JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant- original accused has prayed to modify the judgment and order dated 30.06.2018 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Special (ACB) No.16 of 2011 by converting the acquittal granted to the applicant “by giving benefit of doubt” into an “acquittal simplicitor”.

2. The facts in brief, as emerging from the record, are as under;

The applicant herein was serving as Deputy Engineer with the Gujarat State Electricity Corporation at Kutch Lignite Thermal Power Station, Panandhro, Kutch at the relevant time. It is alleged that on 15.03.2007, between 1300 hrs. – 1315 hrs., the applicant went to the Office of Vanrajbhai Maganbhai Chauhan, the original complainant, who was serving as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigiliance Department, Gujarat Vikas Nigam Ltd. at Vadodara at the relevant time. It is further alleged that the applicant, thereafter, informed the complainant that he had come to meet him in pursuance of the conversation which they had on the mobile phone of one Rajubhai Parmar. It is further alleged that the applicant thereafter took out of a white colored cover from his handpurse and kept it on the table in front of the complainant. On inquiry about the cover, the applicant informed him that the cover contained cash and it was meant for the purpose of expeditious closure of the inquiry against I. M. Patel, Superintendent Engineer so that the said Officer could get promotion to the next post. However, the complainant pushed the cover towards the applicant and reprimanded him for his act. He also informed his superior about the above act of the applicant. Thereafter, a primary inquiry was carried out and cash amount of Rs.4,000/- was recovered from the applicant in the presence of panchas.

2.1 It is further alleged that on 14.03.2008 the applicant made a call on the mobile phone of A.S.I. - Rajubhai Parmar and asked him to hand-over his phone to the complainant. The complainant again reprimanded the applicant and informed him that he would look into the cases on priority basis only. Pursuant thereto, a complaint under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed against the applicant and ultimately, trial was initiated.

2.2 During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 25 witnesses and had also placed reliance upon several documentary evidence. At the end of trial, the Court below came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 12 of the Act against the applicant and consequently, acquitted the applicant of the charge levelled against him. However, in the operative portion of the impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2018, the Court below held that the applicant is acquitted of the charge under Section 12 of the Act by granting him the benefit of doubt. Being aggrieved by the observation made by the Court below in the impugned judgment and order whereby, the applicant has not been awarded “acquittal simplicitor” but has been “acquitted by granting benefit of doubt”, the applicant has preferred the present revision application.

3. Mr. N.D. Songara, learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that the applicant is a Government Servant and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal granted by giving “benefit of doubt” has affected his service career. He submitted that the Employer of the applicant has refused to grant him consequential benefits on acquittal for the reason that the applicant has been acquitted by the Court below by extending “benefit of doubt” and that the acquittal is not an “acquittal simplicitor”.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Songara for the applicant took the Court through the reasonings given by the Court below in the impugned judgment and order to submit that in this case, the Court below has come to the specific conclusion that there is no evidence against the app