JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. Present Appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent recorded by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Rajkot in Special (ACB) Case No. 5 of 1992 dated 31-01-2006. 2. It is the case, where the respondent was working as Assistant Engineer in Town Planning Department of Rajkot Municipal Corporation, allegedly demanded bribe for the purpose of passing the plan of construction. 3. The Complainant; Mukundbhai Govindbhai Dudhatra has moved file for passing of the plan on behalf of Dipak Chunilal Doshi on 11-04-1991 and amount of bribe of Rs. 2500/- was demanded on 01-08-1991 and the bribe amount was received by the accused on 02-08-1991. 4. The incident had resulted into registration of F.I.R. No. 14/1991 with Rajkot ACB Police Station and filing of Charge-sheet No. 5 of 92 on 08-06-1992 for the offences under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in support of the prosecution, the State had examined 5 witnesses and exhibited 10 documentary evidences, which was sufficient to establish the charge against the respondent. 6. It is submitted that prosecution witness Nos. 2 and 4 are the panch-witnesses, who have supported the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that the trap was successful trap in all respect and therefore, evidence of the panch-witnesses, who were party to the trap proceedings, are relevant and this witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, the trial Court has failed to attach due weightage to the evidence of these witnesses. 7. It is submitted that the Court ought to have taken into consideration relevant aspect that the State Government has granted sanction to prosecute after considering all the relevant record and that sanction is also exhibited vide Exh-73. 8. It is submitted that the Court ought to have taken into consideration the evidence of PSI, Sharma, who was the Police Inspector at ACB Police Station at the time of offence and had lodged the complaint against the accused person and had also arranged the trap, which was successful and therefore, this evidence is required to be treated as corroborative piece of evidence. It is submitted that despite sufficient evidence on record, the Sessions Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that there was no demand for bribe or acceptance, though the trap was successful. 9. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent–accused has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case of bribery against the respondent. The essential ingredients of offence of bribery i.e. initial demand, demand soon before acceptance, acceptance and recovery are not proved. It is submitted that there is no recovery of tainted notes from the body (person) of the respondent. Tainted notes (25 notes of Rs. 100 = Rs. 2500) are found in a drawer of table in diary. It is submitted that Anthracine powder test applied on hands and fingers of the respondent is negative. It is submitted that no marks/sign of powder are found. It is submitted that there is serious contradiction with respect to ‘demand soon before acceptance’. The testimony of complainant and panch no. 1 doesn’t prove the demand before acceptance. There is nothing to show that accused has demanded the bribe and complainant has put the tainted notes inside drawer. The table/desk of accused is situated along with other desk of officers. The possibility can not be ruled out that tainted notes are put inside drawer without knowledge of accused. The raiding officer has asked panch no. 1 to open up drawer directly without stated by anyone that bribe amount is put inside drawer. 10. It is submitted that the panchas are not independent. Both panch are government servant and are fear of inquiry. Panchas have not given statement before police. Further more panch no. 1 is member of Rajkot Sardar Patel Yuvak Mandal. There is precedent of decision of Gujarat High Court that said mandal provide panchas to ACB office. The panch no. 1 remembers each and every ACB officers by name from 1992 till his testimony in court but didn’t remember other officers. The panchas are therefore not trustworthy. Further more the panch no. 1 doesn’t say that he has received any Official instruction from his office superintendent/superior to go as panch witness. The panch is silent as to how he is called as panch in raid. 11. The panchas are therefore not trustworthy. Further more the panch no. 1 doesn’t say that he has received any Official instruction from his office superintendent/superior to go as panch witness. The panch is silent as to how he is called as panch in raid. 11. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears that the charge was framed vide Exh-8, the gist of which is as under: “1. You, the accused were working as Assistant Engineer in the Town Planning Branch of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation, Rajkot during the year 1991 and you were thereby working as Public Servant. 2. With a view to pass the plan, you the accused had produced the plan in the house of Dipak Chunilal Doshi, on 11.04.1991 before Mukund Govindbhai Dudhatra in the Town Planning Branch of Rajkot Municipal Corporation. You had demanded Rs. 2,500/- for passing the plan as the work of passing such plan was being carried out by you, the accused. 3. You, the accused had accepted an amount of Rs. 2,500/- for the said purpose from the complainant Mr. Mukund Govindbhai Dudhatra on 02.08.1991 at around 4:50 hours in the Town Planning Office of Rajkot Municipal Corporation. 4. Thus, for the aforesaid purpose and objective, you, the accused had demanded and accepted an amount of Rs. 2,500/- (in figures rupees two thousands five hundred) from the complainant Mr. Mukund Govindbhai Dudhatra as benefit other than legal re-numeration and you have misused the power of your post for getting your own financial benefit.” 12. The complainant; Mukundbhai Govindbhai Dudhatra was examined as PW-1, vide Exh-27, who identified himself as Draftsman and on the basis of license belonging to other person, he was proposing construction plan of private parties for the purpose of sanction from the Municipal Corporation. 13. In the instance case, this witness had proposed construction plan for sanction on behalf of one Dipak Chunilal Doshi. This witness has deposed that plan, which was sanctioned, was not being given to this witness by the accused since 8 to 10 days and when this witness met the accused, he demanded an amount of Rs. 5,000/- for the same. The complainant as, did not desire to pay an amount, had approached the ACB through Architect, who was knowing one Mr. Dave of ACB. 5,000/- for the same. The complainant as, did not desire to pay an amount, had approached the ACB through Architect, who was knowing one Mr. Dave of ACB. The evidence in chief thereafter indicates that the ACB wanted this witness to come with currency for bribe amount and accordingly, he had brought Rs. 2,500/- currency notes on the next day. 14. It is pertinent to observe that demand was made on 01-08-1991 at around 4.00 pm and the F.I.R. was registered on 02-08-1991 and the trap was laid on 02-08-1991 between 19.50 to 21.00 hours. However, there is discrepancy in the evidence in chief of this very witness, where at one stage, he has deposed demand of Rs. 5000/- but, there is nothing in evidence in chief as to how this witness when asked for currency notes for giving bribe, had brought amount of Rs. 2500/- as claim to have been decided. This creates serious doubts with regard to factum of demand on 01-08-1991. 15. In the cross examination, this witness has stated that once he produced currency notes, which were to be used for trap, which were of the denomination of 100, the Investigating Agency proceeded to smear powder upon the currency notes in question and it was thereafter that panchas were called and first part of the panchnama was executed. At that stage, panchas were shown currency notes smeared with powder. 16.This is an important lapse in the prosecution theory as panch-witness PW-2; Karshanbhai Naranbhai Aagriya vide Exh-39 has given vivid description as to how the currency notes were smeared with powder in front of them by spreading it out on the table and carrying out demonstration under the lamp. Therefore, versions of the complainant and panch-witness is contradictory to each other. 17. It would also be pertinent to again compare the version of the complainant; PW-1 Mukundbhai Govindbhai Dudhatra and PW-2 with regard to demand of Rs. 5000/-. Version of complainant does not indicate as to how amount of Rs. 5000/- allegedly demanded was thereafter reduced to Rs. 2500/- whereas panch-witness in his evidence in chief has stated that initial demand by the respondent was of Rs. 5000/- for passing plan, but upon being cajoled, the complainant had reduced to an amount of Rs. 2500/-. In absence of this incident of cajoling and reducing from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 5000/- allegedly demanded was thereafter reduced to Rs. 2500/- whereas panch-witness in his evidence in chief has stated that initial demand by the respondent was of Rs. 5000/- for passing plan, but upon being cajoled, the complainant had reduced to an amount of Rs. 2500/-. In absence of this incident of cajoling and reducing from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 2500/- in the version of the complainant himself, it appears that the prosecution has made an attempt to plug the loophole by bringing the same in the evidence in chief of the Panch-witness No. 1, who in fact was never present when the alleged demand of Rs. 5000/- was made. 18. Third aspect, which requires consideration with regard to the contradiction of the version of the aforesaid two witnesses, it would be pertinent to observe that on the date of trap i.e. on 02-08-1991, evidence in chief of PW-1, where this witness has deposed as under: “I and Pancha No. 1 had stood before Mr. Sampat. I told Sampat Saheb that I have brought the required amount of money and the conversation was heard by Pancha No. 1. Sampat Saheb pulled out the left side drawer, in which I had put the money and Pancha No. 1 had seen it.” 19. However, version of PW-2 with regard to the same incident, is as under: “I also accompanied the complainant at the place where the accused Pankajkumar was sitting. Shri Sampat welcomed the complainant stating that “Welcome, Mukund.” The complainant asked Shri Sampat “What is about my plan?” So, Mr.Sampat replied that, “Your work will be completed within few days.” He further asked him, “What about your promise of giving Rs. 2500/- yesterday?” The complainant replied that “I have brought the money.” Shri Sampat told him to give the said amount and the complainant took out this money from pocket of his shirt and told the accused to take this amount. Thus, the accused Sampat opened left side drawer of his table and asked him to keep the said amount therein. The complainant told Shri Sampat to count the money. However, Shri Sampat told him that, “I trust you. Now, there is nothing to worry. Your other works shall also be completed.” Then, the complainant kept the said money in the said drawer.” 20. Aforesaid inconsistencies, in the opinion of the Court, would prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. 21. However, Shri Sampat told him that, “I trust you. Now, there is nothing to worry. Your other works shall also be completed.” Then, the complainant kept the said money in the said drawer.” 20. Aforesaid inconsistencies, in the opinion of the Court, would prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. 21. The Special Court has therefore, taken into consideration that the case of initial demand of Rs. 5000/- reduced to Rs. 2500/- is based on uncorroborated testimony of complainant. There are discrepancy in case of complainant. The complainant has stated in the complaint that on 1.8.1991 at 4 pm. He visited the accused in his office wherein the accused demanded bribe of Rs. 5000/- whereas in his cross examination complainant has stated that he received papers from outward section of Municipal Corporation between 11 to 12 noon. Thereafter, complainant has not visited Municipal Corporation. Therefore obviously, complainant could not have visited accused in his office at 4 pm. Thereafter, complainant has further specified that on that day the complainant has not meet accused but bribe of Rs. 5000/- was demanded by accused 2 days prior thereto. The complainant i.e. Mukundbhai Govindbhai Dudhatra, Exh.28 has supported the prosecution case. Complainant has admitted that accused has stated to the raiding officer that “he don’t know who has put money here.” The main crux of deposition of complainant is that he has put up plan in municipal corporation for approval. The case of complainant is that commencement letter was ready but the accused has not signed and rest of all the procedure is complete save and except the signature of accused on commencement letter. The complainant has admitted in his cross examination that after the provisional sanction was given to construction thereafter certain shortcomings were asked to be fulfilled. The provisional sanction is produced vide Exh.29 at instance of defense. The last order in provisional sanction is by Municipal Commissioner wherein the plan was sanction on condition of keeping margin of 2 meter on road. The photo copies of maps are also produced by complainant vide Ex.10/9/8 to 10/9/15. The complainant was not ready to admit that he has not kept margin of 2 meter and insist that he can’t say anything without looking at original plan though complainant has admitted in chief that maps vide mark 10/9/8 to 10/9/15 are photo copies original. The photo copies of maps are also produced by complainant vide Ex.10/9/8 to 10/9/15. The complainant was not ready to admit that he has not kept margin of 2 meter and insist that he can’t say anything without looking at original plan though complainant has admitted in chief that maps vide mark 10/9/8 to 10/9/15 are photo copies original. The trial court has made specific note on conduct of complainant during his testimony. The complainant was not ready to give clear answer. The complainant was warn by the learned Judge and yet he gave evasive reply that he don’t know about short comings in plan or that Municipal Commissioner has sanctioned the plan etc. The complainant thereafter admitted that shortcomings was with respect to parking but he has not put up revised plan. The complainant further admitted that he has not paid Rs. 17,994/- in RMC for construction of balcony. The complainant has further admitted that condition put up by Municipal Commissioner vide Exh.29 letter was not fulfilled. It also transpires that only Municipal Commissioner was authorized to issue sanction and the accused has no authority at all. Therefore there is no substratum in prosecution case. The complainant has also stated in his testimony that he taken Rs. 2500/- from Dilipbhai and decided time. At that time money was in his pocket. He further stated that “at that time also he has asked the accused to take Rs. 2500/- but accused did not taken the money.” If the version of complainant is seen carefully, it draws two inferences. One, no bribe taking accused will refuse to accept money. And, secondly, one previous attempt might have been made to give bribe to accused but didn’t remain successful and thereafter money is foisted in his drawer and raid was carried out. 22. It is also pertinent to observe from the cross-examination of PW-1 with reference to sanction for construction, for which amount was demanded, this witness has deposed as under: “21. It is true that until the trap was laid down, I did not pay the amount towards construction of balcony in Rajkot Municipal Corporation. I am shown a letter of Mark-10/9-3, which I received. It is true that I have not paid the amount of Rs. 17,994/- as mentioned therein to Municipal Corporation. It is true that after laying down the trap, I have not paid this amount. I am shown a letter of Mark-10/9-3, which I received. It is true that I have not paid the amount of Rs. 17,994/- as mentioned therein to Municipal Corporation. It is true that after laying down the trap, I have not paid this amount. It is true that after laying down the trap, another person has produced the map of construction. Mark-10/9-3 is read vide Exhibit-36. 22. I received a letter of Exhibit-36 from Outward Section of Rajkot Municipal Corporation on 01.08.1991. When I went to Municipal Corporation between 11-00 to 12-00 hours, I received a letter of Exhibit-36. Thereafter, I did not go to Office of Municipal Corporation on the same day. I have neither met the accused on dated first nor had any conversation between us regarding money.” 23. In view of the aforesaid deposition, there is serious doubt about the demand of Rs. 5000/- or Rs. 2500/- as on 01-08-1991, the sanction (Exh-36) was already received and therefore, entire case of the prosecution would fall, which is based on allegation that the respondent was withholding handing over of the sanction, which was already granted. 24. The Court may also draw strength from the decision of the Apex Court in case of Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 , wherein the Apex Court has examined the case law with regard to the power of the High Court to overturned the decision of the Sessions Court where an another view is possible. Examining the case including that of Chandrappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Apex Court has culled out the general principles regarding the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeal against the order of acquittal. The Apex Court has held that the appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, the appellate court has to keep in mind that in case of an acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. The Apex Court has held that the appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, the appellate court has to keep in mind that in case of an acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence and thereafter, upon securing of acquittal, the presumption is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened, and therefore, whenever there are two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, ordinarily, the Apex Court would not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial court. 25. Considering the chronology of dates of making of demand, registration of F.I.R. and the date of trap, does not match with the prosecution case, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. 26. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent recorded by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Rajkot in Special (ACB) Case No. 5 of 1992 dated 31-01-2006 stands confirmed. Bail and bail bonds of the accused, if any, stands discharged. R&P be sent back to the concerned Trial Court, forthwith.