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 29.4.2004 rendered by learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Patan in Special ACB Case No. 17 of 2000.

2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that complainant was cultivating the land admeasuring 41.5 gunthas owned by his father, out of which 20 gunthas were sold to one Barot Natvarlal Pratapji by executing the sale deed. It is alleged that on 4.1.2000 the complainant gave xerox copy of the index of the said sale deed to the accused for mutating the name of Barot Natvarlal Pratapji for which the accused demanded Rs. 5000/- which was reduced to Rs. 1500/-, out of which Rs. 1000/- was paid to the accused. However, the complainant did not way to pay the remaining amount of illegal gratification, he approached the ACB office, Mehsana and lodged the complaint.

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 Ms. Monali Bhatt, 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 the finding recorded by learned trial Court is based upon the presumptions and surmises. She further submitted that learned trial Court has not rightly appreciated the evidence on record. She submitted that the complainant has fully supported the case of the prosecution and that recovery of tainted currency notes from the table of the accused is also established by the prosecution. She submitted that when the evidence on record clearly indicates that there was predemand and even prior to trap, the accused has already accepted Rs. 1000/- and during the course of trap, he was caught red handed along with tainted currency notes. In her 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. K.B. Anandjiwala, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Kunal Shahi, 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. Anandjiwala submitted that learned trial Judge has recorded ample reasons while delivering the judgment and based its findings on the evidence available on record and that there is no evidence on record to link the respondent accused with the crime in question. He submitted that documentary evidence at Exh. 33 clearly establishes that on 29.12.1999 purchaser of the land i.e