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 in Special Case No.10 of 1999 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Khambhaliya (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) on 15.06.2006, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.C.Act’). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ at he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: 2.1. That the accused was working as an Unarmed Police Head Constable in Dwarka Police Station, District Jamnagar and was a public servant and the complainant Hadubha Varjangbhai, residing at village Vanchhu, Taluka Dwarka, District Jamnagar had purchased a Chhakdo Rickshaw bearing registration No.GJ-11-V-1146 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rickshaw’) on installments from ‘Chandan Finance Company’ at Keshod. That the said rickshaw was used for transportation of passengers and goods and the accused had demanded the amount of Rs.250/- as monthly installment from the complainant and had threatened to file a false case against the complainant, if he did not pay the monthly installment. That on 05.04.1999, the rickshaw of the complainant was detained and the complainant was threatened and the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.250/- was demanded to be paid by the evening between 5:00pm to 7:00pm. That the complainant did not want to give the amount of illegal gratification and hence, he filed a complaint on 06.04.1999 at the ACB Police Station, Jamnagar, which was registered as C.R.No. 4 of 1999 under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C.Act. That the panch witnesses were called by the Trap Laying Officer and use of the anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp were explained and the experiment was carried out in the presence of the panch witnesses and the complainant and the trap was arranged. That the panch witnesses were called by the Trap Laying Officer and use of the anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp were explained and the experiment was carried out in the presence of the panch witnesses and the complainant and the trap was arranged. That the complainant and the panch witnesses and the members of the raiding party went to the temple of Goddess ‘Khodiyar’ and reached there at about 17:15 hours and left for Dwarka Bhathan Chowk, but the accused was not present and hence, they went to Rupen Port. That they reached Rupen Port at about 18.55 hours and the accused demanded the amount of Rs.250/- of illegal gratification and the complainant gave the tainted currency notes to the accused who accepted the same and the complainant gave the pre-determined signal and the members of the raiding party came and the accused was caught red handed with the tainted currency notes of Rs.250/-. That the Investigating Officer investigated the offence and recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and after the order of sanction for prosecution was received, a charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Sessions Court, which was registered as Special Case No. 10 of 1999. 2.2. The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and after the due procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was completed, a charge was framed against the accused at Exh.3 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 4, wherein, the accused denied the allegations made in the charge and the evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. That after the learned APP filed closing pursis, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence of the prosecution and stated that he wanted to examine the witnesses on his behalf. That after the learned APP filed closing pursis, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence of the prosecution and stated that he wanted to examine the witnesses on his behalf. The accused stated that the complainant was never the owner of the rickshaw and on the date of the trap, he was in the ‘bandobast’ duty as it was celebration of the ‘Urs’ and the complainant came and shook his hands and gave him Rs.250/- and stated that Punabhai has sent the amount and at that time, the accused had asked him, who was Punabhai, but the complainant gave the pre-determined signal and he was caught red handed with the tainted currency notes. That the accused examined the defence witness Babulal Keshavjibhai and produced the record from the RTO Office of the rickshaw at Exh.44 and the registration certificate of the rickshaw at Exh.45. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Trial Court did not find the accused guilty and acquitted the accused under Section 235(1) of the Code, by the impugned judgment and order dated 15.06.2006. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court in Special Case No. 10 of 1999, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and the evidence on record and the impugned judgment is based on inference not warranted by the facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and even though, the complainant has been declared hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution, the statements of PW-1 Vinodkumar Manjibhai Parmar as well as Bhikhubha Balubha Jadeja, the Trap Laying Officer is convincing and reliable and both the witnesses have deposed that the accused had demanded and accepted the illegal gratification from the complainant. That the learned Trial Court has committed an error in considering the evidence of the defence witnesses and has concluded that there was no vehicle in the name of the complainant as per the documents produced by the defence witness, but merely because the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for committing the offence, it cannot be said that the accused has not demanded for the illegal gratification. That the learned Trial Court has considered that there was no evidence in support of the vehicle regarding the loan taken from ‘Chandan Finance Company’ at Keshod, but from the other evidence, the prosecution has proved the case and the learned Trial Court has committed an error in concluding that merely because the documents regarding the ownership of the rickshaw were not produced by the complainant, it cannot be said that there is no direct or indirect evidence to convict the accused for the offence. That even though, the prosecution has proved the demand, acceptance and the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the evidence of other witnesses, the learned Trial Court has misread the evidence and acquitted the accused, which is not proper and the impugned judgment and order must be quashed and set aide and the accused must be convicted for the said offence. 4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr.Shakeel Qureshi for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and re- appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court through the entire evidence and has submitted that the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses and has produced 11 documentary evidences on record and from the depositions of the panch witness and the Trap Laying Officer, the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. That even though, the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile, it is settled principles of law that the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. That even though, the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile, it is settled principles of law that the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. That if the evidence of the prosecution is seen in toto, the case against the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has proved that the accused had demanded the amount of Rs.250/- as illegal gratification by threatening the complainant to file a false case against him, as on the date of the trap, the accused had demanded the accepted the tainted currency notes, which were recovered from the possession of the accused. That the accused is a member of the disciplinary force and is well aware of implication of demanding and accepting of illegal gratification and hence, appeal must be allowed and the accused must be convicted for the said offence. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Shakeel Qureshi for the accused has submitted that the learned Trial Court has specifically observed that at the time of demand, the panch witness was not present and there is no corroboration regarding the demand of illegal gratification from the evidence of the independent witnesses. That even the Trap Laying Officer was not present at the time of the alleged demand and the complainant has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. Learned advocate Mr. Qureshi for the accused has further submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that the demand of illegal gratification was with regard to the rickshaw, which was being used by the complainant and the complainant had taken the rickshaw or finance from ‘Chandan Finance Company’ at Keshod, but no documentary evidence regarding the rickshaw on the finance has been produced by the prosecution on record. That in fact, the accused has proved through the evidence of the defence witnesses that the rickshaw did not belong to complainant and the accused has, in the statement under Section 313 of the Code, clearly stated that he was on bandobast duty for the ‘Urs’ celebration and the complainant came and shook his hand and gave Rs.250/- stating that Punabhai has sent the amount and by the time, the accused was inquiring who was Punabhai, the complainant gave the pre-determined signal and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused red handed. That the accused has put up a specific case and the learned Trial Court has, in the well reasoned order considering the defense, rightly acquitted the accused. Moreover, it is settled principles of law that when two views are possible on the basis of the evidence available on record and the learned Trial Court has taken view one view, the same ought not to be disturbed by the Appellate Court. That the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubts and the appeal filed by the State must be rejected. 6.1. Learned Advocate Mr.Shakeel Qureshi for the accused has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-SC 70625 and the Apex Court has in Para – 88 observed as under: 88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under: 88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. 88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence. 88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind: (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the e bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (1) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe-giver which 9 is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe- giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.5. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. 88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns "hostile", or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. 88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns "hostile", or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. 88.7. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.” 6.2. Learned Advocate Mr.Shakeel Qureshi for the accused has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (0) AIJEL-SC 38665 and the Apex Court has in Para – 41 observed as under: “41. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerges; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate 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 question is 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. 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.” 7. In view of the above settled principles of law and considering the evidence of the prosecution before the learned Trial Court, it is on record that to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Vinodkumar Manjibhai Parmar at Exh.9. This witness is the shadow witness, who had accompanied the complainant and the witness has supported the case of the prosecution. The witness has stated that after the experiment of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was carried out, the currency notes, which were laced with anthrance powder were placed in the right side shirt pocket of the complainant and the necessary instructions were given to the panch witness and the complainant. The witness has stated that they went in the jeep to the temple of Godess “Khodiyar’ and from there, they went in a rickshaw to Dwarka Bhathan Chowk, but the accused was not found and hence, they went to Rupen Port and when they reached the S.T. stand on Rupen Fort at around 8.15 hours, the accused was sitting at that place and had demanded for the amount of illegal gratification from the complainant and he had accepted the same and placed them in his left side pant pocket. That the pre-determined signal was given and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused red handed. That the pre-determined signal was given and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused red handed. That the panchnama was drawn in the Government Guest House where they all were taken and after the necessary test was done, light blue florescent colour was found on the hands of the accused. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that on 05.04.1999, there was a fair on the occasion of ‘Urs’ celebration and there were a lot of people and vehicles and qawwali was being played on the loud speaker. That while the panchnama was being written, he was sitting in the lobby of the guest house and as the qawwali was being played loudly, he could not clearly hear the conversation between the accused and the complainant and no documents regarding the rickshaw were produced in his presence and he has not seen the rickshaw. 7.1. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Hadubha Varjangbhai at Exh.17. This witness is the complainant and the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that he has not given any complaint to the ACB officers. The complainant has further stated that he has not met the accused, but they had gone in a jeep to Rupen Fort from Bhathan Chowk and at that time, Punabhai was with him and besides Punabhai, there was no one. Punabhai had told him to give the accused the money and he went to the accused and told him that Punabhai had sent the amount, but the accused had told him that he did not want the amount and told him to send Punabhai. That he had raised his hands and called Punabhai, but Punabhai did not come and other persons had come. That when Punabhai came, he told Punabhai that the accused was not accepting the amount and thereafter, he went to home. The complainant has been declared hostile. During the lengthy cross-examination by the learned APP, the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the complainant has stated that Punabhai is his relative and a number of cases are filed against Punabhai. Moreover, the complainant has categorically stated that he never owned any rickshaw and he has no knowledge about any rickshaw. That as Punabhai is his relative. he had made a false representation against the accused. 7.2. Moreover, the complainant has categorically stated that he never owned any rickshaw and he has no knowledge about any rickshaw. That as Punabhai is his relative. he had made a false representation against the accused. 7.2. The prosecution has examined PW-3 Satishchandra Premachandra Verma at Exh.18. This witness is the competent authority who had given the order of sanction for the prosecution, which is produced at Exh.19. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that in order of sanction for prosecution, the date is left blank and the date is written with pen and in the forwarding letter produced at Exh.20, he has signed on 26.11.1999. That in the documents sent by the ACB Officer, a draft order of the sanction for prosecution was sent, on the basis of which, he had prepared the order of sanction for prosecution. 7.3. The prosecution has examined PW-4 Bhikhabha Balubha at Exh.23. This witness is the Trap Laying Officer, who has recorded the complaint of the complainant and has thereafter arranged for the trap. This witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has deposed all the chronology of events that had taken place. The witness has stated on oath that the complainant Hadubha Varjangbhai in the complaint had stated that he had purchased the rickshaw on installments from ‘Chandan Finance Company’ at Keshod and he was driving the rickshaw, but he did not have a driving license. That he has not seen the complainant with the rickshaw and no documents of the rickshaw were produced before him. The witness has also admitted that on the date of the trap, there was a fair on the occasion of ‘Urs’ cerebration and a lot of people were moving around. 7.4. The prosecution has examined the PW-5 Rustambhai Hamirbhai Belim and at Exh.31. This witness is the Investigating Officer, who has investigated the offence and has fully supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that while he was the Investigating the matter, the complainant had not produced any documents to show that he was the owner of the rickshaw and he has not investigated as to whether the complainant had taken any loan from the finance company. 7.5. The prosecution has examined PW-6 Yasinkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan at Exh.32. 7.5. The prosecution has examined PW-6 Yasinkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan at Exh.32. This witness is the Investigating Officer, who has filed the charge sheet before the learned Sessions Court. This witness has supported the case of the prosecution and has narrated the events of the investigation that was undertaken by him and he has stated that he had recorded the further statement of the complainant, wherein, the complainant had stated that he had purchased the rickshaw on loan from ‘Chandan Finance Company’ at Keshod, but no documentary evidence was given to him by the complainant. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that no person from ‘Chandan Finance Company’ were shown as witness in the charge sheet and no documentary evidence from ‘Chandan Finance Company’ was placed in the charge sheet papers. That no documents to show that the complainant was the owner of the rickshaw were taken from any Government Office and placed in the charge sheet. 8. On appreciating the entire evidence of the prosecution, it is the case of the prosecution that the complainant was the owner of rickshaw No.GJ-11-V-1146 and the complainant had purchased the said rickshaw on loan from ‘Chandan Finance Company’ at Keshod. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant was driving the rickshaw and was using it to transport goods and passengers and the accused, who was the head constable, had detained the said rickshaw and had demanded the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.250/- per month. In the entire evidence of the prosecution, there is no documentary evidence to show that the complainant was ever the owner of the said rickshaw or the said rickshaw was detained by the accused on any day. That if the complainant was the owner of the rickshaw and had purchased the said rickshaw with finance from ‘Chandan Finance Company’ at Keshod, the documents to that effect would have been submitted by the complainant along with the complaint and the documents would have been collected by the Investigating Officer from the RTO office or from ‘Chandan Finance Company’ at Keshod, but there are no such documents produced by the prosecution on record. Moreover, the complainant has also not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and the panch witness examined at Exh.9 has clearly stated that at the time of trap, the celebration of ‘Urs’ was going on and there were a lot of people and traffic around and qawwali was being played on the loud speaker and there was a lot of noise and he could not hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused. There is no iota of evidence regarding the payment made by the accused at the time of the trap and there is no evidence of demand prior to the date of the trap. The Trap Laying Officer PW-4 Bhikhubha Balubha Jadeja has also admitted that on the date of the trap, the celebration of ‘Urs’ was going on and there were a lot of people and vehicles in the vicinity. 8.1 The main defense of the accused is that while he was on ‘bandobast’ duty for the ‘Urs’ celebration at Rupen Port, the complainant had come and shook his hands and told him that Punabhai had sent Rs.250/-, but the accused had refused to take the amount and had told the complainant to send Punabhai. The accused has also taken the defense that the complainant was never the owner of the rickshaw and the accused has examined witness Babulal Keshavjibhai at Exh.43 and this witness was working as a clerk in the RTO office, Junagadh. The witness has produced the details of the registration of the said rickshaw at Exh.44 and the witness has stated that as per the record, one Naran Ramde was the owner of the said rickshaw till 21.04.1999 and thereafter, the vehicle was transferred to Ramdebhai Kumbhabhai Vadher on 22.04.1999. The witness has, during the cross-examination, admitted that he has deposed as per the record of the RTO. From the deposition of this witness and the evidence produced by the prosecution on record, it is proved that the complainant was never the owner of the rickshaw and there was no reasons for the accused to detain the rickshaw of the complainant. That if the complainant was the owner of the said rickshaw, he would have produced documentary evidence to that effect and the documents regarding the detention of the said rickshaw would have been produced, but no such evidence is produced on record. 9. That if the complainant was the owner of the said rickshaw, he would have produced documentary evidence to that effect and the documents regarding the detention of the said rickshaw would have been produced, but no such evidence is produced on record. 9. The Apex Court has, in the case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.1167 of 2018, observed in Para-9, 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 law. 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 9 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. 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." 10. In view of the above, the learned Trial Court has taken a view that there is no evidence produced by the prosecution about the ownership of the said rickshaw and no evidence regarding the non-cognizable offence of the said rickshaw on record. Moreover, the learned Trial Court has also concluded that there is no evidence of demand and the sanction for prosecution has been given by the competent authority on the basis of the draft order given by the ACB and the same is not given independently and with proper application of mind and was thus defective. The learned Trial Court has also considered the defence of the accused and the evidence of the defence witness and by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused. As observed by the learned Apex Court in the case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund (Supra), the scope of the Appellate Court to interfere in the finding of acquittal is limited and unless and until some perversity and illegality is found in the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court, the Appellate Court will interfere only to ensure that no miscarriage of justice has occurred. In the present case, there is no iota of evidence that any demand for illegal gratification was made by the accused or that the accused had accepted any amount of illegal gratification and the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court are just and proper. This Court has perused the findings of the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence and has in a well reasoned judgment and order acquitted the accused and there is no perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court is in complete agreement with the findings, the reasons, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal by the learned Trial Court. 11. This Court is in complete agreement with the findings, the reasons, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal by the learned Trial Court. 11. 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 in Special Case No.10 of 1999 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Khambhaliya on 15.06.2006 is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds stand cancelled. 12. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.

State Of Gujarat v. Vrujlal Amrabhai Gadhvi (Thakaria)