Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29-7-2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Fast Track Court No. 12, Gandhinagar in Special (ACB) Case No. 7/1999, whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the original accused-respondents herein, of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that both the accused had threatened the complainant by saying that since you are giving 'Hafta' for selling the Jaggery for the production of liquor to the previous officers, you have to give 'Hafta' to us and if you do not do so, then case/action will be initiated against you. Thereafter, on 14-4-1999, both the accused persons met the complainant at his village and demanded for Rs. 650/- and told him to come and give the said amount on 15-4-1999 at 14:50 hours at Gandhinagar Prohibition Police Station. Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint with ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural), Gandhinagar against accused for demanding such bribe and accordingly, the ACB Police Station arranged a trap and that on the success of the trap, the accused was caught red-handed.

2. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned Additional Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Fast Track Court No. 12, Gandhinagar, which was, thereafter, numbered as Special (ACB) Case No. 7 of 1999. Since opponents-accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried, they were tried for the alleged offences.

3. At the time of trial, in order to bring home the charges levelled against the original accused, the prosecution examined 4 witnesses as well as the prosecution also produced 6 documentary evidences.

4. At the end of the Trial and after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of all the charges levelled against them. On completion of the trial, the Sessions Court passed the judgment and order acquitting opponents-accused.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court, the appellant-State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

6. Learned APP submitted that the judgment and order of the Trial Court is against the provisions of law; the Trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself, it is established that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of alleged charges against the present accused. She has also relied on the evidence of the Investigating Officer-complainant and panchas. She further submitted that the trial was conducted against the accused pursuant to the charges against the accused. She further submitted that all the panchas have supported the case of the complainant and the complainant stated in his deposition that the demand was made by the accused. She further submitted that all the procedures were followed by the police personnel and the demand and acceptance were proved as stated by the complainant and accused accepted the bribe amount. She further submitted that PW:1-Dipakbhai Balvirsinh Jadeja at Exh.10 stated in his deposition that the complainant has given the amount to original accused No. 1 and original accused No. 1 took away the amount and kept the same on the left side of his T-shirt and upon making a gesture, the Police Inspector Shri. Mysoorwala, member of the raiding party arrived there and caught original accused No. 1 red-handed with bribe money, which are found to be continued with the anthracene powder and accordingly, the panchnama was carried out. She further submitted that complainant-Ambalal Saakraji Thakor at Exh.16 stated in his de