STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DEVENDRABHAI LAXMANBHAI PATEL

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 judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 8, Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special ACB Case No. 7 of 2002 on 30/6/2005, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as "the PC Act" for short).

(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 impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is erroneous, unjust and improper and the learned Trial Court has not considered the fact that the complainant has stated that Rs.40,200.00 was to be paid and the said fact is accepted by the accused in his further statement recorded under Sec. 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. That the learned Trial Court has not considered the deposition of the District Development Officer who has deposed that the accused was a government servant and even though the complainant has turned hostile, the learned Trial Court has not accepted the portion of the evidence of the complainant which supports the case of the prosecution that merely as the complainant has turned hostile, the entire case of the prosecution does not stand vitiated and there are other circumstances which establish the guilt of the accused and they are successfully proved by the prosecution. That the panch witness who is examined at Exh. 16 is an independent witness and there is no reason to disbelieve his version and the case of the prosecution is corroborated by the evidence of the Investigating Officer that the prosecution has successfully proved all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery but the learned Trial Court has erred in disbelieving the same and hence, the impugned judgement and order must be quashed and set aside and the accused must be found guilty for all the offences.