STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SURESHKUMAR DALACHHARAM PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Sec. 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 6/10/2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.5, District Banaskantha at Palanpur (herein after referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Special (ACB) Case No. 122 of 2001, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents from the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 12, 13(1)(D)(1)(2)(3) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (herein after referred to as 'the P.C.Act'). The respondents are hereinafter referred to as 'the accused No.1 and the accused No.2' at they 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 passed by the learned Trial Court in Special (ACB) Case No. 122 of 2001 on 6/10/2006, the State has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has proved that at the relevant time, both the accused were working at Chhapi Police Station and they were public servants. That the complainant had clearly deposed that the accused used to threaten and demand illegal gratification from the complainant and on 16/3/2001, when the complainant went to meet the accused the Chhapi Police Station, the illegal gratification of Rs.1,500.00 was demanded and the complainant was told to come with the amount on the next day i.e. on 17/3/2001. That as the complainant did not want to give the illegal gratification, he lodged the complaint with the ACB Police Station, Banaskanthat at Palanpur and the trap was laid after following the due procedure and both the accused were caught red handed in the presence of the independent panch witnesses. That the prosecution has examined all the witnesses and has produced the necessary documentary evidence and the entire offence has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts, but the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the same in proper perspective.