STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HARSHAD AMBALAL JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment and order dated 24.10.2002 passed by learned Special Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Special Case (ACB) No. 15 of 1996, whereby the respondent -accused was acquitted of the charge for offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), (i), (ii), (iii), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) SHORT facts of the prosecution case are as under:

(3.) MS . C.M. Shah, learned APP for the State submitted that the order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record. She submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the complainant has turned hostile to the prosecution, however, the panch No. 1 Sajjansinh Chauhan has supported the details of the Panchnama. She also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have believed the preliminary panchnama which was prepared at the ACB office Himmatnagar. She further submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that panch witness No. 2 Chaitanya Joshi has supported the procedure conducted in support of the panchnama which is at Exh -33. She also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that Police Inspector Shri Jamsa of ACB has fully supported the prosecution case. She further submitted that permission to prosecute the appellant has also been granted by the competent authority. She submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that though the complainant has not supported the prosecution case by his evidence at Exh -44, Panch No. 1 and P.I. Jamsa have fully supported the prosecution case. The learned Judge has erred in holding that the amount received by the accused was not a bribe amount but it was an amount to be deposited on account of the departmental inquiry. The learned Judge ought to have seen that the aforesaid defence is a lame defence and the learned Judge ought not have accepted the same. The learned Judge ought to have seen that, in this case, the accused has demanded the amount, accepted amount of bribe and the said amount of bribe has been recovered from the accused. She submitted that aforesaid acceptance and recovery has been proved by the evidence of the panch witnesses and the Police Inspector, who conducted the trap. It is submitted by her that the learned Judge has misread the decisions of the Apex Court and has recorded acquittal on facts, which were not germane and the prosecution had, in fact, proved the case to the hilt.