JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred the present Appeal under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 01.03.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.10, Rajkot at Morbi (hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court") in Special Case No.02 of 2000, whereby the respondent-original accused was acquitted from the charge levelled against him under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of present Appeal are as under:

2.1 The respondent - accused, who was discharging his duties as Police Inspector of Morbi City Police Station, during the period from 25.06.1998 to 16.08.1999, though being Government Servant was collecting bribe amount from the owners of the private luxury buses and the administrators of the said luxury buses for driving the same on the road from Morbi city to other cities. Thus, for his personal gain, he was collecting cash money from the drivers of the said buses. The accused, though there was notification of District Collector bearing Sr. No. G.H.G./641/1999 dtd. 26.04.1998 by which there was a ban to ply or to park private buses within 100 mtr. of Morbi Bus Station, after taking bribe amount permitted them to ply the same and to park the same within the said area. Thus, the accused committed breach of said notification and also committed offence punishable under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, FIR came to be registered against the accused person - present respondent.

2.2 On the basis of the said FIR, investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material and evidence on record, the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet against the accused and submitted the same before the concerned Court and the same is registered as Special Case No. 2 of 2000.

2.3 Thereafter, after verifying whether the accused was given all the necessary police papers or not, the learned Special Judge framed charges against the accused to which the plea of the accused was recorded, wherein he denied his involvement in the offence.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined fifteen witnesses and produced various documentary evidence before the concerned Trial Court. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.10, Rajkot at Morbi, after hearing both the parties vide his judgment and order dated 01.03.2006 passed in Special Case No. 2 of 2000 has acquitted the accused of the offences with which he was charged.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 01.03.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.10, Rajkot at Morbi in Special Case No.2 of 2000, the State of Gujarat has filed present Appeal.

5. Heard Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr. Arpit Kapadia, learned Counsel for the respondent herein - accused.

6. While referring to the evidence on record, Ms. Maithili Mehta learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State of Gujarat has vehemently submitted that there is serious charge of demanding illegal gratification against the respondent - accused. She further submitted that the said charge is proved from the depositions of the witnesses. She further submitted that from the deposition of the witnesses the facts reveal to the effect that the witnesses gathered at the Morbi Circuit House to meet the M.L.A. of the Morbi City for the purpose of making representation against present respondent with regard to the demand of illegal gratification from the owners of the public transport vehicles, which were plying between Rajkot and Morbi and Vankaner and Morbi. She further submitted that in that view of the matter, the learned Trial Judge ought to have appreciated this evidence and convicted the accused person. It is