STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAGHUBHAI SAYAJIBHAI NAYAK

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. 31/3/2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Valsad (herein after referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Special (ACB) Case No. 1 of 2002, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Ss. 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondents are hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as they 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. 31/3/2005, the appellant- State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the judgment and 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 on record. That the Investigating Officer has followed the due procedure before setting up the trap, which was successful and the sanction for prosecution has been granted by the competent authority after perusing all the documents. That, the tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused and the test of ultraviolet lamp for anthracene powder was also positive. That, the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the deposition of Prosecution Witness No. 1 Naginbhai Vasavabhai Chaudhary, who was the shadow witness and it is on record that the accused no. 2 had demanded for the amount but had denied accepting the same in the presence of the panch witness and hence the panch witness was asked to leave the room and thereafter, the tainted currency notes were accepted from the complainant. That the panch witness has clearly supported the case of the prosecution and the defense raised by the accused have not been supported by any cogent evidence and merely because of minor contradiction, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused, which is not proper. That the impugned judgment and order of learned Trial Court is perverse and bad in the eye of law and is required to be quashed and set aside.