STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VAKHATSINH SABURJI CHAUHAN

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 the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge and 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Special ACB Case No.6 of 2007 on 25/1/2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent - accused from the offences punishable under Ss. 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C.Act').

(2.) The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal 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 contending that the order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and documentary evidences produced in support of the case. The documentary evidences available on record of the case fully support the case of the prosecution, but the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error apparent on record of the case by not properly appreciating the material available on record of the case. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the sanction was legal and was given by a Competent Authority and the prosecution has proved that the accused was not in charge of the Devkaran na Muvada beat, but he was patrolling in the said area and had accepted the amount of Rs.2500.00 in the presence of witnesses. The Range Forest Officer at Atarsumba went with the complainant for recording the statements of the witnesses and the statements of the witnesses on oath are on record, which show that the amount was taken by the accused and was not deposited in the Government Treasury, but was used for his personal benefit. The learned Trial Court has erred in discarding the positive evidence available on record of the case and the complainant Bharatkumar Rameshchandra Solanki, Range Forest Officer, Atarsumba has fully supported the case of the prosecution, but the learned Trial Court has given undue importance to some minor omissions and contradictions and has concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubts. The impugned order is contrary to law and evidence on record and illegal, invalid and improper and deserves to be quashed and set aside.