STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DEVABHAI BECHARBHAI VARVADIYA (PATEL)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Sec. 378(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 4th Fast Track Court, Banaskantha at Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special ACB Case No. 78 of 2004 on 16/5/2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 12, 13(1)(d) 1, 2, 3 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 learned Trial Court has not appreciated the entire evidence produced by the prosecution on record and the judgement and order of acquittal is contrary to the law and evidence on record. That the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the complainant had received a secret information that the accused who were discharging their duties at the Civil Hospital, Palanpur were demanding illegal gratification from the persons who wanted to obtain treatment certificate and the decoy had agreed to cooperate with the Police Inspector, ACB Police Station. That the decoy went to the Hospital to take the certificate and he had got his case issued and had gone to meet the accused no. 1 where the accused no. 1 had told him to go with the accused no. 2 and give the amount which was placed in the shirt pocket of the accused no. 2. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated that the tainted currency notes were in fact, recovered from the possession of the accused no. 2 and there is enough evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. That Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav has fully supported the case of prosecution and has stated that during the course of the conversation, the accused had demanded the amount of illegal gratification and the tainted currency notes were handed over to the accused no. 2 and he had taken them by his left hand and placed them inside the shirt pocket. That only after the acceptance of the tainted currency notes, the predetermined signal was given and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused no. 2 red handed. That even the shadow witness has supported the case of prosecution but the learned Trial Court has not relied on the evidence of the shadow witness. That the complainant and the Trap Laying Officer - Mr. Azizahmedkhan Firozkhan Sindhi have fully supported the case of prosecution and he was the officer to catch the accused no. 2 red handed. That the learned Trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that there are major discrepancies in the deposition of the witnesses even though the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated that the Investigating Officer has followed the entire procedure before arranging the trap which was successfully carried out. That even the sanction for prosecution was given by the Competent Authority and the learned Trial Court has erred in disbelieving the oral and documentary evidence of the prosecution which has resulted into a miscarriage of justice. That the reasons stated by the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused are improper, perverse and bad in law and the acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is unwarranted, illegal and having no basis in the eye of law. That even otherwise, the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused and hence, the impugned judgement and order of acquittal is required to be quashed and set aside and the accused must be found guilty for the said offences.