JUDGMENT : A.P. THAKER, J. 1. The appellant-State has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 (1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order 30.06.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Valsad, (hereinafter be referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Special (Corruption) Case No. 51 of 2002 whereby the Trial Court has acquitted the original accused-respondent herein for the charges levelled against him for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”). 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that the complainant Rajeshkumar Bhimbharati Goswami lodged the complaint before ACB on 31.12.1998 alleging that he was residing with his family at Atul and doing the small trade in incense-stick and working as a helper in Atik Private Limited Company at Atul and he retired voluntarily. It is alleged that he was not getting his pension and, therefore, he approached the office of the Provident Fund at Vapi and at that time, the accused was consulted by the complainant and the accused informed the complainant that if he gave Rs. 1000/- he would see that the work of provident fund is done early. It is alleged that at that time, the complainant gave Rs. 300/- on the spot and remaining amount of Rs. 700/- was to be paid to the accused on 30.12.1998 between 4.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. and at that time, accused has assured that he would give the details of cheque payable to him. Since, the complainant did not desire to pay the amount of Rs. 700/- he lodged the complaint before ACB whereby the raid was successfully carried out and the accused came to be arrested. 2.1 On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be led before the Trial Court. 2.2 On filing of the charge-sheet, the charge was framed against the accused by the Trial Court at the relevant time and the accused has pleaded not guilty and pleaded for trial. Therefore, the prosecution has led evidence which consists of panch witness Dhanjibhai Somabhai, PW-1 at Exhibit 20; Mahavirsinh Pravinsinh Raol, PW-2 at Exhibit 21, Ambapratapsinh Chandravijaysinh Jadeja, PW-3 at Exhibit 35 and Ranjitsinh Deshabhai Vala, PW-4 at Exhibit 48 and produced sixteen documentary evidence. Therefore, the prosecution has led evidence which consists of panch witness Dhanjibhai Somabhai, PW-1 at Exhibit 20; Mahavirsinh Pravinsinh Raol, PW-2 at Exhibit 21, Ambapratapsinh Chandravijaysinh Jadeja, PW-3 at Exhibit 35 and Ranjitsinh Deshabhai Vala, PW-4 at Exhibit 48 and produced sixteen documentary evidence. 2.3 After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein the accused has denied of having committed any such offence. In his further written statement, he has stated that at the time of raid, no work was pending and he has already sent the file of the complainant for payment scroll to the scroll department as early as possible on 16.12.1998 and he has not demanded any amount, but the complainant has put the amount in his pocket forcibly and has stated that he is innocent. He has neither examined himself on oath nor examined any defence witness thereof. 2.4 After perusing and considering the evidence on record and after hearing both the sides, the Trial Court has, ultimately, acquitted the accused-respondent from the charges levelled against him. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal. 4. Heard Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant- State and Mr. A.V. Nair, learned advocate for the respondent-accused at length. Perused the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court and material placed on record. 5. Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State, while referring to the evidence on record, has vehemently submitted that in this case, original complainant has left the village and his whereabouts was not known and, therefore, his evidence could not be led before the Trial Court. He has submitted that the panch witness Dhanjibhai Somabhai has tendered his evidence at Exhibit 20 wherein he has completely supported the case of the prosecution regarding demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs. 700/- by the accused as well as Rs. 700/- recovered from the pocket of the accused. While referring to the police witness, he has stated that police personnel as well as both the Investigating Officers have completely supported the case of the prosecution in totality. 700/- by the accused as well as Rs. 700/- recovered from the pocket of the accused. While referring to the police witness, he has stated that police personnel as well as both the Investigating Officers have completely supported the case of the prosecution in totality. According to him, the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has committed an error in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against him. According to him, in absence of the evidence of the complainant, the evidence on record also specifically establishes the demand, acceptance and recovery and, therefore, the Trial Court ought to have convicted the accused for the alleged offence and should have inflicted sufficient punishment upon him. 6. For his submissions, he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court dated 28.02.2019 rendered in the case of Mrs. Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) in Criminal Case No. 1669 of 2009 and has prayed to allow the appeal and to quash and set aside the judgment and order of the Trial Court. 7. Per contra, Mr. A.V. Nair, learned advocate for the respondent-accused has vehemently submitted that in absence of the direct evidence regarding the demand, no presumption can be raised against the accused only on the basis of the recovery of the amount from his pocket. While referring to the evidence on record, he has submitted that there is no cogent, reliable evidence on record to prove the main ingredients of demand and acceptance by the accused. He has submitted that the evidence of the police witnesses are in the nature of hear say evidence and, therefore, their evidence cannot be based for conviction of the accused. While referring to the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court, he has submitted that the Trial Court has not committed any error of law and facts in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against him. He has submitted that the decision relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not applicable to the facts of present case as the evidence on record does not suggest or prove the facts that the accused has demanded bribe amount and accepted the same. He has submitted that the decision relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not applicable to the facts of present case as the evidence on record does not suggest or prove the facts that the accused has demanded bribe amount and accepted the same. According to him, there is no need to interfere in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court as the view taken by the Trial Court is possible on the evidence on record. He has prayed to dismiss the appeal. 8. It is well settled by catena of decisions that an 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. 9. 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. 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. 10. It is well settled by catena of decisions that in the cases of the Prevention of Corruption Act three essential ingredients namely (i) demand, (ii) acceptance and (iii) recovery are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. If any of them is not proved, being the vital part, the offence cannot be said to have constituted and, therefore, in absence of any one of them, the conviction cannot be imposed. In this case, the question which is required to be determined is whether the prosecution has successfully established acceptance as well as recovery is duly proved from the fact that the amount was lying on the table and it is recovered from the top of the table. 11. In the case of Mrs. Neeraj Dutta (supra), the complainant was passed away before trial and, the shadow witness was examined in support of the prosecution case and based upon the evidence of the shadow witness and recovery of money from the accused, the Trial Court held that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification has been established by the prosecution and convicted the appellant-accused. Against that order, the accused has preferred Criminal Appeal before the High Court, whereby the High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence. Against the order of the High Court, a Criminal Appeal came to be filed before the Apex Court wherein considering the various decisions of the Apex Court regarding question as to whether in absence of evidence of complainant/direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, is it not permissible to draw inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution was referred to the larger bench. Thus, there are view expressed by the Apex Court regarding absence of direct evidence of the complainant regarding demand. It appears that in the case of Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, (2015) 10 SCC 152 , it was held that in absence of direct evidence regarding demand of illegal gratification due to the death of complainant would be fatal to the prosecution case and recovery of the amount from the accused would not entail his conviction. In the cases of Kishan Chand Mangal vs. State of Rajasthan, (1982) 3 SCC 466 , Hazari Lal vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1980) 2 SCC 390 and M. Narsinga Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2001) 1 SCC 691 , either the complainant died or turned hostile. Considering the facts on record, the conviction was inflicted upon the accused on other evidence. 12. Now, considering the evidence on record, it reveals that in this case, the complainant has not been examined by the prosecution though they have tried levelled best. In such situation, the examination of panch witness and officer of the raiding party and Investigating Officer was made. So far as the evidence of police witnesses are concerned, their evidence are in the nature of hear say evidence. So far as recovery is concerned, the factum of recovery of the amount from the pocket of the accused is duly proved from the evidence of the panch witness as well as trapping officer. So far as the demand and acceptance are concerned, the entire case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of the panch witness Dhanjibhai Somabhai at Exhibit 20 and in that view of the matter, the evidence of panch witness Dhanjibhai Somabhai is required to be scrutinized carefully. 13. It reveals from the evidence of panch witness Dhanjibhai Somabhai at Exhibit 20 that so far as experiment of ultra violate lamp and anthrecene powder is concerned, he has supported the case of the prosecution. He has also deposed that he and other Naranbhai Gulab called as panch by ACB office and when they reached to the office of ACB, the complainant was there and at that time, the raiding officer has introduced them with the complainant and, thereafter, the complainant has given his complaint in their presence. Thereafter, he put his signature on the complaint. He has deposed that the complainant has tendered Rs. Thereafter, he put his signature on the complaint. He has deposed that the complainant has tendered Rs. 700/-. According to him, after carrying out necessary procedure, all of them went in the police jeep and reached to Atul Guest House and from there, he and complainant went to the office of the Provident Fund. According to him, thereafter, through staircase he and complainant went upstairs of the office of Provident Fund where the complainant has given a chit to one officer and after verifying the register, some correction was made in the chit by that officer and at that time, the complainant has told that he has brought the amount which has been told by that officer and at that point of time, that officer has told him to complete the transaction after having cup of tea and, thereafter, he along with the complainant went to the restaurant which was situated on ground floor. According to him, even in the restaurant, the complainant has told that officer that he has brought amount as told by him and, thereafter, the complainant has given it to that fellow and that fellow has accepted it and, thereafter, he has supported the version that necessary experiment of ultra violate lamp was carried out on that fellow and the complainant and muddamal currency note. According to his version, the first part of panchnama was prepared in the hotel and, thereafter, they went to the ACB Office and, thereafter, another panchnama was prepared in the ACB Office. 13.1 During the cross-examination, he has stated that he has no option but to go with the complainant and the complainant has given the complaint before the ACB Office in his presence. He has denied the suggestion that when they reached to the office of the ACB, the complaint has already written and he has only put up his signature. He has stated that in his presence, no search of staff member was carried out in the office of the ACB. According to him, when they reached in the office of the Provident Fund, the complainant has given a chit to that fellow and that fellow has corrected the amount of interest in the chit and at that time, there was no any conversation made thereof. It is his version that they were stayed in the office of ACB for just 2 to 5 minutes only. It is his version that they were stayed in the office of ACB for just 2 to 5 minutes only. He has admitted that there was commotion in the hotel and many persons were moving in the hotel. He has stated that he did not remember how many signatures he has put in the hotel. However, he has stated that after reaching to the office of the ACB, he has put up his signature and that signature was taken after five days thereof. He has stated that the police was asking him and he was replying to that question and on that basis, the police was writing the panchnama. 13.2 It appears from the evidence of this witness that, initially, the accused was not identified by him and he has narrated that only one person was present in the office. But in re-examination, it was put on record by the prosecution that the person who is sitting in the Court is that fellow. However, in the cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he has stated that before his deposition, he has to come in the Court about 2-3 times and the person who has identified by him is present in the Court along with ACB constable. 14. On reading of the evidence of police witness, it appears that the trapping officer has specifically that stated in the hotel there was no other persons except the complainant, panch witness and the accused and he was sitting in the bench which was lying in the corner of the hotel. According to this witness, he has interrogated the complainant and panch witness regarding what has happened and, thereafter, he has carried out other procedure and ultimately arrested the accused. He has denied the suggestion of the accused that the work of the complainant was over and at his instance, the complainant has forcibly put the amount in the pocket of the accused. He has admitted that during the investigation, it was found that the file of the complainant has to be passed through many officers and it also reveals that the accused was not authorized to sign the cheque. He has stated that he has not obtained any documentary evidence to verify the facts whether there was another person present of the same name of the accused. 15. He has stated that he has not obtained any documentary evidence to verify the facts whether there was another person present of the same name of the accused. 15. On perusal of the evidence of the Investigating Officer-Ambapratapsinh Chandravijaysinyh Jadeja at Exhibit 35, it transpires that he has admitted that he has recorded the statement of Shashikant Thakordas wherein the witness has stated that the file of the complainant was sent for payment scroll on 16.12.1998. He has stated that he has sent the draft for sanction to his head office and no sanction was received from the head office. 16. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it reveals that so far as the evidence of the complainant is concerned, in absence of the complainant, the content is not proved in legal term. It also reveals from the evidence that the entire case of the prosecution is based on sole evidence of panch witness. However, considering the evidence of the panch witness, it reveals that the ingredient of demand is not satisfactorily proved. The factum of demand is not proved, even by indirect evidence. No presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be raised against the accused merely because there was a recovery of the amount from the accused. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, it clearly appears that all the necessary ingredient of demand is not proved. It also appears that evidence on record is not sufficient and cogent to convict the accused for the alleged offence. 17. Under these circumstances, the view taken by the Trial Court is possible in the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, this being an acquittal appeal, even if the other view is possible, the Appellate Court may not interfere in the order of acquittal. 18. Now, considering the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court, it appears that the Trial Court has not committed any error of facts and law in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against him and the impugned judgment and order does not warrant any interference at the ends of this Court. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Valsad, in Special (Corruption) Case No. 51 of 2002 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.