STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NARANBHAI CHANDUBHAI TABIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant-State under Sec. 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") against the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 31/01/2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Kheda at Nadiad (herein after referred to as 'the learned Trial Court')in Special (ACB) Case No. 14 of 2003, whereby the respondent was charged and tried by the learned trial Court for 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 Act') and at the end of the trial, the learned trial Court was pleased to acquit the respondent for the offence with which he was charged. 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 said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. That the learned Trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused. That the evidence of the prosecution on record has not been properly evaluated and the learned trial Court has committed an error in not believing the story of the prosecution when the same was proved beyond reasonable doubts by leading cogent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. That the prosecution has produced the evidence of the complainant, panch witness and the Trap Laying Officer, who have all deposed and have fully supported the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has also produced the evidence of Circle Police Inspector, Petlad, who had taken over the investigation of the offence in question. That the prosecution has also produced the evidence of FSL Analysis Officer and has proved that the solution of sodium carbonate contained traces of phenolphthalein but the learned trial Court has erroneously come to a conclusion that the muddamal currency notes were not recovered from the possession of the accused and has not believed the evidence of the prosecution. That the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery and the learned trial Court has not appreciated that nothing has emerged from the cross examination of the witnesses to render their deposition doubtful or unbelievable and hence the impugned judgment and order of acquittal deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court.