STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VRUJLAL AMRABHAI GADHVI (THAKARIA)

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 in Special Case No.10 of 1999 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Khambhaliya (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') on 15/6/2006, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent - accused from the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C.Act'). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' at he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

(2.) The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court in Special Case No. 10 of 1999, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and the evidence on record and the impugned judgment is based on inference not warranted by the facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and even though, the complainant has been declared hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution, the statements of PW-1 Vinodkumar Manjibhai Parmar as well as Bhikhubha Balubha Jadeja, the Trap Laying Officer is convincing and reliable and both the witnesses have deposed that the accused had demanded and accepted the illegal gratification from the complainant. That the learned Trial Court has committed an error in considering the evidence of the defence witnesses and has concluded that there was no vehicle in the name of the complainant as per the documents produced by the defence witness, but merely because the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for committing the offence, it cannot be said that the accused has not demanded for the illegal gratification. That the learned Trial Court has considered that there was no evidence in support of the vehicle regarding the loan taken from 'Chandan Finance Company' at Keshod, but from the other evidence, the prosecution has proved the case and the learned Trial Court has committed an error in concluding that merely because the documents regarding the ownership of the rickshaw were not produced by the complainant, it cannot be said that there is no direct or indirect evidence to convict the accused for the offence. That even though, the prosecution has proved the demand, acceptance and the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the evidence of other witnesses, the learned Trial Court has misread the evidence and acquitted the accused, which is not proper and the impugned judgment and order must be quashed and set aide and the accused must be convicted for the said offence.