STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PRAVINCHANDRA RATILAL VESUWALA

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, FTC No.2, Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Special Corruption Case No. 12 of 2000 on 1/12/2005, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent accused from the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(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 the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court in Special Case No. 16 of 2000, the appellant State has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal is contrary to law and the evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution has not proved their case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court ought to have seen that even though the complainant was declared hostile, the prosecution has proved in the evidence the demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification, which are the most important ingredients as far as the cases under the P.C.Act are concerned. At the time of trap, the necessary papers have been seized from the accused and the recovery of those documents support the case of the prosecution. The learned Trial Court has not believed the evidence of the Trap Laying Officer, wherein, he has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that the hands and the pocket of the accused were found stained with anthracene powder and the bribe amount was recovered from the pant pocket of the accused. The currency notes that were recovered from the accused were bearing the same numbers, which are mentioned in Part-I of the panchnama and the panch witness has also supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Trial Court has not appreciated the panchnama and has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of the illegal gratification and the findings of the learned Trial Court are contrary to law and hence, the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal is required to be set aside.