JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

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 6.10.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 5, Palanpur in Special Case No. 7 of 2001, whereby the respondent-original accused was acquitted from the charges levelled against him under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) 1, 2, 3 and 13(2) 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 complainant Mr. P.B. Pandav, Police Inspector, Palanpur A.C.B. Police Station has received secret information that some Police Officers as well as employees of Border Wings from Nainava Check Post of Dhanera Police Station as well as Khoda Check Post of Tharad Police Station are demanding and receiving illegal gratification from the drivers of the vehicles passing through the said Check Posts under the guise of entry fees. Therefore, on 2.3.2000 they have arranged running trap and during that running trap, the respondent accused has demanded and accepted Rs.10/- from the driver Manglaram Harkanram Bishnoi as illegal gratification under the guise of entry fees and therefore, FIR being C.R. No. 1 of 2000 came to be lodged before A.C.B. Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) 1, 2, 3 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

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. 7 of 2001.

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 five witnesses being complainant- Chenabhai Udaji Brahmin Exh.24, panch - Jayantibhai Umiyashankar Raval Exh.28, A.C.B., P.I. Prabhudas Badaji Pandav Exh.42, A.C.B., P.I., Investigating Officer Kacharabhai Dalabhai Parmar Exh.70 and A.C.B., P.I - Investigating Officer Hirabhai Gedabhai Damor Exh.78. The prosecution has also produced various documentary evidences being Copy of seizure memo Exh.33, Pachnama pertaining to procedure of raid Exh.32, Complaint Exh.37, Copy of service book of accused Exh.56, Sanction to prosecuted the accused Exh.53. However, learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 5, Palanpur, after hearing both the parties vide his judgment and order dated 6.10.2006 passed in Special Case No. 7 of 2001 has acquitted the accused of the offences with which he was charged.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 6.10.2006 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 5, Palanpur in Special Case No. 7 of 2001, the State of Gujarat has filed present Appeal.

5. Heard Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State of Gujarat. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent is not remained present at the time of hearing.

6. While referring to the evidence on record, Mr. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State of Gujarat has vehemently submitted that the learned Trial Judge has committed an error while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. He further submitted that the Trial Court has not believed the case of the prosecution though the accused was found with the possession of tainted currency note of Rs.10/- from his hand and for that the panchnama was drawn and it is supported by the evidence of panch witness and PW-3 - trapping officer Mr. Pandav. He submitted that learned Trial Judge has disbelieved the said aspect and given benefit in fa