STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. CHANDRAKANT VITHOBA SURVE

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 judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Valsad (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Corruption Case No. 24 of 2002 on 30/11/2005, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Ss. 13(1)(d) 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 impugned judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has erred in not appreciating the oral and documentary evidence produced on record by the prosecution. That the learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the complainant had approached the Investigating Officer and all the due procedure had been followed before setting up of the trap which was successful. That the Competent Authority, after perusing the records, was pleased to grant the order of sanction for prosecution and the tainted currency notes of Rs.350.00 were recovered from the accused and the test was positive. That the learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the accused was on duty and had demanded the amount of illegal gratification and even though the panch witness has turned hostile, it is no ground for an acquittal. That the prosecution has produced the other evidence which is acceptable and the learned Trial Court has erred in concluding that there was no demand for money. That it is proved that the accused had accepted the bribe amount and the defence raised by the accused is not supported by any cogent evidence and the accused has not been able to discharge his burden of establishing his defence. That the Investigating Officer and other Police Officers have supported the case of the prosecution and the impugned judgement and order of acquittal is improper, perverse and bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside and the accused must be found guilty of the said offences.