STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ASHARAM BARELAL VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned APP Mr.K.P.Raval for the applicant and learned advocate Mr.Ekant Ahuja for the respondent.

(2.) Perused the compilation produced by the parties, which is to be taken on record. It is undisputed fact that State being the prosecuting agency has challenged the judgment and order dated 23.12.2015 in Special ACB Case No.10 of 2005, whereby Special Judge and 7th Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad has acquitted the respondent from the charges u/ss.7, 13(1)(d) (i)(ii)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, there is one set of discussion of material evidence on record, which confirms that there is no sufficient evidence to prove that respondent has committed the offence as alleged in the chargesheet. In view of such fact, now, what is required to be considered while granting the leave to file appeal against such acquittal, is only to the effect that whether there is any manifest irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment, which vitiates the entire judgment so as to re -appreciate the evidence and to remand the matter back to the concerned Sessions Court for deciding it afresh. If at all appeal is allowed after scrutinizing the entire evidence and record and proceedings.

(3.) Even for verifying to that effect, it cannot be ignored that for confirming the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, there must be cogent and reliable evidence to prove the basic ingredients viz.(1) prior demand, (2) demand at the time of trap, (3) acceptance of tainted currency notes, and (4) possession of tainted currency notes with the accused.