle of law that so far as the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act are concerned, the three main ingredients namely (i) demand (ii) acceptance and (iii) recovery are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is also well settled principle of law that so far as the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act are concerned, the three main ingredients namely (i) demand (ii) acceptance and (iii) recovery are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is also well settled that if one of them is not proved being the vital part, the offence cannot be said to have been constituted and conviction cannot be inflicted. 15. In this case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of complainant Raysingbhai Abhabhai PW.1 (Exh. 6) and panch witness Somabhai Bhoylabhai PW.2 (Exh. 10), as well as Police witness namely Rameshchandra Chhaganlal Rana PW.3 (Exh. 14) and Vijaykumar Tuljaram PW.4 (Exh. 17). As per the prosecution case, the accused demanded illegal gratification for carrying out the work of making entry of old tenure in the land revenue survey No. 81, 86, 198 of the complainant, and for providing certified copy thereof. On perusal of evidence on record it transpires that the copy of revenue entry which has been seized from the complainant at the time of second part of panchnama belongs to village form No. 7/12 of survey No. 97. It also transpires from the record that on the previous day i.e. 11th February, the complainant has got the extract of the revenue records pertaining to the land of revenue survey No. 81, 86. However, he has not uttered anything regarding having got the extract of revenue record on earlier date. 16. The proof of demand is concerned, it is found that there is contradiction in the evidence of the complainant as well as panch-witness. It appears from the record that complainant initially has not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, he has been declared as hostile by the prosecution and he has been thoroughly cross examined by the prosecution. During such cross examination on behalf of the prosecution, the complainant has admitted certain facts of preparing panchnama as well as the recovery of amount from Teapoy and experiment of ultraviolet lamp, etc. However, so far as the handing over of the bribe amount is concerned he has stated that he has put currency notes in the hand of the Talati i.e. accused. He has been confronted with his previous statement however, he has stated that he has not narrated this fact before the police. However, so far as the handing over of the bribe amount is concerned he has stated that he has put currency notes in the hand of the Talati i.e. accused. He has been confronted with his previous statement however, he has stated that he has not narrated this fact before the police. Against this evidence, the Panch No. 1 specifically stated that complainant has put the currency notes on the teapoy and at that time, the accused was facing to the cupboard and also preparing extract of the revenue entry. On perusal of the evidence of the panch, it also transpires that he has not uttered anything regarding the demand by the accused at the time of delivery of copy of revenue record to the complainant. Thus, there is lack of evidence regarding the demand of amount at the time of raid and acceptance of amount by the accused. 17. It is pertinent to note that even as per the evidence of the complainant and panch and police witness, currency notes were found from the teapoy and no sign of anthracene powder was found on the body of the accused or on any part of his hand. Thus, the amount has not been recovered from the person of the accused and it has been recovered from the teapoy. Thus, there is lack of evidence regarding demand and acceptance of bribe amount. Of course, it has been submitted by learned APP that at the instance of accused amount was put on the teapoy, and, for this purpose, he has relied on the facts narrated in the panchnama and the answer given by the panch suo - motu during the cross examination and the evidence of the Investigating Officer. It transpires from the evidence of the complainant as well as panch witness, that they have made improvements in their evidence. 18. Another point which required to be considered is that in this case, the Panchnama was not dictated by the Panchas. It reveals from the evidence of Panch and the complainant that Police personnel had dictated the panchnama to his writer and panchas have not dictated anything. In this view of the fact, no reliance can be placed on the averments made in the panchnama. 19. It reveals from the evidence of Panch and the complainant that Police personnel had dictated the panchnama to his writer and panchas have not dictated anything. In this view of the fact, no reliance can be placed on the averments made in the panchnama. 19. One other point which go to the root of the case is that, both the police officers were the party to the entire raid proceedings i.e. from beginning till the end and one of them has carried out the investigation. In the case of Bhagwandas vs. State of Rajasthan. AIR 1976 SC 985 , the Apex Court has held that if everything is done by the Police Officers it would be an infirmity in the case which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case. In that case the complaint was recorded by the Investigating Officer and raid also carried out by the investigating Officer and search and seizure were also carried out by the same Investigating Officer and thereafter the investigation was also carried out by the same Investigating Officer till charge sheet was filed. Here, in the present case also, both the police officers were the party to the raid from beginning i.e. recording of the complaint till filing of the charge sheet. When that is the case, the credibility of the case of the prosecution is certainly suspicious and on that count the prosecution must fail. 20. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it clearly transpires that there is lack of evidence regarding demand, acceptance. Of course, recovery has been made. But, that recovery has not been made from the accused but was made from the teapoy. Considering the evidence on record and on re-appreciating it in proper perspective, it transpires that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. On perusal of the impugned judgment it transpires that the learned Special Judge has appropriately appreciated the evidence on record and reached to correct conclusion of acquitting the accused. There is no infirmity, whatsoever, much less legal infirmity, in the impugned judgment of the Special Judge. 21. For the forgoing reasons, present appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Resultantly present appeal is hereby dismissed. There is no infirmity, whatsoever, much less legal infirmity, in the impugned judgment of the Special Judge. 21. For the forgoing reasons, present appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Resultantly present appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgment of acquittal by the Special Judge, Godhara, Panchmahal in Special Case No. 2 of 2002 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond of the accused stands cancelled. Surety stands discharged. R & P be send back to the concerned trial Court.