STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VIJAYKUMAR SOHANKARNATH MEHRA

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 dtd. 30/1/2012 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar (herein after referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Special (ACB) Case No. 4 of 2003, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offenses punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (herein after referred to as 'the 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 said impugned order of acquittal, the appellant-State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution in support of their case. That the learned trial Court has committed a grave error and the impugned judgment is illegal, invalid and improper. That the prosecution has proved that the accused was working as a Clerk in the Mercantile Maritime Board, Deep Bhavan, Jamnagar and had demanded an amount of Rs.1,000.00 but returned Rs.200.00 to the complainant and accepted the other amount of illegal gratification of Rs.800.00. That the panch witness has deposed that the amount of illegal gratification was demanded and accepted in his presence and it is crystal clear that the ingredients of the offence i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. That the prosecution has also proved that there were markes of anthracene powder on the currency notes and in view of the provision contained in Sec. 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the learned trial Court ought to have considered that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. That the panch witness has heard the conversation made between the accused and the complainant and it is settled principles of law that even if the complainant has turned hostile or has expired, the prosecution can prove their case beyond reasonable doubts by circumstantial evidence. That all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and if the record of the case is considered as a whole, it is clear that the prosecution has successfully established the charge against the accused and the learned trial Court has erred in passing the order of acquittal. That the impugned judgment and order is contrary to law and evidence on record and the same must be quashed and set aside and the accused must be found for guilt for the said offence.