JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. The appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.3.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhavnagar, Camp-Mahuva in Special A.C.B. Case No. 1 of 1997, whereby the respondent-original accused was acquitted from the charges levelled against him under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of present appeal are as under:

2.1 The complainant D.S. Mehta, PI, Bhavnagar ACB Police Station had given complaint on 20.06.1996 against the accused stating that on receiving information that the Government Medical officer at Dihor Village and Tansa village Primary Medical Center, after getting non-practice allowance, doing private practice by accepting fees of Rs. 10 from the patient and also he demanded Rs. 10 to 150 as bribe. Therefore, Panch Dashrathsinh Nanma and Chandrakant Narmadashankar and as patient Shri Nagindas Naranbhai Soni who serving as Government servant were arranged trap and for that necessary procedure and panchnama has been carried out. The accused took money of bribe in the presence of the panch and the members of the raiding party including the complainant. The bribe amount was recovered from the conscious possession of the accused. Thereafter, A.C.B. Bhavnagar, arrested the accused and produced him before the Court.

2.2 The A.C.B. Bhavnagar after obtaining proper sanction from the Government and after recording evidence of relevant witnesses, prepared charge-sheet against the accused and submitted the same before the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The case being exclusively sessions triable, was committed to the Sessions Court, Bhavnagar, as per Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. which in turn transferred the case to the court.

2.3 Thereafter, after verifying whether the accused was given all the necessary police papers or not, the learned Special Judge framed charges against the accused to which the plea of the accused was recorded, wherein he denied his involvement in the offence.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses and has produced various documentary evidences. However, the learned Special Judge, Bhavnagar after hearing both the parties vide his judgment and order dated 15.03.2007 acquitted the accused of the offences with which he was charged.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal by the Trial Court, the State of Gujarat has filed present Appeal.

5. Heard Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State of Gujarat and Mr. Ankur Oza, learned advocate for the respondent at length.

6. While referring to the evidence on record, Mr. Pandya, 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 has accepted the amount. He 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. He 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 person beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in its true and proper spirit. He has submitted that the learned Special Judge has ought to have believed that mere acceptance of illegal gratification, which is recovered from accused is attracted the provisions of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act. He has submitted that though there is sufficient evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned Special Judge has not considered the same in proper manner and, there