STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VILASBHAI JANGESHBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant-State under Sec. 378(1)(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, 4th Fast Track Court, Surat (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in Special (ACB) Case No. 57 of 1996 on 31/08/2005, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d), (1)(2)(3) and 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 judgement and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned trial Court has erred in believing that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. That the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the complainant Jayantilal Ichchhulal Patel had received secret information and had arranged for the decoy trap and the complainant, who is the Trap Laying Officer has fully supported the case of the prosecution. That in the evidence of the Trap Laying Officer and the panchwitness, the entire charge has been proved against the accused. That even though the decoy Dhansukhbhai Chimanbhai Gamit has turned hostile but there is a sufficient evidence in the deposition of the panchwitness as also the Trap Laying Officer that the respondent had in fact demanded the amount of illegal gratification, and the same was recovered from him. That the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its real perspective and has acquitted the respondent but the prosecution has proved that the illegal demand of money was made from the decoy. That the judgement and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and deserves to be quashed and set aside.