( 1 ) THE acquittal of the respondent (the accused) of the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC for short) and Section 5 (1) (d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (the Act for short) recorded by the learned Special Judge, Mehsana vide judgment and order dated 16. 10. 1985 rendered in Special Case No. 3 of 1984 is the subject matter of challenge in instant appeal which is filed under Section 378 of the Code of criminal Procedure (the Code for short) by the appellant " State of Gujarat.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case as reflected from the complaint dated 19. 12. 1983 filed by Nagindas Tulsidas Acharya (the complainant), before Police Inspector, ACB, mehsana and unfolded during trial was as under:"as per the complaint, since 1. 11. 1982, the complainant was serving as manager-cum-Mantri in the fair-price shop run in the Mehsana Police Head quarters by Police Employees Consumer Cooperative Stores ("mandali" for short) and he used to manage the affairs related to purchase and sale of the goods in the shop. In the said shop Sadatkhan Husenkhan Pathan was serving as Tolat. Before the complainant took over the charge, one Mahendrabhai Chandulal Joshi was serving in the shop. Mandali was granted loan of Rs. 4500/- for purcasing furniture for the said shop but the said loan was not utilized for the purpose for which it was availed but the loan was utilized for purchasing some other items and in this regard necessary entries were made in the daily account book. After that as he got employment as Talati cum Mantri, the charge of the said shop was given to the complainant. After taking over the charge of the said shop, Gunvantbhai Haribhai Shah (the accused for short), Officer of the office of the District Registrar, came for inspection in the month of February 1983. He checked up the accounts and informed that the loan amount was not used for the purpose for which it was sanctioned and thereby the said loan amount was misused by the shop. The complainant informed him that he took over the charge of the said shop after the said amount of loan was granted and spent and he did not know anything about it. The accused told him that he should have verified the accounts before taking over the charge of the shop. Thereupon the complainant told the accused that he may make arrangement for repayment of the loan after making inquiries with Mahendrabhai who was serving earlier in the shop. The accused at that time told the complainant that he may do whatever he wanted to do but he must immediately deposit Rs. 4500/- otherwise action would be taken against him. At that time the complainant told the accused that some time may be given so that he can make arrangement for depositing the amount but the accused must see to it that nothing would happen to him. At that time the accused told him that if he wanted relief he should pay Rs. 2,000/- to him. Therefore the complainant gave Rs. 1500/- to the accused. At that time only Sadatkhan, the tolat, was present. ""thereafter a letter was received by the complainant before 18. 11. 1983 from the office of the District Registrar regarding inspection of his shop and the complainant made necessary preparation for the inspection. In the meantime, somewhere before 18. 11. 1983, the accused came to his shop and inquired whether he received the letter intimating him about the inspection of the shop to which the complainant told that he got it. The accused asked him whether the amount of loan was deposited or not and if not deposited then it may be deposited before the inspection otherwise report will be made about the incident to the higher ups and in case of filing of any case he will be in difficulty. The complainant told the accused that it would be difficult to repay the said amount before 18. 11. 1983 and hence some change may be made in the programme. Thereupon the accused told him that he understood when the relief was given earlier and if he understan