STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. UMEDBHAI VIRSANGBHAI PATEL

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 judgment and order of acquittal in Special ACB Case No.7 of 2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 6th Fast Track Court, Surat (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') on 29/4/2006, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent - accused from the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C.Act'). 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 relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and principles of justice and the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal on the basis of inferences not warranted by the facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. That the learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated that there are direct and indirect evidences connecting the accused with the crime but without properly appreciting the oral as well as the documentary evidences, the learned Trial Court has arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. That the prosecution has produced the evidence of the complainant and the panch witnesses and both their depositions have corroborated each other and also the panchnama is fully proved by their evidence. That it is crystal clear that the prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable doubts. That the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of demand of illegal gratification, acceptance of the same by the accused at the time of trap and recovery of the tainted currency notes from the table of the accused and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated that traces of anthracene poweder was also found on the hands of the accused as also on the file and the note-book and the accused has failed to give a plausible explanation regarding anthracene powder marks on the hands. That the impugned judgment and order of the learned Trial Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record and against the settled position of law and hence, deserves to be quashed and set aside.