(1) THIS appeal by grant of special leave is against the order of acquittal of the respondent who was prosecuted for an offence under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and under S. 5(1) (d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge before whom the trial took place acquitted the respondent after appreciating evidence and circumstances.

(2) THE learned Judge on the basis of material produced came to the conclusion that on the date on which the trap was laid the respondent-accused had no jurisdiction on the shop of the complainant nor the licence of the complainant was subsisting. Under these circumstances, the respondent-accused was not in a position to take any action against the complainant and in the light of these circumstances the learned Special Judge appreciated the evidence.

(3) ADMITTEDLY Sukkan Singh the complainant was an accomplice. The independent evidence was a Vigilance Inspector and two independent witnesses but the prosecution chose not to examine the two independent witnesses and therefore the only witness who could be said to be independent and was examined was the Vigilance Inspector.

(4) FOR non-examination of the two independent witnesses the prosecution only declared that they have been won over but there was no material produced to establish this. This was an additional circumstance considered by the learned Special Judge and in the context of these circumstances after scrutinising the evidence of the Vigilance Inspector in detail the learned Judge came to the conclusion that prosecution has not been able to establish beyond doubt their case, consequently acquitted the respondent. The High court also refused to grant leave to the State to prefer an appeal against acquittal.

(5) IT could not be disputed that in respect of appreciation of evidence due weight has to be given to the learned Special Judge before whom the witnesses were examined and in view of these circumstances that have been discussed by the learned Special Judge in detail, it is not possible for us to come to a different conclusion. Having gone through the evidence in detail alongwith the learned counsel and having gone through the judgment recorded by the learned Special Judge in our opinion there is no reason to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by him. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the acquittal of respondent is maintained.