STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MOHANBHAI KALUBHAI DAMA

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. 22/6/2007 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Special (ACB) Case No. 07 of 2001, whereby, the learned trial Court (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court) was pleased to acquit the respondent from the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with 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 said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - state has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidences on record and the learned trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubts. That the prosecution has produced oral evidences of 4 witnesses and has produced 17 documentary evidences in support of their case, but the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true and proper perspective. That the oral as well as documentary evidences fully support the case of the prosecution and the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the accused was an unarmed Police Constable in the Ankleshwar GIDC Police Station and was a member of the disciplined force. That the prosecution has proved that the accused had demanded the amount of Rs.2000.00 as illegal gratification and accepted the amount of Rs.1000.00 on 10/02/2005 and was caught red handed and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused. That, the act of the accused who was working as an Unarmed Police Constable is unbecoming of a public servant and the demand and the acceptance is clearly proved from the evidence of the complainant as also the panch witness. That the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of this witnesses and the learned trial Court has erred in not believing the evidence of this witnesses. That the learned trial Court has not resorted to the presumption of under Sec. 20 of the PC Act and erred in acquitting the accused and the impugned judgment and order is illegal, invalid and improper and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. That when the traces of phenolphthalein powder was found from the hands of the accused and the amount of illegal gratification was recovered, the learned trial Court ought to have concluded that the amount was accepted by the accused as illegal gratification from the complainant. That the impugned judgment 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 for the said offences.