R.P. Dholaria, J.

1. This is an appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25/07/2008 recorded by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar in Special (ACB) Case No. 2 of 206 whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the respondent-accused, of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Brief facts of the case are that at the relevant time, the complainant Hareshbhai Kantilal Thakrar was doing business in the name and style of "Kirti Farsan Mart" shop and residing at Kadiyavad Street No. 5, Jamnagar. The complainant was also holding food and shop license which was renewed on March 2005 and himself carried out the administration of the shop. Every year, the complainant obtained certificate from the Jamnagar Mahanagarpalika by giving sample. At that time, the accused Dashrathbhai Parmar was discharging his duty as Food Inspector at Jamnagar. On 15/03/2005, at about 6:00 p.m., the accused came at shop of the complainant where the complainant and his worker Kalpesh were present. After taking tea, the accused said to the complainant that he had come to obtain sample of food from the shop of the complainant. The complainant replied that as he is not doing any wrong thing, the accused should not take sample from his shop. The accused therefore, demanded Rs. 2,500/- as bribe for one year, for which the accused would not disturb the complainant under the guise of taking sample from his shop. The accused also assured the complainant that if he had to come for taking sample, he will inform the complainant prior to raid and also take the sample which will be approved easily in the laboratory. Therefore, the complainant gave time till next Tuesday for fulfilling the demand of bribe. As the complainant was not willing to give bribe, on 22/03/2005, he lodged the complaint before Jamnagar ACB Police Station against the accused due to which after following necessary procedure, a the trap was arranged and on success of the same, a complaint was registered. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, after following due procedure and after obtaining the sanction for prosecution, the accused was charge-sheeted and a case was registered as Special (ACB) Case No. 2 of 2006. The trial was initiated against the respondent-accused.

3. To prove the case against the present respondent-accused, the prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence.

4. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent-accused of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 25/07/2008.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal.

6. This Court has heard Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and Mr. Pratik Barot, learned advocate for the respondent-accused.

7. Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP has taken this Court through the impugned judgment as well as entire paper book and he has argued that the complainant has fully supported the case of the prosecution and so far as establishment of vital ingredients like demand, acceptance and recovery is concerned, even the evidence of shadow witness is sufficient to establish the aforesaid ingredients. He has argued that the learned Special Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the accused. He has also argued that the learned trial court has recorded the findings which are not based upon the evidence available on record but the findings are based upon the premi