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 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Gandhidham (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Case No. 22 of 1999 on 11.03.2005, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as “the PC Act” for short) and Section 477 of Indian Penal Code. The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused as they stood in the rank and file 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 working as a Medical Officer, Class-II in the Community Health Centre, Rapar – Kutch and the accused no. 2 was working as a Officer, Class-I in the Community Health Centre, Rapar – Kutch and both the accused were public servants. That Bhavnaben Chitranjanbhai Acharya – the wife of the complainant Chitranjanbhai Nanalal Acharya had gone on 01.05.1990 in the OPD of Community Health Centre, Rapar and was examined by the accused no. 1 and she was to be admitted on 02.05.1990 for a Curettage Procedure. That the accused no. 1 had demanded for an illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- and on 03.05.1990, the complainant and his wife met the accused no. 1 and told her that Rs. 500/- was excessive and hence, the accused no. 1 demanded for an amount of Rs. 200/- and told the complainant to give the amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 200/- on 05.05.1990 at her house. That the complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification and hence, the complainant went to the ACB Police Station, Bhuj, District Kutch and filed the complaint which was registered at C.R. No. 4/1990 on 06.05.1990 under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act and under Section 477 of Indian Penal Code. That the complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification and hence, the complainant went to the ACB Police Station, Bhuj, District Kutch and filed the complaint which was registered at C.R. No. 4/1990 on 06.05.1990 under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act and under Section 477 of Indian Penal Code. That the panch witnesses were called and experiment of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp was explained and carried out in the presence of panch witnesses and the complainant and the trap was laid and the complainant and the shadow witness went to the house of the accused. That at that time, the accused no. 2 was at home and the accused no. 2 wrote a prescription and gave it to the complainant and at that time, the accused no. 2 demanded the amount of illegal gratification which was given by the complainant to the accused no. 2 and the accused no. 2 accepted the amount and put it in his pocket. That the complainant gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and the accused no. 2 was caught red handed. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected the necessary documentary evidences including the sanction for prosecution of the accused and the charge-sheet came to be filed before the Sessions Court, Kutch at Bhuj which was registered as Special Case No. 126/1992. 2.2 The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and after the procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was followed, a charge at Exh. 6 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 7 and 8 respectively, wherein, the accused have denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.3 The prosecution has produced the following oral evidences in support of their case. Sr. No. PW Particulars Exh. 1. 1 Migdadali Alibhai Matiya 51 2. 2 Krishnaben Raysinhji Sodha 53 3. 3 Laxmiben Dhanubha Chavda 55 4. 4 Vrajlal Valjibhai Solanki 56 5. 5 Chitranjan Nanalal Acharya 63 6. 6 Bhavnaben Chitranjan Acharya 64 7. 7 Kishorebhai Saubhagyachand Morabiya 66 8. 8 Ranvirsinh Vadansinh Puwar 68 9. 9 Dr. Govindbhai Somabhai Patel 72 10. 10 Jagdishchandra Motilal Joshi. 1. 1 Migdadali Alibhai Matiya 51 2. 2 Krishnaben Raysinhji Sodha 53 3. 3 Laxmiben Dhanubha Chavda 55 4. 4 Vrajlal Valjibhai Solanki 56 5. 5 Chitranjan Nanalal Acharya 63 6. 6 Bhavnaben Chitranjan Acharya 64 7. 7 Kishorebhai Saubhagyachand Morabiya 66 8. 8 Ranvirsinh Vadansinh Puwar 68 9. 9 Dr. Govindbhai Somabhai Patel 72 10. 10 Jagdishchandra Motilal Joshi. 83 2.4 The prosecution has produced the following documentary evidences in support of their case. Sr. No. Particulars Exh. 1. Panchnama 52 2. Day Night Register 54 3. Case Papers 57 & 58 4. Complaint 69 5. Bills of Kishore Medical Store 67 6. Muddamaal Yadi 70 & 71 7. Letter to P.I. ACB 74 8. Resolution of Health Department 75 9. Statement. 76 10. Notification 77 11. Pay Slip of April 1990 78 12. Order of appointment 79 13. Notification 80 14. Office Order 81 15. Statement 82 16. Sanction Order 84 2.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and after the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by an judgment and order dated 11.03.2005 was pleased to acquit both the accused from all the offences. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice and the learned Trial Court has based the judgment and order of acquittal on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumptions not permitted by law. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence produced by the prosecution and in fact there are direct and indirect evidence to show that the accused have in fact committed the offence. The learned Trial Court has merely relied on minor omissions and contradictions which do not go to the root of the case of the prosecution and the learned Trial Court has erred in concluding that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand, acceptance and recovery from the evidence. The learned Trial Court has merely relied on minor omissions and contradictions which do not go to the root of the case of the prosecution and the learned Trial Court has erred in concluding that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand, acceptance and recovery from the evidence. That the impugned judgment and order is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record and hence, the same must be quashed and set aside and both the accused must be convicted for the offence. 4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. S.S. Trivedi for learned advocate Mr. Shashikant S. Gade for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgment and order and entire evidence of prosecution on record. 5. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution and has submitted that the prosecution has produced evidence and has examined the complainant at Exh. 63 and the wife of the complainant at Exh. 64. The prosecution has also examined the Staff Nurse at Exh. 53, the Aaya at Exh. 55 and the Ward Boy at Exh. 56 and all these witnesses have stated that Bhavnaben Chitranjanbhai Acharya – the wife of the complainant had come to the hospital for treatment and she was being treated by the accused no. 1. The prosecution has also examined the owner of the medical store at Exh. 66 and this witness has also proved that the wife of the complainant had taken medicines and the prescription was written by the accused no. 1. Moreover, from the deposition of the panch witness at Exh. 51 and the deposition of the Trap Laying Officer at Exh. 68, the prosecution has proved the entire case against the accused and the panch witness has clearly stated that the accused no. 2 was present in the house and he had accepted the tainted currency notes with his right hand and has placed the same in the left side shirt pocket. That the tainted currency notes were recovered from the custody of the accused no. 2 was present in the house and he had accepted the tainted currency notes with his right hand and has placed the same in the left side shirt pocket. That the tainted currency notes were recovered from the custody of the accused no. 2 after the predetermined signal was given by the complainant and the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery beyond reasonable doubts but the learned Trial Court, has in the impugned judgment and order misread the evidence and hence, the same must be quashed and set aside and both the accused must be convicted for the said offence. 6. Learned advocate S.S. Trivedi for learned advocate Mr. Shashikant S. Gade for the accused has submitted that from the evidence of the prosecution, it is proved that the wife of the complainant Bhavnaben Chitranjan Acharya had never taken treatment from the accused no. 1 and in fact the Staff Nurse, the Aaya and the Ward Boy, in their oral evidences state that she had come to the hospital but the Curettage Procedure was not done on her. That even the owner of the medical store has stated that Bhavnaben Chitranjan Acharya had taken the medicines as per the prescription and had paid the amount of Rs. 60/- but the medicines were returned to his store as they were not required. That Bhavnaben and nurse Bhanuben had come to return the medicines and the medical store owner has also produced the zerox copy of the bill on record. That even the doctor examined by the prosecution at Exh. 72 states that no Curettage Procedure was done on Bhavnaben Chitranjan Acharya and when he had examined her on 09.05.1990, she had a pregnancy of eight months. That the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated all the evidences and has rightly acquitted both the accused as there is no iota of evidence regarding demand of any illegal gratification or acceptance by the accused and the learned Trial Court, in a well reasoned judgment, has discussed all the evidences and has rightly acquitted the accused and hence, the appeal must be rejected. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2018, in para 9, has observed as under: 9……. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2018, in para 9, has observed as under: 9……. 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. 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." 14. Similar, In case of Harljan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat (2016) 12 SCC 665 , the Supreme Court has held that:- "No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the same. However, this does not mean that in all the cases where the trial court has recorded acquittal, the same should not be interfered with, even if the view is perverse. Where the view taken by the trial court is against the weight of evidence on record, or perverse, it is always open far the appellate court to express the right conclusion after reappreciating the evidence If the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt on record, and convict the accused." 8. Where the view taken by the trial court is against the weight of evidence on record, or perverse, it is always open far the appellate court to express the right conclusion after reappreciating the evidence If the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt on record, and convict the accused." 8. The present being an acquittal appeal under the PC Act, it is essential to appreciate the evidence produced by the prosecution to come to a conclusion as to whether the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Court and the finding of acquittal is perverse or illegal and on appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, wherein, the prosecution has examined PW1 – Migdadali Alibhai Matiya at Exh. 51 who is the panch witness who states that he had gone to the ACB Office at Bhuj and had met the complainant and the other panch witness and the ACB Officer had explained to them about the use of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp and after the experiment was carried out, the witness was instructed to go along with the complainant as a shadow witness to the house of the accused. That they had gone to house no. 33 in the PWD Government Quarters and the accused no. 2 was seated there and the complainant showed a paper from his pocket to the accused and asked him as to how the medicines have to be taken. That the accused no. 2 told him to take one-one tablet three times and the complainant had also inquired as to what type of food his wife has to take, wherein, the accused no. 2 had stated that she could consume any kind of food except sour food and at that time, the complainant told the accused no. 2 that his wife was feeling weak. That the accused no. 2 took a page from a book and wrote a prescription and gave it to the complainant and the complainant had inquired where was the lady and the accused no. 2 told him that she had gone out. Thereafter, the complainant has asked the accused no. 2 whether he would give it today or tomorrow and the accused no. 2 had told him to give it today and the complainant took the tainted currency notes from the right side pant pocket and gave the tainted currency notes to the accused no. Thereafter, the complainant has asked the accused no. 2 whether he would give it today or tomorrow and the accused no. 2 had told him to give it today and the complainant took the tainted currency notes from the right side pant pocket and gave the tainted currency notes to the accused no. 2 who took it with his right hand, counted the amount with both his hands and placed it in his left side shirt pocket. That the complainant came out and gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused no. 2 red handed. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that they had inquired from various persons about the residence of the accused and the complainant did not know where the accused was residing. That in the conversation, the complainant had asked as to whether the money for the blood person has to be given today or tomorrow and from the conversation with the accused no. 2, the witness has concluded that there was no prior talk of any giving or taking of money with the accused no. 2 8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 – Krishnaben Raysinhji Sodha at Exh. 53 and this witness is the Staff Nurse at the Community Health Centre, Rapar. The witness has stated that while she was working as a staff nurse, in the Day-Night Order Register, produced at exh. 54, on 04.09.1990 at Sr. No. 5, the name of bhavnaben chitranjan acharya is written and she had come for Curettage Procedure and the witness had sent her to the operation theater. That Bhavnaben Chitranjan Acharya had come around 10.00 am and when the witness went into the operation theater at around 10.45 am, no one was present. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that she has not seen Bhavnaben Chitranjan Acharya after she was sent into the operation theater and after the Curettage Procedure is done, the patients returns to the ward and she had not given any medicine or injection to the said Bhavnaben Chitranjan Acharya. That during her duty, Bhavnaben Chitranjan Acharya had not taken any diet. 8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 – Laxmiben Dhanubha Chavda at Exh. 55 and this witness was working as an Aaya in the Community Health Centre, Rapar. That during her duty, Bhavnaben Chitranjan Acharya had not taken any diet. 8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 – Laxmiben Dhanubha Chavda at Exh. 55 and this witness was working as an Aaya in the Community Health Centre, Rapar. The witness has stated that on 04.05.1990, while she was on duty, a patient named Bhavnaben Chitranjan Acharya had come and met the accused no. 1. That nurse Krishnaben Sodha had told her to give the patient a bed and after 10-15 minutes, when she went into the female ward, Bhavnaben Chitranjan Acharya was not present. During the cross- examination, the witness has stated that she has not seen Bhavnaben Chitranjan Acharya till she was on duty and Bhavnaben Chitranjan Acharya was not called into the operation theater by the accused no.1. 8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 – Vrajlal Valjibhai Solanki at Exh. 56 and this witness is the Ward Boy who was working in Community Health Centre, Rapar. The witness has stated that on 04.05.1990, he was doing the work of issuing case papers and the case papers produced at Exh. 57 and Exh. 58 bears his handwriting and as per the documents, Bhavnaben Chitranjanbhai Acharya aged 32 years residing at Rapar had come on 04.05.1990 at 10.00 am. That during the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the case papers were issued on 01.05.1990 but as per the endorsement of the doctor, the patient was examined on 04.05.1990. 8.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 – Chitranjan Nanalal Acharya at Exh. 63. This witness is the complainant and he has stated that he had gone with his wife for a check-up on 01.05.1990 at Referral Hospital, Rapar and the accused no. 1 had demanded an amount of Rs. 500/- for the Curettage Procedure. That he had taken his wife and gone to the doctor’s house and at that time had told the doctor to reduce the amount of illegal gratification from Rs. 500/- and the doctor had told him to give an amount of Rs. 200/-. That on the next day, he had sent his wife to the house of the doctor and the witness had gone to Bhuj and at that time, the accused no. 1 gave two slips to his wife out of which one was to be given to the hospital and the other slip was for the medicines and injections. 200/-. That on the next day, he had sent his wife to the house of the doctor and the witness had gone to Bhuj and at that time, the accused no. 1 gave two slips to his wife out of which one was to be given to the hospital and the other slip was for the medicines and injections. That his wife had purchased the medicines, injections, etc. and had gone to the Referral Hospital and had given the other slip and she was operated upon. That she was given discharge on the same day between 2.30 to 03.00 pm and his wife had told him that the doctor had told her to send her husband with the amount. That on the next day, he went to the house of the doctor and told the doctor that he would pay the money after two-four days as he would be receiving his salary on the fourth or fifth. That he had gone to the ACB Office at Bhuj and given the complaint. That he had given the amount of Rs. 200/- to the ACB Officer and the panch witnesses were called and thereafter, the trap was laid, where he had gone to the house of the accused and the amount of Rs. 200/- was given to the accused no. 2 who had accepted the same. That he had given the predetermined signal and the ACB Officers came and arrested the accused no. 2. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the wife was admitted in the hospital and the Curettage Procedure was done on her. 8.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 - Bhavnaben Chitranjanbhai Acharya at Exh. 64 and this witness is the wife of the complainant and she has stated that she had gone to the Community Health Centre on 01.05.1990 and met the accused no. 1. That the accused no. 1 had called her for the Curettage Procedure on 02.05.1990 and she had gone to the house of the accused no. 1 on 02.05.1990 and at that time, the accused no. 1 had demanded an amount of Rs. 500/- and she was told to bring the amount and come home. That on 03.05.1990, she and her husband had gone to the house of the accused no. 1 where once again, the accused no. 1 demanded the amount of Rs. 1 on 02.05.1990 and at that time, the accused no. 1 had demanded an amount of Rs. 500/- and she was told to bring the amount and come home. That on 03.05.1990, she and her husband had gone to the house of the accused no. 1 where once again, the accused no. 1 demanded the amount of Rs. 500/- and after bargaining, it was fixed at Rs. 200/-. That on 04.09.1990, she had gone to the hospital with the medicines and injections and she was taken in the operation theater and the Curettage Procedure was done on her. That she was shifted to the other room and was discharged at around 03.00 pm. That as she had bleeding, she had sent her husband to the house of the accused no. 1 and the prescription for medicines was given. During the cross-examination by learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that she was examined by the Gynaecologist at the General Hospital, Bhuj on 08.05.1990. 8.6 The prosecution has examined PW7 – Kishorebhai Saubhagyachand Morabiya at Exh. 66 and this witness is the owner of Rapar Kishore Medical Store and he has stated that on 08.05.1990, Bhanuben and Bhavnaben Acharya had come to take medicines which were prescribed by Dr. T.T. Nimavat. That the medicines were worth Rs. 60/- and they had returned the medicines saying that they were not required. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that Bhanuben had taken medicines from him without the prescription but they were also returned on the same day. That they had stated that the operation was not done and hence, the medicines were not required. 8.7 The prosecution has examined PW8 – Ranvirsinh Vadansinh Puvar at Exh. 68 and this witness is the Trap Laying Officer and the witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has deposed the chronology of events that had unfolded right from filing of the complaint till the trap. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had instructed the complainant to go with the panch witness no. 1 and meet the accused no. 1 and if the accused no. 1 demanded the amount, then the tainted currency notes were to be given. That the witness had not instructed the complainant to give the amount to the accused no. 1 and meet the accused no. 1 and if the accused no. 1 demanded the amount, then the tainted currency notes were to be given. That the witness had not instructed the complainant to give the amount to the accused no. 2 and the panch was instructed to listen to the conversation between the complainant and the accused. That the complainant did not have the conversation as instructed, with the accused and in the further statement, the complainant had not stated that he had told the accused to accept the amount and give the same to his wife. 8.8 The prosecution has examined PW9 – Dr. Govindbhai Somabhai Patel at Exh. 72 and this witness has stated that on 09.05.1990, he has examined Bhavnaben Chitranjan Acharya who was brought to him by the ACB Officer and she had no injuries. That she had a pregnancy of eight weeks and was advised sonography. During the cross- examination, the witness has admitted that when Bhavnaben Chitranjan Acharya was brought to him, she had a pregnancy of eight weeks and no Curettage Procedure was done on her a few days prior to the examination. 8.9 The prosecution has examined PW10 – Jagdishchandra Motilal Joshi at Exh. 83 and this witness is the Competent Authority who has given the sanction for prosecution of both the accused. During the cross- examination, the witness has stated that the sanction for prosecution was sought in the year 1990 and thereafter, he had given the order of sanction for prosecution on 16.07.1993. That during this time, it was decided that the sanction was not required to be given but thereafter, he had thought that if the order of sanction for prosecution was not given, it would go against him in the confidential report after reconsideration, as the letter was received. That at the time of incident, he was a Deputy Secretary and was not entitled to remove the accused from service. 9. On meticulous appreciation and dissection of the entire oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court, the case of the prosecution is that the accused no. 1 had demanded for an amount of Rs. 9. On meticulous appreciation and dissection of the entire oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court, the case of the prosecution is that the accused no. 1 had demanded for an amount of Rs. 500/- for performing the Curettage Procedure on Bhavnaben Chitranjan Acharya – the wife of the complainant and after the Curettage Procedure was completed, she suffered from bleeding and her husband – the complainant – Chitranjan Nanalal Acharya went to the house of the accused, where the accused no. 1 was not present and the accused no. 2 was present. That the complainant told the accused no. 2 about the ill health of his wife Bhavnaben and the accused no. 2 wrote a prescription and gave it to the complainant. As per the case of prosecution, the complainant and his wife, had earlier gone to the house of the accused and the complainant was going to the house of the accused for the second time but in the deposition of panch witness PW1 - Migdadali Alibhai Matiya, it has come on record that the complainant and the panch did not know the house of the accused and they had asked for directions to the house of the accused for about two to three times. The say of the complainant that he and his wife has gone earlier to the house of the accused is not proved and if the complainant had gone to the house of the complainant earlier, he would know where the accused resided and they would not have any need for the complainant to ask for directions to the house of the accused. From the evidence of the prosecution, more particularly, the evidence of PW2 – Krishnaben Raysinhji Sodha – the Staff Nurse, PW3 – Laxmiben Dhanubha Chavda – the Aaya, PW4 - Vrajlal Valjibhai Solanki – the Ward Boy and PW7 - Kishorebhai Saubhagyachand Morabiya – the owner of Rapar Kishore Medical Store, it has come on record that Bhavnaben Chitranjanbhai Acharya – the wife of the complainant had gone to the hospital for Curettage Procedure and she was directed to go into the operation theater but she did not go into the operation theater and had left the hospital immediately thereafter. That no Curettage Procedure was performed on her and the said fact is also proved from the deposition of PW9 – Dr. That no Curettage Procedure was performed on her and the said fact is also proved from the deposition of PW9 – Dr. Govindbhai Somabhai Patel who had examined Bhavnaben Chitranjanbhai Acharya on 09.05.1990. The witness has categorically stated that no Curettage Procedure was performed on Bhavnaben Chitranjanbhai Acharya – the wife of the complainant. From the entire evidence and on considering the aforementioned infirmities, there was no reason for the accused to demand for any amount of illegal gratification and as far as the demand is concerned, the shadow witness PW1 – Migdadali Alibhai Matiya has stated that the complainant had stated whether he has to give today or tomorrow and during the cross-examination he had mentioned the word ‘blood person’ which would mean the person from the laboratory and it appears that the conversation was about the amount to be paid to the person from the laboratory. There is no clear evidence about any demand made by the accused and considering all the evidences produced by the prosecution on record, there is no evidence of prior demand and no evidence of demand at the time of the trap. The evidence is with regard to the recovery of the tainted currency notes found from the possession of the accused but it has also come on record that the accused no. 2 was not treating Bhavnaben Chitranjabhai Acharya – the wife of the complainant and there is no evidence That the accused no. 2 had accepted the amount on behalf of the accused no. 1 and that the accused no. 2 was to handover the amount to the accused no. 1. 10. The learned Trial Court has discussed all the evidence in detail and has given cogent reason for discarding the evidence of the Trap Laying Officer and also discussed the evidence of PW10 – Jagdishchandra Motilal Joshi who has categorically stated that he was not the Competent Authority to remove the accused from their post at the time when he had given the sanction. Moreover, it appears that the sanction for prosecution was given under duress and it was only after the reminder was given, it was reconsidered and the order of sanction for prosecution was given which was not a valid sanction.4 11. Moreover, it appears that the sanction for prosecution was given under duress and it was only after the reminder was given, it was reconsidered and the order of sanction for prosecution was given which was not a valid sanction.4 11. As discussed above, after meticulously dissection of the evidence of the prosecution as also considering the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is with proper reasons and the learned Trial Court is fully justified in acquitting both the accused from all the charges levelled against them. This Court does not find any illegality, perversity or infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of acquittal. 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 of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Gandhidham in Special Case No. 22 of 1999 on 11.03.2005 is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.