STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. GOVINDBHAI VALJIBHAI CHRISTIAN

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. 29/9/2010 passed by learned Special Judge (ACB), Court No. 2, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (herein after referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Special (ACB) Case No. 05 of 2006, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Ss. 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as the " the PC Act).

(2.) The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the 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 evidence on record. The prosecution has examined five witnesses and produced eight documentary evidences but the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record of the case in true and proper perspective. The learned Trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The prosecution has proved that the accused was working as a Talati-cum-Mantri of Nana-Chiloda and had demanded an illegal gratification from the complainant for doing his official duty and Prahaladji Ranchhodji Thakor - the peon, working in the office of the accused, accepted the amount of illegal gratification at the instance of the accused. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that a public servant has committed a criminal misconduct and the offence is punishable under the PC Act. The panch-witness, Trap Laying Officer and the Investigating Officer have clearly supported the case of the prosecution and as the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the peon Prahaladji Ranchhodji Thakor, at the instance of the complainant, the presumption under Sec. 20 of the PC Act would be applicable. The impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Trial Court is perverse, illegal, invalid and improper and deserves to be quashed and set aside.