ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Huzefa A. Ahmadi, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the respondent-State. 2. The present appeal challenges the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 11/12.10.2018 convicting the appellant, ‘Ashok Kumar Ambalal Patel’ under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 1 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] after setting aside the order of acquittal dated 27.04.2005 passed by the Trial Court. 3. The complainant, ‘Jayendra Abhubhai Kodi Patel’ PW-1 was operating a Pan Shop in a cabin near a highway. The appellant who was serving as a clerk in the Office of Deputy Engineer PWD allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) to prevent removal of the cabin/shop from the roadside. Accordingly, on 08.01.2011, the complainant filed a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau whereupon a trap was laid and the appellant was apprehended. 4. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish a case beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of PW-1 and PW-4 were discounted as they had turned hostile. However, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and concluded that the prosecution has established the appellant’s guilt under Section 7 of the Act and thereby sentenced him with nine months of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand). 5. Admittedly, the complainant PW-1 and his friend PW-4 had turned hostile and they had not supported the case of the prosecution regarding demand of bribe by the appellant. Rather they have clearly stated that the appellant had come at the site and had directed the complainant to remove the cabin and nothing more. 6. After discounting the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-4, we are left with the testimony of PW-2 only, who was a shadow witness. The said witness in chief has stated about demand of bribe by the appellant. However, during cross-examination, he took a somersault and stated that he had not stated to police that the appellant had asked to pay the amount if the same has been brought by the informant/complainant. 7. In view of the above contradiction, the High Court could not have convicted the appellant solely on the testimony of PW-2 that too by interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 8. 7. In view of the above contradiction, the High Court could not have convicted the appellant solely on the testimony of PW-2 that too by interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 8. It is sine qua non for making out an offence under Section 7 of the Act, demand of bribe has to be proved. Thus, in the absence of any evidence to establish any demand of illegal gratification by the appellant, the judgment and order of conviction passed by the High Court is hereby set aside and the appellant is ordered to be acquitted. 9. Apart from the above, it is settled in law that if on the facts of the case and the evidence, two views are possible and the Trial Court has relied upon one of the possible views to acquit a person, the Appellate Court ought not to have disturbed such a view by taking recourse to the other possibility. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the High Court manifestly erred in law in disturbing the view taken by the Trial Court and reverse the acquittal into that of conviction. 11. The present appeal is allowed in the above terms. 12. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.