STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. CHUNILAL MOHANLAL MANANI

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 order of acquittal dtd. 12/5/2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Rajkot (herein after referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Special (ACB) Case No. 16 of 1995, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as the " the PC Act).

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

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the learned Trial Court, the Appellant State has preferred the present appeal, inter alia, contending that the impugned judgment and order has been passed in a mechanical manner, without proper, legal and judicious appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on record, and is manifestly contrary to the settled principles of law governing appreciation of evidence in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is specifically urged that the learned Trial Court has committed a serious error in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, despite there being cogent, consistent and reliable evidence on record clearly demonstrating the demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification from the accused. It is further submitted that during the course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses, including the complainant, panch-witnesses and the investigating officer, and has produced nine documentary pieces of evidence in support of the prosecution case, all of which, when read cumulatively and harmoniously, unmistakably prove that the accused had made a specific demand for illegal gratification in the sum of Rs.25.00 and had voluntarily accepted the said amount from the decoy witness in connection with issuance of the no-dues certificate. The prosecution has also successfully proved the post-trap procedure, wherein the hands and clothes of the accused were examined under the ultraviolet lamp and bluish fluorescent traces of anthracene powder were found on the clothes of the accused, thereby conclusively establishing physical contact with the tainted currency notes and corroborating the factum of acceptance of bribe amount. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate in its proper perspective that the accused, at the relevant point of time, was holding the post of Cooperative Officer in the Office of the District Registrar of Cooperative Societies at Rajkot and was a public servant entrusted with statutory duties, and that by demanding and accepting illegal gratification from a citizen for performance of an official act, the accused had clearly indulged in corrupt practices and committed criminal misconduct, which conduct is wholly unbecoming of a public servant and squarely falls within the mischief of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The AppellantState, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is perverse, suffers from serious infirmities, is illegal, invalid and improper in the eye of law, and has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. It is accordingly prayed that this Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to convict the accused for the offences charged against him, in the interest of justice.