STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. UMESH KANTILAL AMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Sec. 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 1/3/2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 7th Fast Track Court, Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Special Case No. 166 of 1999, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents from the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 12, 13(1)(D)(1)(2)(3) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C.Act'). The respondents are hereinafter referred to as 'the accused No.1' and 'the accused No.2" at 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 impugned judgement and order dtd. 1/3/2006 passed in Special Case No.166 of 1999, the appellant State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the judgement and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the complainant has clearly deposed that his father had applied for an electric connection and the officer of GEB had come for verification and at that time, they had demanded Rs.500.00 as illegal gratification for giving estimate of Rs.2000.00. That the witness has also deposed that the currency notes were laced with anthracene powder and were placed in his pocket and when the complaint went to the accused No.1, the accused No.1 told him to give the amount to the accused No.2, who was a private person and the accused No.2 had accepted the tainted currency notes. The prosecution has proved the tainted currency notes recovered from the custody of the accused No.2 and the learned Trial Court has erroneously come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. The shadow witness has also supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that the amount was accepted by the accused No.2 and the hands and the clothes qua the accused No.2 were found stained with anthracene powder during the ultraviolet test. That the impugned judgment and order is improper, perverse and bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside.