STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SEVAKRAM NARANDAS DEBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the State of Gujarat under Sec. 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("The Code" for short) against the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 28/11/2006, recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court, Junagadh in Special Case No.4 of 1997, wherein, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent - accused from the charges of the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short).

(2.) Brief facts leading to the prosecution case is that, both respondents no.1 and no.2 herein, at the relevant time were posted at 'octroi naka' Junaghadh. On 16/7/1996, respondent no.1 intercepted 'chakado rikshow' driven by Rajeshbhai Pragjibhai and asked for the bill for the soda bottles, he was carrying in rickshow. As the driver of 'rickshow' was not having the bill, respondent no.1 ask Rs.200.00 as deposit. It was case of the prosecution that in response thereto driver of rickshow told respondent no.1 that he had only Rs.100.00 and thereafter the amount of Rs.100.00 was taken by respondentno.1 and given to respondent no.2. Despite acceptance of Rs.100.00 as deposit, no receipt was given either by respondent.no.1 or respondent no.2. Therefore, based on the information received, a complaint came to be filed against respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 by Mr. J.R.Vala, police inspector ACB, police station for accepting illegal gratification. The trap was arranged by Mr. Vala, P.I., where respondent no. 1 and 2 were caught by taking Rs.100.00 without giving any receipt. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. Pursuant to the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Special Judge, where the case was registered as Special Case No.4 of 1997, for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. The trial was initiated against the respondents.

(3.) To prove the case against the present respondents, the prosecution has examined in all six witnesses and also produced several documentary evidences.