JUDGMENT : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. The appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred the present Appeal under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 6.10.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 5, Palanpur in Special Case No. 7 of 2001, whereby the respondent-original accused was acquitted from the charges levelled against him under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) 1, 2, 3 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of present Appeal are as under: 2.1 The complainant Mr. P.B. Pandav, Police Inspector, Palanpur A.C.B. Police Station has received secret information that some Police Officers as well as employees of Border Wings from Nainava Check Post of Dhanera Police Station as well as Khoda Check Post of Tharad Police Station are demanding and receiving illegal gratification from the drivers of the vehicles passing through the said Check Posts under the guise of entry fees. Therefore, on 2.3.2000 they have arranged running trap and during that running trap, the respondent accused has demanded and accepted Rs.10/- from the driver Manglaram Harkanram Bishnoi as illegal gratification under the guise of entry fees and therefore, FIR being C.R. No. 1 of 2000 came to be lodged before A.C.B. Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) 1, 2, 3 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2.2 On the basis of the said FIR investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material and evidence on record, the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet against the accused and submitted the same before the concerned Court and the same is registered as Special Case No. 7 of 2001. 2.3 Thereafter, after verifying whether the accused was given all the necessary police papers or not, the learned Special Judge framed charges against the accused to which the plea of the accused was recorded, wherein he denied his involvement in the offence. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses being complainant- Chenabhai Udaji Brahmin Exh.24, panch - Jayantibhai Umiyashankar Raval Exh.28, A.C.B., P.I. Prabhudas Badaji Pandav Exh.42, A.C.B., P.I., Investigating Officer Kacharabhai Dalabhai Parmar Exh.70 and A.C.B., P.I - Investigating Officer Hirabhai Gedabhai Damor Exh.78. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses being complainant- Chenabhai Udaji Brahmin Exh.24, panch - Jayantibhai Umiyashankar Raval Exh.28, A.C.B., P.I. Prabhudas Badaji Pandav Exh.42, A.C.B., P.I., Investigating Officer Kacharabhai Dalabhai Parmar Exh.70 and A.C.B., P.I - Investigating Officer Hirabhai Gedabhai Damor Exh.78. The prosecution has also produced various documentary evidences being Copy of seizure memo Exh.33, Pachnama pertaining to procedure of raid Exh.32, Complaint Exh.37, Copy of service book of accused Exh.56, Sanction to prosecuted the accused Exh.53. However, learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 5, Palanpur, after hearing both the parties vide his judgment and order dated 6.10.2006 passed in Special Case No. 7 of 2001 has acquitted the accused of the offences with which he was charged. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 6.10.2006 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 5, Palanpur in Special Case No. 7 of 2001, the State of Gujarat has filed present Appeal. 5. Heard Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State of Gujarat. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent is not remained present at the time of hearing. 6. While referring to the evidence on record, Mr. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State of Gujarat has vehemently submitted that the learned Trial Judge has committed an error while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. He further submitted that the Trial Court has not believed the case of the prosecution though the accused was found with the possession of tainted currency note of Rs.10/- from his hand and for that the panchnama was drawn and it is supported by the evidence of panch witness and PW-3 - trapping officer Mr. Pandav. He submitted that learned Trial Judge has disbelieved the said aspect and given benefit in favour of the accused person, which is erroneous. It is further contended by Mr. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State of Gujarat that the learned Trial Judge measurably failed to appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution in its true and proper spirit hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court acquitting the accused is bad in law and is required to be set aside. 7. I have perused the evidence on record as well as impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court. 8. 7. I have perused the evidence on record as well as impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court. 8. As the case is registered under the provision of Prevention and Corruption Act, the basic ingredients of demand and acceptance are to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The issue involved in present Appeal is whether the Trial Court has committed any error while appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution and whether the Trial Court has committed any illegality or whether any perversity is found in the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court or not? 9. In my view, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.3 received secret information from the private source that the persons who deployed at two Check Posts at Tharad and Khoda are demanding illegal gratification under the name and style of entry fees from each drivers passing through the said Check Posts and therefore, running trap was arranged with the help of Truck Driver i.e. PW-2 - Manglaram Harkanram Bishnoi Exh.35, who was coming from the Rajasthan in the truck. While they were reached near Sanchor, at that time, the PW-3 along with other panch have intercepted the said truck and arranged the running trap. For the said purpose they have given the tented currency note to PW-2. However, neither the said secret information reduced into writing by the PW-3 in the station diary nor the source of information is disclosed before the Court at the time of recording the evidence. Even he has also admitted that he has not made any entry in the station diary with regard to arrangement of running trap before leaving the station for the said trap, which is otherwise mandatory to record the entry in the station diary. Therefore, learned Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence of the Investigating Officer with regard to this preliminary and mandatory provision, in its true and proper spirit and has not committed any illegality or perversity in passing the impugned judgment and order. It is also noted that PW-2, who is driver of the said vehicle has not supported the case of the prosecution and he declared as hostile witness. Even from his cross-examination by the APP, no relevant materiel was found and therefore, his deposition is rightly discarded by the Trial Court. 10. It is also noted that PW-2, who is driver of the said vehicle has not supported the case of the prosecution and he declared as hostile witness. Even from his cross-examination by the APP, no relevant materiel was found and therefore, his deposition is rightly discarded by the Trial Court. 10. So far as the demand is concerned there is no sufficient and material evidence come-forth, though the prosecution has tried to prove the said aspect by leading evidence of PW-1, who is panch and sitting in side of the cabin of the truck along with the truck driver. In presence of PW-3, the said p.w.1 panch states that it was by making a gesture that the accused has demanded the entry fee. While as per the evidence of the PW-3, the said that PW-1 has informed him about the illegal gratification and therefore, on the vital aspect that evidence is contradictory to each other. Hence, the Trial Court has not committed any error while appreciating the evidence, so far as demand is concerned. Even it is also relevant to note herein that the acceptance is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the seizure memo and the panchnama drawn also creates doubt and it is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt. So far as the sanction is concerned learned Judge has also considered this aspect and it is discussed at length in paragraph No. 26 of the judgment. As the respondent is working as guard man in home guard department at border wing and therefore the home guard commandant is the officer who is empowered to appoint and dismiss the employee. However, in present case, the prosecution has got the sanction from the concerned Collector of Banaskantha and therefore, also learned Judge has rightly given the benefit in favour of the present respondent original accused by passing impugned judgment and order of acquittal, which is in my opinion in accordance with law and in consonance with the provision of the settled legal principles. Therefore, there is no illegality is committed by the Trial Court while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses PW-1 and PW-3. With regard to the documentary evidence, the learned judge has rightly appreciated all the piece of evidence produced by the prosecution. 11. Therefore, there is no illegality is committed by the Trial Court while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses PW-1 and PW-3. With regard to the documentary evidence, the learned judge has rightly appreciated all the piece of evidence produced by the prosecution. 11. So far as breach of mandatory provision is concerned, the learned Judge has rightly applied the ratio laid down by the High Court and Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions in case of Vinubhai Peterbhai Christi vs. State of Gujarat, 1999 (1) GLH 947 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mubarak Ali, AIR 1959 SC 707 . Therefore, it is mandatory that the secret information is required to be reduced into writing in station diary but in present case the same is not reduced into writing by the trapping officer. Even before running trap, he has not posted the said entry in the station diary and he has admitted the said fact in his deposition. 12. Therefore, all these aspects lead to the effect that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge is in accordance with law and in consonance with the settled legal principles and the statutory provision. It is also cardinal principle that the Appeal filed against the judgment of acquittal is stands on the different footing than the Appeal filed against the conviction. While appreciating the evidence, the Appellate Court has to minutely go through the evidence and if and when the Court finds any illegality or perversity then only in that circumstance the Court can interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Trial judge of acquittal. 13. At this stage, it is relevant to take into account Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, which read thus: “7. 13. At this stage, it is relevant to take into account Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, which read thus: “7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act - Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation: (a) “Expecting to be a public servant.” If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section. (b) “Gratification.” The word “gratification” is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money. (c) “Legal remuneration.” The words “legal remuneration” are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organisation, which he serves, to accept. (d) “A motive or reward for doing.” A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression. (e) Where a public servant induces a person erroneously to believe that his influence with the Government has obtained a title for that person and thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any other. 13. (e) Where a public servant induces a person erroneously to believe that his influence with the Government has obtained a title for that person and thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any other. 13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant: (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct: (a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7. (b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned. (c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do. (d) if he: (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. (ii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. (e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. (e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Explanation - For the purposes of this section, “known sources of income” means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.” 14. 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. 15. 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. 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. 16. It is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 . The relevant paragraph of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa (supra) reads as under: “The following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge. (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, ‘substantial and compelling reasons’, ‘good and sufficient grounds’, ‘very strong circumstances’, ‘distorted conclusions’, ‘glaring mistakes’, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ‘flourishes of language’ to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence 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. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence 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. (5) 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.” 17. I have perused the relevant materials available on record and the evidence led by the prosecution and the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and the learned advocate for the respondent-accused. I have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Even otherwise, considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in the case of A. Subair vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587 , State of Kerala and Another vs. C.P. Rao, (2011) 6 SCC 450 , Neeraj Datta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2023 SC 330 and State of Gujarat vs. Ratilal Hirji Jobanputra, 2023 Law Suit (Guj.) 783, this Court is of the opinion that the present appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed. 18. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court, it clearly transpires that the Trial Court has taken into consideration all the facts while acquitting the accused. The impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court is not perverse one and it is based on the evidence on record. The same does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court and the same is sustainable in the eyes of law. This Court is in complete agreement with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Special Judge. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed. This Court is in complete agreement with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Special Judge. 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 6.10.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 5, Palanpur in Special Case No. 7 of 2001 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.