JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under Section 378(1)(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.06.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Surat in Special (A.C.B.) Case No.1 of 1999 whereby the learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondents – original accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) etc of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter be referred to as “the Act”).

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:-

2.1 At the relevant point of time, the respondents – accused were discharging their duty as Surveyors with the office of the Mahanagarpalika, Surat. That the complainant is residing on the ground floor i.e. at House No.321, Girnar Society, Nana Varachha, Surat and his brother is residing on the first floor and they have separated their house between them for which necessary application came to be filed for mutating entry in the revenue record. In pursuance of the same, the complainant had given an application dated 07.03.1998 for mutating their names in the record. However, accused demanded an amount of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant for changing their names, but the accused decided to pay Rs.400/-. As the complainant was not willing to pay any amount as bribe to the accused, he immediately went to A.C.B Police Station, Surat and lodged complaint.

2.2 That during the course of conversation, the accused demanded illegal gratification and the accused were caught red- handed accepting bribe amount in presence of the panchas.

2.3 On the basis of the said complaint, the offence being C.R.No.7 of 1998 came to be registered with A.C.B. Police Station, Surat for the offence under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act.

2.3 After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was led before the Special Court and the learned Special Judge has framed the charge against the accused wherein they have denied having committed any offence and pleaded for trial.

Accordingly, the trial took place wherein the prosecution has examined four witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence. Thereafter, further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code were recorded by the Trial Court wherein the accused has denied having demand or acceptance any amount and pleaded that they are innocent.

3. After completion of the trial and having heard both the sides, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against them.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal.

5. Heard Ms.M. D. Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr.Hardik Dave, learned advocate with Mr.B. K. Oza, learned advocate for the respondents at length. Perused the evidence on record as well as impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court.

6. While referring to the evidence on record, Ms.Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State of Gujarat has vehemently submitted that in the present case, there is cogent evidence regarding demand by accused and have accepted the amount. She has submitted that though the trapping officer, panch witnesses and the complainant have duly supported the version of the prosecution regarding demand and acceptance of the amount by accused, the learned Special Judge has disbelieved the case of the prosecution on the ground that the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act is not satisfied and no specific demand made by the accused persons with regard to the illegal gratification. She has submitted that though the prosecution has led the sufficient evidence and proved the case with regard to illegal gratification and acceptance by the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in its true and proper spirit. She has submitted tha