STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAMDAS LALJIBHAI TANDEL

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. 15/01/2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, Surat (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court) in Special (ACB) Case No. 9 of 2001, whereby, the learned trial Court was pleased to acquit the respondent from the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (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 judgement and order of acquittal, the Appellant-State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the judgement and order is contrary to law and evidence on record and the principles of justice and is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumptions, not permitted by law. The trial Court thought to have seen that there are direct and indirect evidence connecting the respondent with the crime and without appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence on record of the case, the learned trial Court has straightaway arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. That the panch No. 1 has clearly supported the case of the prosecution and there was no reason to disbelieve the case of the prosecution, but the learned trial Court has not appreciated the oral evidence of the panch witness properly and the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the decoy Manojkumar was not traceable and he could not be examined by the prosecution during trial. The other witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution, but the learned trial Court has committed an error in giving undue importance to the evidence of the decoy Manoj Kumar and even though it is crystal clear that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts in respect of demand, acceptance, and recovery, has passed the impugned judgement and order of acquittal. The prosecution has not examined the competent authority for the sanction for prosecution, but no dispute was raised by the defence on the point of sanction, but the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in holding that the prosecution has not examined the competent authority to prove the order of sanction for prosecution and has held that the sanction is illegal, incorrect and bad in law. The learned trial Court has not appreciated that traces of anthracene powder were found on the hands and clothes of the respondent and the impugned judgement and order of acquittal is illegal, erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record and against the settled position of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.