STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ASHOKKUMAR DEVILAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Sec. 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 28/7/2009 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj in Special (ACB) Case No. 21 of 1994, whereby, the learned trial Court was pleased to give the benefit of doubt and acquit all the respondents from the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act'). The respondents are hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' in the rank and file as they stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

(2.) The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:-

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - state has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidences on record and the learned trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubts. That the learned trial Court has not evaluated the evidence in real perspective and there are no contradictions in the deposition of the complainant and the panch witnesses. That, the learned trial Corut has not assigned any cogent and convincing reason for acquittal of all the accused and the accused No. 1 was caught red handed while demanding and accepting the bribe amount for himself and on behalf of the accused Nos. 2 and 3. That, the evidence of the panch witness fully corroborates the evidence of the complainant and there are no omissions or contradictions in the evidence. That the learned trial Court ought to have drawn an inference under Sec. 20 of the PC Act as the charges of demand and acceptance are proved by the prosecution. There is no evidence to discard the say of the prosecution and in the statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused have not given any clarification regarding the recovery of the amount of Rs.2500.00, which was the amount of illegal gratification recovered from the accused No. 1. That the recovery of the tainted currency notes was also proved from the evidence of the complainant and the prosecution has proved that the sanction was given by the competent authority and led cogent and convincing evidence regarding the sanction. That the complainant Sanjay Maheshbhai Vaishnav, who was the godown Manager has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that demonstration of the anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was done in his presence and in the presence of the panch witnesses. That even the panch witness Ajaykumar Harishankar Badheka has fully supported the case of the prosecution but the learned trial Court has not believed the evidence of this witness and has erroneously passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. That, even the Trap Laying Officer has deposed about the entire procedure and nothing adverse has been elicited during the cross examination, which would render the case of the prosecution doubtful but the learned trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of this witness and has passed the judgment and order of acquittal. That the prosecution has successfully proved all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and the recovery of the tainted currency notes and the learned trial Court had no reason to disbelieve the case of the prosecution but has considered minor discrepancies and insignificance of contradiction and without giving any cogent and substantial reason, has discarded the evidence of the prosecution and hence the has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal which is bad in law. That the charge has been fully proved against the accused and appeal must be allowed aand the impugned judgment and order of acquittal must be quashed and set aside.