STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SHAMBHUBHAI JESANGBHAI RAVAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Sec. 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 21/4/2010 passed by the learned 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Surat (herein after referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Special (ACB) Case No. 24 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' as 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 of acquittal dtd. 21/4/2010 passed by the learned Trial Court in Special (ACB) Case No. 24 of 2003, the State has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the prosecution has produced the oral evidence of five witnesses and the documentary evidence, which prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The impugned judgment and order of acquitting the accused is against the evidence on record of the case and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and has erred in concluding that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is not proved. That the complaint at Exh.12 and the panchnama at Exh.22 have been corroborated by the evidence of the complainant and the prosecution witness examined at Exh.11. That the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated all the evidence and has discarded the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses giving more weightage to minor omissions and contradictions. That the entire circumstances point to the guilt of the accused and the evidence of the complainant as well as the Trap Laying Officer fully corroborate with each other and there is no reason to disbelieve their versions. That the learned Trial Court has erroneously come to conclusion that the competent authority, who has accorded the sanction, was not competent to launch the prosecution against the accused. That the prosecution has proved that the accused had received the bribe amount and the impugned judgment and order is illegal, unjust and irrelevant and the trap was laid by the Trap Laying Officer in the house of the accused and the same was successful and the currency notes laced with anthracene powder was recovered from the possession of the accused. That even though, the complainant and the panch witnesses have turned hostile, the learned Trial Court has not appreciated their evidence properly. That the impugned judgment and order is perverse and erroneous and the same is required to be set aside and the accused be convicted for the said offence.