Point of law : where the trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of the evidence which is but barely possible, it is the obvious duty of the High Court to interfere in the interest of justice, lest the administration of justice be brought to ridicule.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 30.10.2007, passed in ACB Case No. 12 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 11, Vadodara, recording the acquittal.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 13.03.2006, complainant Rameshbhai Gordhanbhai Patanvadia, resident of Patanvadia Faliya, Tal.: Karjan registered a complaint before the ACB, Vadodara to the effect that he was having a Jeep bearing registration No. GJ-07-A-2216 in the name of his father and was earning by running the said jeep for commuting the passengers on Karjan – Nareshwar route. The jeep was duly insured and the complainant was also having valid and effective driving licence. As per his complaint, he used to give Rs.1,000/- as hapta (illegal gratification) to the respondent monthly. However, in March 2006, when he failed to give one such instalment as his Jeep was under repair and he was not having money, the respondent, threatened him that he would not allow him to run his Jeep on the said route and hence, on 12.03.2006, he gave Rs.200/- and for rest amount of Rs.800/-, he requested him to be paid within a short time. The complainant, since, did not want to pay the bribe, approached the Police Inspector, ACB, Vadodara, who, after completing preliminary procedures, arranged the trap. The complainant deposited Rs.300/- and rest Rs.500/- was arranged by the ACB so as to equal the bribe money of Rs.800/- for trap purpose. Thereafter, trap was conducted and the respondent - accused accepted an amount of Rs.800/- and caught red-handed and thereby, he committed the offence punishable under Section 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as “the PC Act”). 2.1 Upon such offence being registered, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of as many as 5 witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences in question. The learned trial Judge framed the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.10.2007, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard, learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. P. P. Majmudar for the respondent - accused.

3.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned APP further contended that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of complainant - PW-1 Rameshbhai Gordhanbhai Patanvadiya, Exh. 8, who has supported the case of the prosecution in full. He submitted that the respondent – accused was caught red-handed with the bribe money, however, the learned trial Judge disbelieved his deposition and thereby, materially erred.

3.2 The learned APP further, drawing the attention of the Court to the deposition of PW-2 Prembhandbhai Dudhabhai Parmar, Exh. 11 submitted that this witness has also supported the case of the prosecution and has clearly stated that the accused person was caught red-handed taking bribe. He submitted that though all the three ingredients viz. demand, acceptance and recovery were proved beyond reasonable doubt, however, the learned trial Judge has materially erred in disbelieving the case of the prosecution.

3.3 He further drew the attention of the Court to the deposition of PW-3 Anupamsingh Gehlot, Exh. 16, who was then working as the Superintendent of Police with the Western Railway, Vadodara and granted sanction for prosecution qua the respondent – accused. The learned APP submitted that this witness