STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DAUDBHAI BHIKHABHAI RATHOD

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. 15/10/2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Amreli (herein after referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Special (ACB) Case No. 16 of 1998, whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1) (gh) read with 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 impugned judgment and order of acquittal, 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 the evidence on record and the learned trial Court ought to have believed the evidence of the complainant Jitendra Lalbhai Patel and the evidence of panch witness Arvindbhai Nanjibhai Sarkhedi and the both witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. That both the witnesses have stated that the accused had demanded the amount of illegal gratification when they had accompanied him to the house of the accused situated behind the Panchayat Office and it was on the instruction of the accused that the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.800.00 was placed by the complainant under the mattress. That thereafter, the predetermined signal was given and Police Inspector Vikramsinh Jivatsinh Puvar, who was the Trap Laying Officer has fully supported the case of the prosecution. That the recovery of the tainted currency notes has been clearly proved by the prosecution and the recovery was from the house which was in possession of the accused and hence the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery and there was no reason for the learned trial Court to acquit the accused. That the prosecution has produced cogent and convincing evidence that the accused had demanded the amount of illegal gratification from the complainant and the same has been accepted by the accused and hence the accused must be convicted for the said offences.