STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAJNIKANT TRIBHOVANDAS VYAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Sec. 378(1)(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Banaskantha at Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special ACB Case No. 81 of 2005 on 14/12/2006, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) 1, 2, 3 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as "the PC Act" for short).

(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 judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. That the learned Trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused. That the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the panch witness and has failed to appreciate that the deposition of the panch witness is corroborated by the panchnama in which it is clearly stated that the muddamaal currency notes were asked to be kept in a plastic bag by the accused from where it was recovered. That it cannot be said that the accused has not demanded or accepted the amount of illegal gratification and the evidence of Police Inspector Mr. Rahmatullah Sawaikhan Sindhi - the Trap Laying Officer has not been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court. From the evidence of this witness who was discharging his duties as the Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, Palanpur and was present at the time of the trap, there is sufficient evidence against the respondent and the learned Trial Court has merely observed minor contradictions and omissions and has acquitted the accused, which is not proper. That the complainant had placed the tainted currency notes in the plastic bag at the instance of the accused and it cannot be said that the demand was not made. That the learned Trial Court has committed an error in appreciating the evidence and the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record and the same is required to be quashed and set aside.