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 judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special (ACB) Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Panchmahal at Godhra (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special ACB Case No. 3 of 2003 on 13.01.2055, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as “the PC Act” for short). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as the accused as he stood in 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 was working as a clerk (Chokidar) In IRD Branch, Santrampur and was a public servant. That Kantaben Kishanbhai Mundwada had made an application under the Indira Awaas Yojna and an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was sanctioned out of which, two installments of Rs. 10,000/- each were given by cheque and the accused had taken 10% of the amount of cheque i.e. Rs. 1000/- each and in all Rs. 2000/- from the complainant Kishanbhai Rupabhai Mudhada. That the accused had demanded for an amount of Rs. 2000/- being 10% of the remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the amount was to be paid on 13.02.2003. That the complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification and hence, the complainant filed the complaint with the ACB Police Station, Panchmahal at Godhra which was registered at C.R. No. 1/2003 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. That the panch witnesses were called and the necessary procedure due was done and the trap was arranged at the Taluka Panchayat Office, Santrampur where the accused demanded for the amount of Rs. 2000/- in the presence of the panch witness and after the predetermined signal was given, the members of the raiding party came and the accused was caught red handed. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses, drew the necessary panchnama and after a detailed investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the present accused before the Sessions Court, Godhra which came be registered as Special ACB Case No. 3/2003. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses, drew the necessary panchnama and after a detailed investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the present accused before the Sessions Court, Godhra which came be registered as Special ACB Case No. 3/2003. 2.2 The accused was 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. 9 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 10, wherein, the accused 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 Kishanbhai Rupabhai Mundwada 15 2. 2 Babubhai Somabhai Machhi 17 3. 3 Vijaykumar Tuljaram Navle 28 4. 4 Kalsinh Vijabhai Bariya 32 2.4 The prosecution has produced the following documentary evidences in support of their case. Sr. No. Particulars Exh. 1. Papers of scheme of Indira Awaas Yojna of DDO. 12 2. Complaint 16 3. Receipt 18 4. Receipt 19 5. Seizure Memo 20 6. Panchnama 21 7. Receipt 22 8. Police Yadi 30 9. Police Yadi 31 10. FSL Papers and Yadi 34 11. FSL and Report 35 12. Sanction for prosecution 33 2.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis at Exh. 36, 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 impugned judgement and order dated 13.01.2005 was pleased to acquit the accused from all the offences. 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 impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the complainant Kishanbhai Rupabhai Mudhada who has fully supported the case of the prosecution. That the accused had demanded for the amount of Rs. That the accused had demanded for the amount of Rs. 2000/- at the rate of 10% of the total amount due in the presence of the panch witness and the accused had demanded and accepted the amount of illegal gratification. That the panch witness Babubhai Somabhai Machhi has also fully supported the case of prosecution and after accepting the amount, the panch witness has stated that the accused had placed the amount in the left pocket of his shirt and after the test was done, traces of phenolphthalein powder were found on the hands of the accused. That the Trap Laying Officer – Vijaykumar Tuljaram Navle has also supported the case of the prosecution and he has clearly stated that the complainant could not arrange for the entire amount of Rs. 2000/-, and Rs. 1500/- was arranged from the treasury and the use of phenolphthalein powder and the solution of sodium carbonate was conducted and after the trap, the fingers of the hands of the accused were found stained with phenolphthalein powder. That the learned Trial Court has erroneously concluded that the prosecution has not proved the demand and the prosecution has proved that the accused was caught red handed with the tainted currency notes. That the judgement and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused must be found guilty for all the offences. 4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Raxit J. Dholakia for the respondent – accused. Perused the impugned judgement and order and entire evidence produced by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court. 5. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution and has submitted that from the evidence of the complainant as also the panch witness, the prosecution has proved the demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted currency notes from the accused. That the complainant has clearly stated that the demand was made by the accused and at the time of the trap, in the presence of independent panch witness, the accused had demanded for the amount and had accepted the same with his hands and hence, his hands were found with traces of phenolphthalein powder. That the complainant has clearly stated that the demand was made by the accused and at the time of the trap, in the presence of independent panch witness, the accused had demanded for the amount and had accepted the same with his hands and hence, his hands were found with traces of phenolphthalein powder. That the evidence of the Trap Laying Officer – Vijaykumar Tuljaram Navle and the Investigating Officer Kalsi Vijabhai Bariya have fully supported the case of the prosecution and the entire case is proved beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution but the learned Trial Court has considered the minor contradictions and has passed the impugned judgement and order of acquittal which must be quashed and set aside. That as the prosecution has proved the demand, acceptance and recovery and the entire case against the accused, the accused must be found guilty and sentence for the offence. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Raxit J. Dholakia for the respondent has submitted that the learned Trial Court in a well reasoned judgement has considered all the evidences produced by the prosecution and has discussed the entire evidence produced by the prosecution in detail. That in fact, there is no iota of evidence to show that the accused was, in any manner, empowered to issue any cheques or give any cheques to the complainant or his wife and the accused is in fact working as a Chokidar and had no power to do any official work. That there is evidence to show that the Supervisor who was the empowering authority to do the work was not present at that time and the Trap Laying Officer had asked the accused where was the Supervisor but as he was not present, the accused has been falsely implicated by the complainant even though he had no role to play in sanctioning or doing any work whatsoever with regard to file of the complainant or his wife. Moreover, in the case of the prosecution, it has come on record that the tainted currency notes were recovered from the table and the accused had not accepted any amount and the learned Trial Court has considered all these aspects in the impugned judgement and order and has rightly appreciated the entire evidence in true perspective. That no interference is required in the impugned judgement and order and the appeal of the appellant must be rejected. 7. That no interference is required in the impugned judgement and order and the appeal of the appellant must be rejected. 7. Before adverting to the evidence of the prosecution and re-appreciating the same, it would be apt to reiterate the cardinal principles of Criminal Jurisprudence as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions and the first cardinal principle is that the prosecution is required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution cannot claim any benefit of the weaknesses of the defence. The second cardinal principle is that in a criminal trial, the accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty beyond reasonable doubts from the evidence of the prosecution and the third cardinal principle is that the burden of onus of proof never shifts from the prosecution. 8. 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. 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 re-appreciating the evidence If the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt on record, and convict the accused." 9. In view of the above settled principles of law with regard to the acquittal appeal and the power of this Court to re-appreciate the evidence, the evidence adduced by the prosecution on record of the learned Trial Court, is reappraised and the prosecution has examined PW1 – Kishanbhai Rupabhai Mundwada at Exh. 15. The witness has stated that his wife Kantaben had made an application for the Indira Awaas Yojna at the Taluka Panchyat Office in Santrampur and an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was sanctioned. That the first two installments of Rs. 10,000/- each were paid by way of cheques and the accused had demanded for 10% of the amount and he had paid 10% of the earlier cheques which were Rs. 1000/- each. That he had gone to the office of accused at Santrampur with his wife and the accused had told him that there was no grant and as soon as the grant was received, he would pay the amount of Rs. 20,000/- but he had demanded for 10% of the amount which was Rs. 2000/- as illegal gratification. That he had gone to the office of the accused often and on every occasion, the accused had demanded an amount of Rs. 2000/- as illegal gratification. 20,000/- but he had demanded for 10% of the amount which was Rs. 2000/- as illegal gratification. That he had gone to the office of the accused often and on every occasion, the accused had demanded an amount of Rs. 2000/- as illegal gratification. That as he did not have the amount and did not want to pay the amount, he had approached the ACB Police Station at Godhra but he had only Rs. 500/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 1500/- was arranged by the ACB Officer. That the complainant had filed the complaint and the Police Inspector had applied the powder on the currency notes and placed them in his shirt pocket. That the signatures of the panch witness were taken and he and the panch witness no. 1 and the policemen had gone into the office of the accused where the accused was going down the stairs and he had told the complainant that he would return within five minutes. That after five minutes when the accused came, he went along with him in the office where the accused demanded for the amount and the complainant gave the amount from his left shirt pocket in the hands of the accused and at that time, the panch and the police had caught the accused. That his hands were washed and the currency notes were placed on the table and they were recovered. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the complainant has stated that the scheme of Indira Awaas Yojna is for the people who do not have their own houses and the complainant had a house in which he was residing and he was paying the revenue for the house. That in the application, his name is not mentioned and his signature as a beneficiary is not mentioned in the application. That he does not know when the remaining cheques were given and Mr. R.L. Patel was coming for spot inspection of the construction of the house. That when he went for filing the complaint at ACB Office, he did not take any documents and in the complaint, he has made allegations against Supervisor - Mr. Patel. That the cheques given to his wife, were given by the Taluka Development Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Santrampur and he does know as to whether the accused is working in the officer as a daily wager – Chokidar. Patel. That the cheques given to his wife, were given by the Taluka Development Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Santrampur and he does know as to whether the accused is working in the officer as a daily wager – Chokidar. That one month after the incident, he was called to the Godhra ACB Police Station and the Rs. 500/- was returned to him. That he and the panch no. 1 were given instructions that if any amount was accepted then they had to come away from the office and sit in the ACB vehicle without creating any doubt. That the panch no. 1 and the police had caught the accused and at that time, Mr Bariya and other Officer Mr. Navle had come and at that time, the accused was caught by the panch no. 1 and the policemen between the table and the chair and he was standing. That he was standing in front of the table and the panch no. 2 had taken the amount from the right side of the table. That the panch no. 2 immediately took the amount as soon as he saw the amount and he had not told anyone that the amount was lying on the table. That the panch had taken the amount and given it to the police constable and the currency notes were kept by Mr. Navle in his hands. 9.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 – Babubhai Somabhai Machhi at Exh. 17 and this witness is the panch witness who has narrated in detail about all the events that unfolded right from the time he had gone to the ACB Police Station and the experiment of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution was done and thereafter, he had gone as a shadow witness along with the complainant to the Taluka Panchayat Office at Santrampur. The witness has stated that they had gone into the office of the accused and other staff members including two ladies were seated and the accused had told them that he was returning after five minutes and he took his vehicle and left and returned after some time. That when the accused returned, the complainant asked him about his work and the accused had told him that his file is completed and has taken out a file from the cupboard and shown the complainant the cheques. That when the accused returned, the complainant asked him about his work and the accused had told him that his file is completed and has taken out a file from the cupboard and shown the complainant the cheques. That thereafter, the accused asked the complainant whether he had brought the thing that he had asked for and the complainant took the tainted currency notes from his left shirt pocket and stood up and gave it to the accused and the accused took the amount of Rs. 2000/-, counted it and had placed it on the table. That thereafter, the complainant gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party immediately rushed in and caught the accused while he was seated on his chair. That the experiment was done and the accused was caught red handed. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the panchnama produced at Exh. 21 was being dictated by Mr. Bariya and it was being written by Mr. Patel and thereafter, Mr. Navle had signed the panchnama. That Mr. Navle affixed his signature and then gave the panchnama to the two panch witnesses to sign the same. That he was not instructed to catch the accused and before Mr. Navle and Mr. Bariya entered into the office of the accused, the accused was caught by the ACB Officer ACB Constable Mr. Mansukhbhai had caught the accused. That after the officers came, Mr. Navle had asked the accused where was the Supervisor and the accused had stated that the Supervisor had gone for a visit and Mr. Navle asked the accused for the file of the complainant. That the accused gave the complainant’s file and at that time, no cheques and bills of the complainant were in the file and thereafter, the senior clerk of the office was called and Mr. Navle had asked him that why there were no cheques or bills in the file and at that time the clerk Mr. Raulji had told Mr. Navla that there was no grant from the government and hence, the cheques are not prepared and thereafter, Mr. Navle and Mr. Bariya inquired about the other persons in the office and asked them to leave the office. That in the panchnama at Exh. Raulji had told Mr. Navla that there was no grant from the government and hence, the cheques are not prepared and thereafter, Mr. Navle and Mr. Bariya inquired about the other persons in the office and asked them to leave the office. That in the panchnama at Exh. 21, there is no description on the table on which the tainted currency notes were found and there is no mention as to in which corner of the table, the currency notes were found. That the second part of the panchnama was being dictated by Mr. Bariya and was being written by Mr. Patel and they had affixed their signature between 03.45 to 04.00 pm. That they had signed the panchnama with trust on the officer and after the experiment on the filter paper, both the hands of the complainant were dipped in the solution and the solution had turned pink and the solution was filled in the bottle and sealed. That the members of the raiding party caught the accused who was sitting in the chair. 9.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 – Vijaykumar Tuljaram Navle at Exh. 28 and this witness is the Trap Laying Officer before whom the complainant had gave the complaint and had thereafter, arranged for the trap. The witness has deposed in detail about all the events that had taken place and has stated that after the trap was successful and the muddamaal was seized, they returned to the police station and registered the complaint and thereafter, on 14.02.2003, the accused himself surrendered before the office and he was arrested and produced before the Court and the further investigation was handed over to Police Inspector Mr. K.V. Bariya. During the cross- examination, the witness has stated that while the accused asked about his designation, he had stated that he was a daily wager Chokidar but he had not inquired about the work to be done as per the designation of the accused. That during the investigation, the accused was searched and the seizure memo was prepared about the items but in the seizure memo produced at Exh. 20, the file which is produced at Exh. 12 and seized from the accused, is not mentioned. That he had inquired about the designation of the accused from Senior Clerk – Raulji @ Bapu but he has not recorded the statement of the senior clerk. 20, the file which is produced at Exh. 12 and seized from the accused, is not mentioned. That he had inquired about the designation of the accused from Senior Clerk – Raulji @ Bapu but he has not recorded the statement of the senior clerk. Moreover, in the panchnama, the description of the table on which the tainted currency notes were found, is not mentioned and the size of the table is also not mentioned. That there is no mention about the other items that were lying on the table in the panchnama. That he has not taken any information about how many cheques were issued from the office to the wife of the complainant and he has not inquired about the persons who had issued the cheques. 9.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 – Kalsinh Vijabhai Bariya at Exh. 32 and this witness is the Investigating Officer who had taken over the investigation on 14.02.2003 and that thereafter, filed the charge-sheet against the accused. The witness has stated that during the investigation, he has not recorded the statement of Kantaben – wife of the complainant and he had not taken any evidence about the cheques that were issued to the wife of the complainant from the office. That the cheques were issued by the Additional Engineer and Senior Clerk and the Taluka Development Officer and in the documents produced at Exh. 12, there is no mention about the amount sanctioned to the wife of the complainant. That in the statement of the amount paid to the beneficiaries, there is no signature or designation of the accused. 10. In the impugned judgement and order, the learned Trial Court has discussed all the evidences in detail and on perusal of the evidence, the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the accused was the competent authority to give the cheques to the complainant or his wife. That the accused was a daily wager – Chokidar and there is no document to show that it was the accused who was responsible to handover the cheques to the complainant or his wife. As per the say of the complainant, the beneficiary of the Indira Awaas Yojna was his wife Kantaben Kishanbhai Mundwada and the complainant had gone to the office of the accused earlier on a number of occasions when the accused had demanded for the amount of illegal gratification. As per the say of the complainant, the beneficiary of the Indira Awaas Yojna was his wife Kantaben Kishanbhai Mundwada and the complainant had gone to the office of the accused earlier on a number of occasions when the accused had demanded for the amount of illegal gratification. It is also the case of the complainant that earlier when the two cheques were given to his wife, they had paid an amount of Rs. 2000/- which was 10% of the amount of cheques of Rs. 10,000/- each as illegal gratification but there is no iota of evidence to show that the amount was paid in the presence of the wife of the complainant and there is no evidence that the wife of the complainant was in fact granted an amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Admittedly, the tainted currency notes were recovered from the table but the accused being a Rojamdar Chokidar, would not be seated on the table and in the deposition of the complainant, it has come on record that as soon as the amount was given, the panch and the police had caught the accused and at that time, he was standing between the table and the chair. In the deposition of the panch witness, it has come on record that the hands of the complainant were dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate and the solution turned pink and the solution was placed in the bottle and seized. There is no evidence to show that the hands of the accused were dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate and the solution had turned pink and in fact, during the evidence of the panch witness, it has come on record that when the accused was caught he had stated that he was the Chokidar and Mr. Navle had asked the accused where the Supervisor was and at that time, the Supervisor had gone for a visit. The Investigating Officer has not investigated about the amount of cheques that were earlier paid to the wife of the complainant and has not investigated about the designation of the accused, except in the oral inquiry from the senior clerk – Raulji @ Bapu but the said Raulji @ Bapu has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. Moreover, there is also evidence on record that the panchnama produced at Exh. Moreover, there is also evidence on record that the panchnama produced at Exh. 21 was not dictated by the panch witness but was dictated by Mr. Bariya and it was written by Mr. Patel and in that circumstances, there are major contradictions between the deposition of the complainant and the panch witness. 11. That the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and in the absence of evidence of Kantaben – wife of the Kishanbhai Mundwada who was the beneficiary of Indira Awaas Yojna and when her deposition was available and the same has not been produced before the learned Trial Court and the evidence of senior clerk Raulji who was available in the office at the time of the trap, the accused cannot be convicted for the said offence. There is no iota of evidence to show that the accused had in fact, demanded for the amount of illegal gratification and the panch witness states that the accused had shown the file containing the cheques and the bills to the complainant but the Trap Laying Officer states that there were no cheques or bills in the file and this contradiction has come on record in the evidence of the prosecution. There is no clear evidence of demand and acceptance and in the entire evidence, it is on record that the recovery of the tainted currency notes were from the table where the accused was standing and when the accused is a Chokidar in the office, it cannot be said that the table was of the accused. Moreover, the major contradiction of panch no. 1 and the police who had accompanied the complainant catching hold of the accused is also suspicious and the prosecution has not proved the demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted currency notes from the custody of the accused. There is no reliable evidence to support the conviction of the accused and the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the offence charged against the accused. 12. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it can safely be said that there is no admissible evidence against the accused and the prosecution has failed to prove the demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted currency notes from the accused beyond reasonable doubts and the evidence is contradictory and far from convincing and the learned Trial Court has discussed all these aspects in detail. 13. 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 judgement 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 the accused. 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. 14. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgement and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly the same is dismissed. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special (ACB) Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Panchmahal at Godhra in Special ACB Case No. 3 of 2003 on 13.01.2055 is hereby confirmed. 15. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.