STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NARUBHAI RATNABHAI RAMANI

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 Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Surendranagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special ACB Case No. 5 of 2004 on 31/8/2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 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, evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence produced by the prosecution properly. That the Trap Laying Officer and other witnesses have fully supported the case of prosecution and the prosecution has, by oral and documentary evidences, proved that the accused had demanded for the amount of illegal gratification and had accepted the same and had thereafter, returned one currency note of Rs.500.00 to the complainant and had given the other currency note of Rs.500.00 to the accused no. 2 from whose custody it was recovered. That the factum of demand is clearly made out and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated that the defence of the accused is not supported by any cogent evidence and the accused have not discharged their burden to establish the defence. That the impugned judgement and order of acquittal is illegal, unjust, and irrelevant and the learned Trial Court has grossly erred in concluding that the demand of illegal gratification was not proved beyond reasonable doubts. That the impugned judgement and order of acquittal must be quashed and set aside and as the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery beyond reasonable doubts, the accused must be found guilty for the offences and sentenced accordingly.