STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BABUBHAI BHAVANBHAI LAHERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellant -State has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.07.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.1, Amreli in Special Case No.29 of 1998, whereby the accused was acquitted of the charge for offence under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) SHORT facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: -

(3.) MS .Bhatt, learned APP submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that there are direct and indirect evidence connecting the respondent with the crime and without appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence on record, learned trial Judge straightaway arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. She has further submitted that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of panch No.1 Rajendra Odhavji Mujara at Exh.15 wherein he has clearly deposed that as on the date of incident, respondent accused has demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.11000/ - from complainant Gokalbhai Dalabhai. Under the circumstances, statement of the respondent accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C is not required to be accepted. She has further submitted that the learned Judge failed to appreciate the fact that looking to the evidence of Investigating Officer, Vikramsinh Jivatsinh Puwar, PI at Exh.25, it is crystal clear that muddamal amount of Rs.11000/ - which was given by complainant was recovered from conscious possession of the respondent accused and said amount was demanded by respondent accused in the presence of panch No.1.She has further submitted that so far as demand, acceptance and recovery of muddamal notes is concerned, same is proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, learned Judge has no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witnesses. She has further submitted that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that muddamal notes, hands of the respondent as well as clothes, were seen in the light of ultra -violate lamp and during experiment black glittering dots were seen. She further submitted that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that muddamal notes which were recovered from respondent accused were bearing same numbers of notes which were mentioned in the preliminary panchnama.