Important Point:
The appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper.

R.P. Dholaria, J.

1. The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under section 378(1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 8.8.2008 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Panchmahal at Godhra in Special A.C.B. Case No. 1 of 2006.

2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant gave a complaint on 28.3.2005 to the effect that he was residing at village Chelavada and doing agriculture business so also possessing two jeep cars which were using in transportation between Halol and Chelavada and which were plying into the limits of Rajgadh and Halol Police Station. It is alleged that the respondent accused who was PSI of Rajgadh Police Station was demanding Rs. 500/- per jeep from the complainant, but the complainant was not giving the same. It is alleged that on 27.3.2005 while the complainant was standing near the temple of Babadev, at that time, the respondent accused demanded Rs. 500/- per jeep from the complainant and as the complainant did not give the amount, his both the jeeps were detained and memo was issued. It is alleged that as the complainant had asked the respondent accused to reduce the said amount, it was scaled down to Rs. 400/- per jeep. As the complainant did not want to pay the said amount towards illegal gratification, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondent accused.

3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the respondent accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidences.

3.2 At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court.

5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such.

5.1 Mr. K.P. Raval, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Learned APP has taken this Court through the paper-book and evidence on record and argued that though the vital ingredients i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery are proved by the prosecution and the said fact is also getting corroboration from other documentary evidence on record, learned trial Court has taken very hyper-technical view and wrongly recorded the acquittal. He submitted that the finding recorded by learned trial Court is based upon the presumptions and surmises. He further submitted that learned trial Court has not rightly appreciated the evidence on record. In his submission, learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the judgment of acquittal which is required to be reversed and the respondent is required to be convicted, as such.

6. On the other-hand, Mr. Dipak Patel, learned advocate for the respondent accused has taken this Court through the entire evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper. Mr. Patel submitted that learned trial Judge has recorded ample reasons while delivering the judgment and based its find