STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. AMARNATH TRIBHOVANNATH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned APP Ms. Reeta Chandarana for the applicant - State and learned advocate Mr. V. G. Popat for respondent. Applicant is prosecuting agency, whereas respondent is acquitted from the charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the impugned judgment and order dated 06.11.2015 in Special ACB Case No. 5 of 2001 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jamkhambhaliya. Therefore, applicant has challenged such acquittal by seeking leave to appeal.

(2.) The sum and substance of prosecution case is to the effect that respondent had demanded an amount of Rs.17,000/- as bribe i.e. illegal gratification for clearing cheques of the complainant. The complainant is doing business of construction on contract basis. He got the contract for constructing quarters for railway. He completed such work and his bills were to be cleared by the railway, the respondent has to forward his bills and measurement books of the construction work of railway staff quarters carried out by the complainant to the competent authority for sanction. It is stated by the complainant that, while forwarding his bill and the measurement books, the respondent had demanded Rs.17,000/- and after negotiation he has agreed to accept Rs.12,000/- and, therefore, he called upon the complainant at his house on 09.05.1997 with Rs.5000/- in cash and post dated cheque of Rs.7000/-. Therefore, when he was not ready and willing to pay such amount, he has lodged a complaint with ACB at Rajkot and trap was arranged. After investigation, the prosecution agency has filed a charge sheet, but after full fledged trial, by impugned judgment the trial Court has acquitted respondent. 2.1 Therefore, to scrutinize that whether trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence while acquitting the respondent, practically entire set of evidence needs to be examined, but for the limited purpose to verify that whether there is cogent and reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt to confirm that respondent has committed offence as alleged in the charge sheet.

(3.) To prove its case, appellant has examined five witnesses and produced 43 documentary evidence, which includes complaint, panchnama, correspondence, sanction letter and several other documents regarding services of respondent.