STATE OF GUJART Vs. ASHOKKUMAR AMBALAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment and order dated 27.04.2005 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Ahmedabad (Rural) recording acquittal for the opponent for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") in Special (ACB) Case No.5 of 2001, is sought to be assailed in this Appeal under Section 378 of he Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.).

(2.) The facts of the case would indicate that while the opponent was employed as a Clerk in the Office of Deputy Engineer, PWD, Dholka on 30.12.2000, he allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- for forbearing the removal of cabin used as a pan-shop by the informant near Dholka high-way. The informant consulted one Pravinbhai - PW-4 in this regard and upon his advise lodged the complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau. It was decided to lay a trap and for that purpose necessary procedure came to be followed during which preliminary Panchnama was drawn recording therein the events pre-trap. Thereafter, the trap party stayed back in the hidings nearby scene of offence and PW-1 and PW-2 proceeded to scene of offence as instructed. The accused was found demanding and accepting the illegal gratification; tainted money were recovered; with their serial numbers matching with those recorded in the preliminary Panchnama. The evidence corroborating the recovery i.e. the traces of anthracene powder on the tainted currency notes, in the shirt pocket of the accused, on the hands of the accused as also those of the informant as also on the hands of the Panch - 2, who drew the currency notes out of the pocket of the accused as instructed by the trap laying officer were also found. A report therefore, was made under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. urging for the trial of the accused.

(3.) The principal oral evidence during the trial was tendered by the informant - PW-1, Panch-1 - shadow witness - PW-2 and the trap laying officer - PW-3. While PW-1 decided not to support the case of the prosecution by turning hostile, the only substantial evidence as regards demand, acceptance and recovery was furnished by PW-2.