STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BATUKBHA RATUBHA CHAVDA

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 Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 4, Jamnagar, (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case No. 2 of 1993 on 12/7/2005, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) 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 the learned Trial Court has erred in not properly appreciating the facts of the case, evidence on record along with the settled principles of law. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated that the prosecution has proved the demand of illegal gratification and acceptance of the amount and the complainant has clearly stated that a specific demand of Rs.1500.00 was made which was subsequently reduced to Rs.500.00 by the respondent and the amount was accepted by the respondent and recovered in the presence of the panch witness. That even though the panch witness - Nathabhai Lavabhai has been declared hostile, he has admitted that in his presence the seizure panchnama was drawn and he has identified his signature on the panchnama. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the Trap Laying Officer who has arranged for the trap and has investigated the case and has deposed fully supporting the case of the prosecution that the respondent had accepted the amount of bribe and was caught red handed. That mainly on the basis of minor discrepancies the learned Trial Court has given the benefit of doubt to the respondent but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated that there was no reason for the prosecution to falsely implicate the respondent in the offence. That the reasons given by the learned Trial Court while acquitting the respondent is unwarranted to the facts of the case and hence, the impugned judgement and order must be quashed and set aside.