STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RANCHODBHAI BHAGVANBHAI RAYKA

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 and Special Judge (ACB), Fast Track Court No. 3, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special ACB Case No. 1/2003 on 15/6/2005, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as "the PC Act" for short). The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused as they stood in the rank and file 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 of the case and the learned Trial court has not appreciated the evidence of the complainant who has been examined at exhibit 17. The complainant has stated that the accused had accepted the amount of illegal gratification and during the cross- examination, nothing adverse has been elicited but the learned Trial Court has not believed the evidence of this witness. The prosecution has examined the panch witness at Exh. 26 and the panch witness has narrated in detail supporting the case of prosecution and during the extensive cross-examination, nothing adverse has come on record. That the Trap Laying Officer has also supported the case of the prosecution, but the learned Trial Court has not believed the evidence of this witness. The learned Trial Court ought to have believed that the currency notes stained with phenolphthalein powder were recovered from the possession of the accused but the learned Trial Court has given undue weightage on aspects which are not relevant and has created irrelevant doubts. The panch witness and police inspectors have deposed in support of the prosecution and their depositions get corroborated, but the learned Trial Court has not believed the evidence of these witnesses. In the evidence of the panch witness, it is proved that the amount of bribe was demanded and accepted by the accused, but this aspect has not been taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court. Moreover, marks of phenolphthalein powder were found on the currency notes, but the same has not been considered by the learned Trial Court and the evidence with regard to demand, acceptance and recovery has been clearly proved by the prosecution. However, the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence and has acquitted the accused, which is contrary to law and evidence on record and hence, the impugned judgement and order of acquittal deserves to be quashed and set aside.