The appellate court should interfere with a judgment of acquittal only if there are compelling reasons to do so.

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.

1. On a leave being granted under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State has filed this app-peal against the Judgment of acquittal dated 8th of June, 1989 passed in Special Case No. 7/87 by the Special Judge, Rajnandgaon (M. P.).

2. The case of the prosecution is that in the year 1986, the respondent was posted as Food Inspector, Dongargarh, and was a public servant for the purposes of Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short "the Act"). The complainant namely Bhuwanlal (PW-1) was a milk vendor. On 20-6-1986, he made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police (Special Police Establishment), Raipur, alleging that the respondent had called him 2-3 times in his house at Pongargarh and he demanded Rs. 300/- from him making a threat that if the amounts is not paid to him, he would collect the sample of milk. On the said report, a trap was organized and the trap party, consisting of Inspector-G. P. Tripathi (PW-9). Naib Tehsildar-J. M. Shukla (PW-2). Superintendent Land Record-A. K. Khan and Constable- B. Laxmaiya (PW-6), made a trap while giving Rs. 300/- as the illegal gratification to the respondent by Bhuwanlal (PW-1). It is stated that the currency notes for Rs-300/- were treated with phenolphthalein powder and were handed over to the complainant for giving it to the respondent, which, according to the prosecution, was handed over to him by Bhuwanlal and when a search of the house, after such giving and taking, was made by the trap party, the currency notes were found on the top of the Almirah inside the house of the respondent. After completion of the formalities of phenolphthalein test etc., the investigation was completed and then after obtaining a sanction from the Government under Section 6(1)(c) of the Act. for prosecution of the respondent/accused, (barge sheet was filed against him.

3. At the trial, as stated above, charges were framed under Section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Act to which the respondent denied, therefore, the evidence of prosecution witnesses were recorded and after completion of the trial, the respondent was acquitted.

4. The Special Court acquitted the respondent mainly on the ground that the prosecution could not establish that the respondent by use of corrupt and illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant, -obtained illegal gratification of Rs. 300/-from the complainant. The Special Court disbelieved the testimony of Bhuwanlal (PW 1) on various grounds. The first ground for disbeliving his testimony was "the material contradictions in his evidence as indicated vide para 15 of the impugned judgment. The two contradictions are (i) though in his complaint this witness has stated that he was selling milk at the relevant time, but in his evidence he denied that he was selling milk during that period; (ii) in his evidence, he had stated that the accused first met with him on 18-6-86 when the demand of money was made, but in his police case diary statement, he had stated that accused had met him 2 or 3 months before the date of trap. The Special Court took the view that if the accused had really met with him 2 or 3 months before the date of trap, he would have not kept silence all this time and would have reported the matter earlier, therefore, the version of Bhuwanlal (PW-1) that the accused had met with him and demanded money becomes doubtful. The Special Court further held that on the evidence of this witness, it appears that on the date of trap, he had reached the house of the respondent, entered straight in the house and came out from (he house immediately within a few seconds, however, in para 73 of the deposition of this witness, it comes that in the room, he sat on a bench lying in the room and accordingly it was held that in 2 seconds, it was not possible for a man to go and come back from the house after giving bribe to a person. The Special Court further held that in para 60 of the deposition of this