JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.08.2005 recorded by the learned Special Judge, Surendranagar in Special (ACB) Case No.1 of 2002 whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the respondents-accused, of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as “the Act”).

2. Brief facts of the case are that accused No.1 was ASI and accused No.2 was Police Constable at Sara Outpost Police Station, Dist; Surendranagar, at the relevant point of time. The complainant Shri Rupabhai Raval has alleged that a complaint was registered against his son named Laljibhai at Sara Outpost Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 183 and 184 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act. The said offence was investigated by respondent – accused No.1, wherein it is alleged that accused No.1 had gone to the residence of the Laljibhai to arrest him. Thereafter, in connection with such complaint against his son, complainant met the accused No.1, who asked the complainant to come with Rs.10,000/- for release of his son. As the complainant was not willing to pay such bribe, he consulted the Police Inspector, ACB, Surendranagar. Accordingly, a trap was arranged and complainant along with his son and a panch went to Sara Police Station, Muli. At that time, accused No.1 demanded an amount of Rs.5000/- as bribe and asked the complainant to hand over the bribe amount to accused No.2. However, when respondent – accused No.2 was leaving for collecting bribe money, a doubt was raised in the mind of accused No.1 and he immediately called back accused No.2 from collecting bribe money. Therefore, a report with resepect to an attempt to commit an offence was registered under Sections 7, 12, 13(1) (C) and 15 of the Act.

3. After collecting necessary evidence, investigation was carried out and statements of witnesses were recorded and as there was sufficient material available against the respondents – accused, charge-sheet was filed and submitted the same before the learned Special Judge, Surendranagar where the case was registered as Special Case No.1 of 2002. The trial was initiated against the respondents-accused.

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

5. 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 respondents - accused of all the charges leveled against him by the impugned judgment and order.

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

7. This Court has heard learned APP Ms. C. M. Shah for the appellant – State and learned advocate Ms. Amrita Ajmera for the respondents – accused.

8. Learned APP has taken this Court through the entire paper book and read over the evidence of material witnesses and has argued that though it is clearly stated in the complaint that the accused demanded money of illegal gratification, the prosecution has successfully established one main and the vital ingredient of demand. She has further submitted that during the trap as accused No.1 has some doubt and therefore, remaining two ingredients of acceptance and recovery could not be there. Otherwise, there was a demand of money by accused No.1. The learned Trial Court is carried away with the fact emerging during the course of trial that the complainant and his son – both turned hostile during their deposition and they have stated that they have some misunderstanding regarding bail amount and therefore, wrongly acquitted the respondents - accused. She has f