STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MAHENDRABHAI JIVRAJBHAI MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment and order dated 31.7.2010 rendered by learned Special Judge (ACB) and Additional District and Sessions Judge, Porbandar, in Special Case (ACB) No. 2 of 2006 recording acquittal for the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (3) , 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short "the Act") has been assailed in this appeal under Section 378(2) , (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") .

(2.) The record would reveal the fact that the respondent - Mahendrabhai Jivrajbhai Mehta was discharging his duties as Gazetted Officer i.e. Taluka Development Officer, Ranavav, District Porbandar on 16.10.2004 i.e. date of incident in question. The complainant was Talati-cum-Mantri of Una Taluka, District Junagadh. He was under suspension in connection with some other case on the date of the incident.

(3.) Learned APP has drawn attention of this court to the testimony of P.W.1 complainant, P.W. 2-panch withness, the panchnama recording description of the tainted currency notes, the evidence of trapping officer, and submitted that the initial demand, the demand during the raid, acceptance of illegal gratification by the respondent and its recovery was proved through the said evidence, beyond reasonable doubt with corroborative scientific evidence above-referred and there was no justification for the trial court to discard such cogent evidence on the insignificant discrepancies or immaterial contradictions, omissions or improvements. It was contended that the findings of the trial court that the evidence regarding demand of illegal gratification in presence of panch witness no.1, by respondent was inadequate, is erroneous and perverse to the evidence on record. It was contended that most crucial evidence was the demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification by the respondent, and apart from the fact that the learned trial Judge was not right in recording the finding about insufficiency of the evidence as regards demand, he fell in error by holding that only recovery was established. It was contended that the authorities cited with the court below were not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as, that case law reiterated the settled legal position that a mere recovery would not bring the case within the four corners of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. It was contended that the respondent was unable to dispute recording of the occurrences in the panchnama and the trial court also could not find any reason to discard the said aspect but erroneously relied upon insignificant fact like exact time and person writing the panchnama, on the basis of the testimony of panch witness No.1, who, unfortunately could not make accurate statement about the timing but did state that the recording of the occurrence was done in the panchnama.