STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KESHARSINH JEMALJI SOLANKI

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 judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (ACB), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar, Idar Camp (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ACB) Case No. 1 of 2003 on 20/8/2009, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) 1, 2, 3 and Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as "the PC Act" for short) 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 impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and is required to be quashed and set aside. That the learned Trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubts and the learned Trial Court has erred in evaluating the evidence on record of the case and without appreciating the evidence in its real perspective, has acquitted the accused. That there are no contradictions in the oral evidence of the complainant and the panch witness as both the evidences are reliable, believable and trustworthy and support the case of the prosecution in toto but the learned Trial Court has failed to assign any cogent and convincing reasons for acquittal of the accused from the serious charge of the offence under the PC Act. That the prosecution has proved that the accused demanded the amount of illegal gratification and was caught red handed while demanding and accepting the bribe amount and the tainted currency notes have been recovered from the table of the accused and hence, the learned Trial Court has erred in not presuming that the demand and acceptance is proved under Sec. 20 of the PC Act. That there are no reasons to discard the evidence of the prosecution and the accused has not given any clarification nor produced any evidence with regard to the recovery of Rs.3500.00 being the amount of illegal gratification recovered from the table of the accused. That the learned Trial Court has erroneously come to a conclusion that the evidence of the complainant is not corroborated by the evidence of the panch witness and if the evidence is minutely examined, all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery have been proved beyond reasonable doubts. That the impugned judgement and order of acquittal has been passed without appreciating the material evidence on record and the same is required to be quashed and set aside.