JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.07.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj in Special (ACB) Case No. 21 of 1994, whereby, the learned trial Court was pleased to give the benefit of doubt and acquit all the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). The respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ in the rank and file as they stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:- 2.1. That the accused No. 1 was a Deputy Manager in the Account Section of District State Supply Corporation, the accused No. 2 was the Mamlatdar of the District Supply Office and the accused No. 3 was the Supervisor of the godown of the District Supply Office and were public servants. That the complainant Sanjaybhai Maheshbhai Vaishnav was working as the godown Manager of the Gujarat State Supply Corporation at Bhachau and on 30/08/1991, the accused No.1 visited the godown at Bhachau and on the next day i.e. 31/08/1991, the accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 visited the godown. That the complainant had informed them that an entry was required to be made and a note of T.P. was also to be made but as they were not reflected in the account, the accused No. 3 had said that a case was required to be registered. That the complainant had issued the certificate but the accused No. 3 demanded the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- and after bargaining, the complainant gave the accused No. 3 the amount of Rs.600/- and the accused No. 3 left the place. That, on 04/09/1991, the complainant met the accused No. 3 and mentioned about the entry regarding the T.P. dated 26/08/1991 but the accused No. 3 stated that he would have to ask the Superior Officer and called the complainant on the next day. That, on 04/09/1991, the complainant met the accused No. 3 and mentioned about the entry regarding the T.P. dated 26/08/1991 but the accused No. 3 stated that he would have to ask the Superior Officer and called the complainant on the next day. That on 05/09/1991, the complainant went to the house of the accused No. 3 and the accused No.3 demanded the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- and told the complainant that he had spoken with his Superior Officer. The accused No. 3 also told the complainant to give the said amount to him or to the accused No. 2 or the accused No.1. That, the complainant was not willing to give the amount of illegal gratification and hence, the complainant went to the ACB Police Station at Bhuj and filed the complaint, which was registered as C.R.No. 9 of 1991 on 05/09/1991. That the Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and the experiment of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was carried out and the characteristic of the anthrancene powder and ultraviolet lamp were explained to the panch witness and the complainant and the trap was arranged. That on 05/09/1991, the complainant and the shadow witness met the accused No. 1 at 17:30 Hrs. in front of the G.K.General Hospital, Bhuj near the gate of Santuben Patel and the accused No.1 haddemanded and accepted the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.2500/- for himself and on behalf of the other accused and after the predetermined signal was given, the members of the raiding party rushed in and accused No. 1 was caught red handed with the tainted currency notes. 2.2. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and drew the necessary Panchnama and after the orders of sanction for prosecution were received from the competent authority, the charge sheet came to be filed against all the accused before the learned Sessions Court, Kuchchh @ Bhuj, which was registered as Special (ACB) Case No. 21 of 1994. 2.3. That all the accused were duly served with the summon from the learned trial Court and the accused appeared before the learned trial Court and after the due procedure of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was followed, a charge at Exh: 12 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh: 13 to 15 respectively. The accused denied all contents of the charge and the evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4. The prosecution examined 4 witnesses and produced 35 documentary evidence in support of their case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh; 90, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded and after the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused was heard, the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj by the impugned judgment and order, acquitted all the accused vide order dated 28.07.2009 in Special (ACB) Case No. 21 of 1994. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant – state has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidences on record and the learned trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubts. That the learned trial Court has not evaluated the evidence in real perspective and there are no contradictions in the deposition of the complainant and the panch witnesses. That, the learned trial Court has not assigned any cogent and convincing reason for acquittal of all the accused and the accused No. 1 was caught red handed while demanding and accepting the bribe amount for himself and on behalf of the accused Nos. 2 and 3. That, the evidence of the panch witness fully corroborates the evidence of the complainant and there are no omissions or contradictions in the evidence. That the learned trial Court ought to have drawn an inference under Section 20 of the PC Act as the charges of demand and acceptance are proved by the prosecution. There is no evidence to discard the say of the prosecution and in the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused have not given any clarification regarding the recovery of the amount of Rs.2500/-, which was the amount of illegal gratification recovered from the accused No. 1. That the recovery of the tainted currency notes was also proved from the evidence of the complainant and the prosecution has proved that the sanction was given by the competent authority and led cogent and convincing evidence regarding the sanction. That the recovery of the tainted currency notes was also proved from the evidence of the complainant and the prosecution has proved that the sanction was given by the competent authority and led cogent and convincing evidence regarding the sanction. That the complainant Sanjay Maheshbhai Vaishnav, who was the godown Manager has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that demonstration of the anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was done in his presence and in the presence of the panch witnesses. That even the panch witness Ajaykumar Harishankar Badheka has fully supported the case of the prosecution but the learned trial Court has not believed the evidence of this witness and has erroneously passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. That, even the Trap Laying Officer has deposed about the entire procedure and nothing adverse has been elicited during the cross examination, which would render the case of the prosecution doubtful but the learned trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of this witness and has passed the judgment and order of acquittal. That the prosecution has successfully proved all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and the recovery of the tainted currency notes and the learned trial Court had no reason to disbelieve the case of the prosecution but has considered minor discrepancies and insignificance of contradiction and without giving any cogent and substantial reason, has discarded the evidence of the prosecution and hence the has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal which is bad in law. That the charge has been fully proved against the accused and appeal must be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal must be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for the appellant-state and learned advocate Mr. Dhairyavan D. Bhatt for the respondents. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution produced before the learned trial Court and has submitted that the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses and has produced 35 documentary evidences to prove the charge against the accused. 5. Learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution produced before the learned trial Court and has submitted that the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses and has produced 35 documentary evidences to prove the charge against the accused. That the entire evidence of ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery have been proved beyond reasonable doubts and it is proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had demanded the amount of illegal gratification and the accused No. 1 had accepted the amount on his behalf and on behalf of the other accused. That all the accused had demanded the amount of illegal gratification as they were the Superior Officers and had visited the godown where the complainant was the godown Manager and as the necessary entry of T.P. was not made, they had threatened to file a police case against the complainant. That the complainant has deposed all the incidents that had taken place and the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has not considered the same and hence as all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery have been proved beyond reasonable doubts, the learned APP has urged this Court to allow the appeal and convict all the accused for the said offences. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Dhairyavan D.Bhatt for the respondents has submitted that in the evidence of the prosecution, it has come on record that the complainant- Sanjaybhai Maheshbhai Vaishnav was already suspended and the suspension order was passed by the accused No. 2. That, all the accused being Superior Officers had visited the godown where the accused was a godown Manager at Bhachau and earlier on 31/08/1991 had filed the report and a Criminal Case under Section 409 of the IPC was also filed against the complainant Sanjaybhai Maheshbhai Vaishnav. That the complainant had reason to be cross with the accused at they had initiated necessary action against him and from the documents produced by the prosecution, the suspension order of the complainant has also come on record at Exh; 63, which is dated 03/09/1991. That the complainant had reason to be cross with the accused at they had initiated necessary action against him and from the documents produced by the prosecution, the suspension order of the complainant has also come on record at Exh; 63, which is dated 03/09/1991. That as the report was made by the accused and the order of suspension was signed by the accused No.2, the complainant has filed a false case against the accused and there was no reason whatsoever for the accused to demand for any amount of illegal gratification as the report against the complainant was already filed and he was served with the order of suspension on 03/09/1991. That the learned trial Court has appreciated all the documents produced by the prosecution on record and in a well reasoned judgment has rightly found that the accused had no reason to demand for any amount of the amount of illegal gratification and has rightly passed the order of acquittal and no interference is required for the same. That the appeal of the appellant must be rejected and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal must be confirmed. 6.1. Learned advocate for the respondents, has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K. Shanthanmma Vs. The State of Telangana, reported in 2022 (4) SCC 574 , wherein the Hon’ble Court has observed in para 7 reads as under; 7. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. We have perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. The offence under Section 7 of the PC Act relating to public servants taking bribe requires a demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof. The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another, this Court has summarised the well-settled law on the subject in paragraph 23 which reads thus:- “23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder”. 6.2. Learned advocate for the respondent has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of B. Jayraj Vs. State of Andra Pradesh, reported in 2014( 13) SCC 55, wherein the Apex Court in para 7, 8, and 9 has observed as under;- 7. In so far as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma Vs. State of A.P. and C.M. Girish Babu Vs. C.B.I. 8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case in so far as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Exbt.P-11) before LW-9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Exhibit P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive in so far as the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i) (ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. 9. In so far as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Section 13(1) (d)(i)(ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.” 6.3. Learned advocate for the respondent also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Subash Parvat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 (5) SCC 86 , wherein the Apex Court in paras 5 and 6 has observed as under;- 5.In our view, mere acceptance of money without there being any other evidence would not be sufficient for convicting the accused under Section 13(1)(d)(i). Section 13(1)(d) is as under:- "13. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 (5) SCC 86 , wherein the Apex Court in paras 5 and 6 has observed as under;- 5.In our view, mere acceptance of money without there being any other evidence would not be sufficient for convicting the accused under Section 13(1)(d)(i). Section 13(1)(d) is as under:- "13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, (d) if he, (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest." 6.4. Learned advocate for the accused has also relied on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Gopalla Ghisulal Chhipa & Ors. Vs. The State of Gujarat, reported in 1998 (1) GLH 943 in support of his case and the relevant paragraph No. 8, reads as under: 8. “My attention was drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwansingh v. The State of Rajasthan wherein it is held that if everything is done by the police officer, 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, raid was also carried out by the Investigating Officer, search and seizure were also made by him and thereafter the investigation was also carried out by him and the charge-sheet was also filed by him before the Court. In this case, Mr. Vyas, the P.S.I., has also done everything right from recording of the complaint till the charge-sheet was filed before the Court. When that is so, the credibility of the case of the prosecution is certainly doubtful and the prosecution case must fail on that count. Even if this tarnishing point is ignored and the evidence is considered, there is nothing which would lead me to hold that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge leveled against the deceased appellant.” 7. When that is so, the credibility of the case of the prosecution is certainly doubtful and the prosecution case must fail on that count. Even if this tarnishing point is ignored and the evidence is considered, there is nothing which would lead me to hold that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge leveled against the deceased appellant.” 7. Before the evidence of the prosecution is appreciated and dissected, it is essential to reiterate the cardinal principles of criminal jurisdiction as settled by the Honourable Apex Court in a Catena of decision and the first cardinal principle is that the prosecution in a criminal trial is required to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution cannot benefit from the weaknesses of defence. The second cardinal principle is that in a criminal trial, the accused is presumed to be innocent unless and until he is found guilty by the evidence produced by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts and the third cardinal principle of law is that the onus of burden of proof never shifts from the prosecution. 8. Before adverting to the facts of the case on hand, it would be apt to refer to the scope of the learned trial Court in acquittal appeals and the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1167 of 2018 in the case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh in para Nos. 8 and 9 has observed thus:- 8. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 9. Apart from that, it is to be noted that the present case is a case of reversal of acquittal. The law with regard to interference by the Appellate Court is very well crystallized. Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with the same would not be warranted. Though, there are a catena of judgments on the issue, we will only refer to two judgments which the High Court itself has reproduced in the impugned judgment, which are as reproduced below: "13. Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with the same would not be warranted. Though, there are a catena of judgments on the issue, we will only refer to two judgments which the High Court itself has reproduced in the impugned judgment, which are as reproduced below: "13. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P. (2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court has held that:- "In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and !aw. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. Appellate Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded." 9. In view of the above settled principles of law and the power of the appellate Court in acquittal appeals, the evidence produced by the prosecution before the learned trial Court is minutely dissected and the prosecution has examined the complainant, Prosecution Witness No. 1 Sanjaybhai Mahesbhai Vaishnav at Exh: 40. The witness has stated that he was working as a godown Manager in the Gujarat State Supply Corporation at Bhachau and all the accused were his Superior Officers. That he was served with the order of suspension on 04/09/1991 and one of the reasons was that two truck of wheat were not entered in the register. That he had met the accused No. 2, who had told him to make the necessary entry in the register and had told him to meet him on the next day. That once again he met the accused on the next day and at that time, the accused No. 2 had demanded for the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- and he had filed the complaint with the ACB Police Station at Bhuj, which is produced at Exh: 41. That once again he met the accused on the next day and at that time, the accused No. 2 had demanded for the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- and he had filed the complaint with the ACB Police Station at Bhuj, which is produced at Exh: 41. That the panch witnesses were called and the experiment of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp was done in their presence and the currency notes, which were 20 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each and 10 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.50/- each were smeared with anthracene powder and placed in his right side pant pocket. That, the complainant and the shadow witness went in a rickshaw to the Gujarat State Supply Corporation office and they went to the office of the accused No. 2 but the accused No. 2 was not present. That he went to the accused No. 3, who told him that he was busy and asked him to meet the accused No. 1. So he went to the chamber of the accused No.1 and met him but he told him to go outside and sit and he went along with the shadow witness to a tea-stall opposite the office and waited for the accused No. 1. That the accused No. 1 came on his scooter and the complainant told him that he had brought Rs.2500/- and he took the tainted currency notes of Rs.2500/- from his right side pant pocket and gave it to the accused No. 1 who accepted it with his right hand and placed it in his right side pant pocket. That the predetermined signal was given and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused No. 1 red handed. That they were taken to G.K. General Hospital and as the laboratory room was not vacant, they went to the Police Chowki and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused No.1. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the accused No.2 had signed on his suspension order and prior to 04/09/1991, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 had visited his godown often. That in the correspondence, the accused No.2, who was the District Supply Mamlatdar had affixed his signature and on 31/08/1991 when the accused Nos. 2 and 3 had visited his godown often. That in the correspondence, the accused No.2, who was the District Supply Mamlatdar had affixed his signature and on 31/08/1991 when the accused Nos. 2 and 3 had inspected his godown a lot of goods were not found and the report to that effect was already made by the accused Nos. 2 and 3. That a criminal case under Section 409 of the IPC regarding the two trucks ware filed against him, which was pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bhuj. That he had not mentioned the number of the rickshaw in the panchnama or the number of the scooter of the accused No.1. The witness has further stated that he does not remember as to whether he gave Rs.600/- to the accused No. 3 and he does not remember whether he went on 05/09/1991 at 08:30 to the house of the accused No.3 where the accused No. 3 demanded for the amount of illegal gratification. The complainant has denied that the accused No. 3 had called him to the office and had told to give the amount of illegality gratification to him and the accused Nos.1 and 2. 9.1. The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2 Ajaykumar Harishankar Badheka at Exh: 59 and the witness is the shadow witness, who had accompanied the complainant at the time of the trap. The witness has stated that he and the other panch witness Junior Clerk Bipinbhai Nagune were called to the ACB office and the victim has narrated all the events that had occurred when he and the other panch witness Bipinbhai Nagune had gone the ACB Office. The witness has also stated he had accompanied the complainant and has stated that they went and met the accused No. 1 in his office and at that time, the complainant had told him that he brought the amount of Rs.2500/- for not filing the complaint and the complainant had given the tainted currency notes to the accused No. 1 and thereafter the predetermined signal was given and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused No. 1 red handed. The witness has stated that they all were brought to the ACB Office and the amount of illegal gratification was recovered from the pocket of the accused No. 1. The witness has stated that they all were brought to the ACB Office and the amount of illegal gratification was recovered from the pocket of the accused No. 1. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he knew the officers of the ACB as a trap was arranged on the in-charge District Education Officer Chaturbhai Ervadiya and he was called as a panch witness for that case. That a suspended employee does not have to do any work in the office and he did not know that the complainant was suspended when he was called as a panch witness. 9.2. The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3 Shamjibhai Ramjibhai Patel at Exh: 62 and the witness is the competent authority, who has given the order of sanction for the prosecution for the accused No. 2, which is produced at Exh: 63. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the original papers were not sent by the ACB Office and he does not remember as to whether the draft order was sent. That he did not call the ACB Officers for discussion before giving the order of sanction for prosecution. 9.3. The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4 Jayesh Chandrakantbhai Pandya at Exh: 64 and the witness has stated that Mr. Meena was the Managing Director of the Gujarat State Supply Corporation and he has expired on 31/1/1991. That Mr. Meena had given the order of sanction for prosecution, which is produced at Exh: 65. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he was working in a different office from Mr. Meena and his branch was also different and his branch did not have anything to do with the sanction for prosecution. That he did not know as to when and for whom the order of sanction for prosecution was prepared by Mr. Meena. 9.4. The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5 Devisinh Labhusinh Solanki at Exh; 66 and this witness is the Trap Laying Officer and the Investigating Officer and the witness has narraged all the events in detail that had unfolded right from the time, the complainant came to his office on 05/09/1991. Meena. 9.4. The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5 Devisinh Labhusinh Solanki at Exh; 66 and this witness is the Trap Laying Officer and the Investigating Officer and the witness has narraged all the events in detail that had unfolded right from the time, the complainant came to his office on 05/09/1991. The witness has stated that the complaint was filed in his presence and he had arranged for the trap and called the panch witnesses and had thereafter caught the accused No. 1 with the tainted currency notes and had made the necessary correspondence for the orders of sanction for prosecution. That he had drawn the panchanama and recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and had also arrested the accused. That after the investigation was over as there was sufficient evidence against the accused, he had filed the charge sheet before the learned Sessions Court, Kuchchh@ Bhuj on 24/02/1994. The witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the complaint was not registered when he had taken down the details of the complaint and he does not remember as to whether the complainant was suspended from his job when he had come to file the complaint. That in the complaint, it is mentioned that the accused No. 3 had served the order of suspension to the complainant and had threatened to file a police case against the complainant. That he had not verified whether the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint were true or not before arranging the trap. That during investigation, it was also found that the complainant had indulged in illegal irregularities and lesser goods were found in the stock in the godown. That, during the investigation it was also found that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 had gone to Bhachau and had checked the godown where the complainant was working and it was found that two trucks of wheat were not entered in the record. That earlier a successful trap was arranged on the District Education Officer Mr. Chaturbhai Ervadiya. That he has arranged for the trap, investigated the offence has filed the charge sheet and the entire procedure was undertaken in the Police Chowki. That the office where the accused was working was more nearer then the Police Chowki. 10. That earlier a successful trap was arranged on the District Education Officer Mr. Chaturbhai Ervadiya. That he has arranged for the trap, investigated the offence has filed the charge sheet and the entire procedure was undertaken in the Police Chowki. That the office where the accused was working was more nearer then the Police Chowki. 10. The learned trial Court has appreciated all the evidence of the prosecution and has observed that there is no evidence that the complainant had ever met the accused No. 1 and the accused No. 2 and that they had demanded for the amount of Rs.5,000/- in the entire evidence of the prosecution. Moreover, there is no evidence that the accused No. 3 had stated that he would have to talk with his superior officer and accused No. 1 had no connection with the stock of the godown at Bhachau. That the accused No.1 did not have any jurisdiction to go for avisit to godown where by the complainant was working and he was only looking after the accounts. That the complainant has stated that on 30/01/1991, the accused No. 1 had gone the godown at Bhachau but there is no evidence that the accused No. 1 had checked any register or had found any decrease or any change in the stock and there is no evidence that, at that time, any talk about the stock in the godown was made with the complainant. Moreover, the learned trial Court has also observed that there is no evidence that when the accused No. 1 went to the godown at Bhachau on 30/01/1991, there was any demand of illegal gratification made by the accused No.1. In the entire evidence, the complainant has not stated that he had gone to the house of the accused No. 2 and even the allegation of the complainant that he was told to register the trucks of Wheat cannot be believed as there is evidence on record that the order of suspension of the accused was already served to him on 04/09/1991. There is also variation about the place at which the trap was successful and there are contradictions in the deposition of the complainant and the panch witness, which has rightly been considered by the learned trial Court. There is also variation about the place at which the trap was successful and there are contradictions in the deposition of the complainant and the panch witness, which has rightly been considered by the learned trial Court. Moreover, there is no evidence that the order of sanction for prosecution was passed after proper application of mind and the prosecution witness No. 4, who has produced the order of sanction for prosecution passed by Mr. Meena, the Managing Director at Exh: 65 had no connection with the Branch of Mr. Meena. It is also on record that the prosecution witness No. 5 Devisinh Labhusinh Solanki was the person before whom the complaint was recorded. The officer who had arranged for the trap and also the Investigating Officer, who had investigated the entire offence and had filed the charge sheet before the learned Sessions Court. Moreover, even the selection of the panch witness is not properly made as it has come on record that the panch witness was the panch in another trap case filed against the District Education Officer Chaturbhai Ervadiya. 11. In view of the above settled principles of law and in view of the decisions delivered by the Apex Court in cases of K. Shanthanmma Satyanarayan Murthi (supra), B. Jayrajbhai (supra), Subash Parvat Sonvane (supra) and Gopalla Ghisulal Chhipa (supra), as discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that that the learned trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. 12. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds stand canceled. 13. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.