A.M.KAPADIA, J. - (1.)The acquittal of the respondent ('the accused') of the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code ('the IPC' for short) and Section 5 (1) (d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('the Act' for short) recorded by the learned Special Judge, Mehsana vide judgment and order dated 16.10.1985 rendered in Special Case No. 3 of 1984 is the subject matter of challenge in instant appeal which is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) by the appellant " State of Gujarat.
(2.)The prosecution case as reflected from the complaint dated 19.12.1983 filed by Nagindas Tulsidas Acharya ('the complainant'), before Police Inspector, ACB, Mehsana and unfolded during trial was as under:
"As per the complaint, since 1.11.1982, the complainant was serving as Manager-cum-Mantri in the fair-price shop run in the Mehsana Police Head Quarters by Police Employees Consumer Cooperative Stores ("Mandali" for short) and he used to manage the affairs related to purchase and sale of the goods in the shop. In the said shop Sadatkhan Husenkhan Pathan was serving as Tolat. Before the complainant took over the charge, one Mahendrabhai Chandulal Joshi was serving in the shop. Mandali was granted loan of Rs.4500/- for purcasing furniture for the said shop but the said loan was not utilized for the purpose for which it was availed but the loan was utilized for purchasing some other items and in this regard necessary entries were made in the daily account book. After that as he got employment as Talati cum Mantri, the charge of the said shop was given to the complainant. After taking over the charge of the said shop, Gunvantbhai Haribhai Shah ('the accused' for short), Officer of the office of the District Registrar, came for inspection in the month of February 1983. He checked up the accounts and informed that the loan amount was not used for the purpose for which it was sanctioned and thereby the said loan amount was misused by the shop. The complainant informed him that he took over the charge of the said shop after the said amount of loan was granted and spent and he did not know anything about it. The accused told him that he should have verified the accounts before taking over the charge of the shop. Thereupon the complainant told the accused that he may make arrangement for repayment of the loan after making inquiries with Mahendrabhai who was serving earlier in the shop. The accused at that time told the complainant that he may do whatever he wanted to do but he must immediately deposit Rs.4500/- otherwise action would be taken against him. At that time the complainant told the accused that some time may be given so that he can make arrangement for depositing the amount but the accused must see to it that nothing would happen to him. At that time the accused told him that if he wanted relief he should pay Rs.2,000/- to him. Therefore the complainant gave Rs.1500/- to the accused. At that time only Sadatkhan, the Tolat, was present."

"Thereafter a letter was received by the complainant before 18.11.1983 from the office of the District Registrar regarding inspection of his shop and the complainant made necessary preparation for the inspection. In the meantime, somewhere before 18.11.1983, the accused came to his shop and inquired whether he received the letter intimating him about the inspection of the shop to which the complainant told that he got it. The accused asked him whether the amount of loan was deposited or not and if not deposited then it may be deposited before the inspection otherwise report will be made about the incident to the higher ups and in case of filing of any case he will be in difficulty. The complainant told the accused that it would be difficult to repay the said amount before 18.11.1983 and hence some change may be made in the programme. Thereupon the accused told him that he understood when the relief was given earlier and if he understands this time also then relief will be given. The complainant told that he was not in a position to make arrangement and after some days he will make arrangement and he will do as told by him. The accused told him that after receiving the salary he may see him and at that time the complainant and Sadatkhan, the Tolat, both were present. Thereafter he did not go to see the accused."

"After that, on 16.12.1983 when the complainant reached his house his wife told him that some Gunvantbhai Shah came and asked the complainant to see him the next day or the day thereafter. Therefore, on that day the complainant went to the office of the District Registrar and met Gunvantbhai Shah and he called him to drink tea and along with him he came down and he took the complainant to one side and told that the said loan amount was not paid by him, so what to do. On that day or the day after they will come for inspection and as told by you earlier why he did not come to see him and even the loan was not paid. The complainant told that it was not possible to repay the loan, and he may give some relief. At that time the accused told that like last time Rs.1500 should be given to which the complainant informed that such a huge amount cannot be given but some reasonable amount may be given. The accused, therefore, asked to give Rs.1,000/- and told that the things will be over. The complainant told that at that time where from he would bring the money but in three different installments the same would be given. The accused told that on that day after office hours at about 6 to 6.30 he will come to his house and he may make arrangement for Rs.300/- and thereafter taking tea they departed."

(3.)The complainant was of the opinion that it was not proper to give illegal gratification demanded by the accused and, therefore, he had contacted P.I. ACB Mehsana who recorded his complaint at Ex.37.