STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VITTHALJI KANAJI MAKWANA

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 in Special Case No. 29 of 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) on 7/4/2004 (herein after referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as 'the P.C.Act'). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as he 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 judgment and order dtd. 7/4/2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), the State has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the prosecution has proved the demand of illegal gratification, acceptance and recovery of the tainted currency notes of Rs.800.00 from the accused and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to the evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution. That the learned Trial Court has relied upon minor omissions and contradictions, which do not go to the root of the case and has discarded the evidence of the complainant and the Investigating Officer only on the ground that the panch witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. That the learned Trial Court has erred in concluding that the complainant had hatched the conspiracy against the accused. That the complainant has fully supported the complaint but the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the panch witness, who has partly supported the case of the prosecution. That the reasons given by the learned Trial Court are improper and perverse and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal may be quashed and set aside.