STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BIPINCHANDRA VRAJLAL PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Court, Presiding Officer, 2nd Fast Track Court, Surat (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ACB) Case No. 02 of 1999 on 4/8/2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act" for short).

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

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellantState has preferred the present appeal, inter alia, contending that the said judgment is contrary to law, evidence on record and the settled principles governing appreciation of evidence in corruption cases. It is urged that the learned Trial Court has gravely erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, despite the fact that the prosecution had examined four witnesses and produced twelve documentary pieces of evidence in support of its case. According to the appellant, the evidence on record clearly establishes that the respondent accused, being a public servant, had indulged in the act of demanding and accepting illegal gratification and thereby, committed the offence of criminal misconduct. It is further contended that the prosecution has successfully proved, through cogent and reliable evidence, that in the presence of independent panch witnesses, the respondent had demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.500.00 as illegal gratification from the complainant and that the tainted currency notes were recovered from his possession during the course of the trap proceedings. The appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has unduly emphasized the non-examination of the complainant, Maheshkumar Kantilal Joshi, who had expired prior to the recording of his evidence, without properly appreciating that the complaint lodged by him, along with the surrounding circumstances and corroborative evidence, sufficiently established the foundational facts of demand and acceptance. It is also contended that the testimonies of the Trap Laying Officer, the Investigating Officer and the members of the raiding party have not been appreciated in their proper perspective, resulting in a perverse finding. The impugned judgment and order, therefore, being manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record and unsustainable in law, deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court.