STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. CHIMANBHAI RANCHIDBHAI CHUDASAMA

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. 23/11/2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anand (herein after referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Special (ACB) Case No. 36 of 2006 (Old Case No. 3 of 2003), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (herein after 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 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) ACB) Case No.36 of 2006 (Old Case No.3 of 2003) on 23/11/2006, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is bad in law, erroneous and contrary to the provisions of law. That the complaint had clearly stated that the demand was made by the accused and the shadow witness has also admitted that the demand was being made by the accused. Moreover, the seizure memo is produced at Exh.12 and the panchnama is produced at Exh.13. That the amount has been recovered by the accused but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence in proper prospective. That the sanction for prosecution has also been given by the Competent Authority and the Trap Laying Officer has also fully supported the entire case of the prosecution and during his cross-examination, nothing adverse has come on record. That the learned Trial Court has erroneously come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against accused and the learned Trial Court has given undue importance to some portion of the deposition of the pnch witnesses, who has not supported the case of the prosecution. That the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and the the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused and there was no reason to doubt the version of the panch witnesses. That the Learned Trial Court has discarded the evidence on the basis of minor discrepancies and has disbelieved the fact of the demand whereas the evidence shows that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. That the order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence and deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused must be found guilty for the said offences.