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 18.10.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Valsad (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) in Special A.C.B. Case No. 07 of 2005, whereby the respondent-original accused was acquitted from the charges levelled against him under Section 7, 13(1)(d) 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 is doing business of carpenter work in Vapi since last 25 years in the name and style of “Navin Furniture Works.” On 07.03.2005, at about 12:30 p.m. when the complainant was sitting in his shop, the respondent-accused came and told him that he is coming from Sales Tax Department, Vapi and his name is Goswami. Thereafter, the respondent-accused told that since he is doing business of furniture, he has not taken Sales Tax Number. Hence, the complainant told that he is not selling any items but he is making furniture as per order. Thereafter, the respondent- accused opened the drawer and checked the papers and told that the complainant has to pay Sales Tax of big amount and respondent-accused went away from the place stating that after calculation, he will sent notice to pay the Sales Tax, minimum of Rs.2 Lakh. Hence, the complainant has requested the respondent-accused that he is small businessman and he cannot pay huge amount of Sales Tax, for which, he has to sell his shop and also requested for reasonable offer and give Sales Tax number. At that time, the respondent-accused told that if the complainant wanted to complete all the formalities then, he has to give Rs.40,000/-. The complainant requested that he could not arrange the said amount. Hence, the respondent-accused told him that if he could not arrange money then, he has to pay the amount in two installments each of Rs.20,000/-. Since the complainant has not ready and willing to give money to the respondent-accused, he went to A.C.B. Police Station, Valsad and lodged the complaint against the respondent-accused. Thereafter, necessary procedure was carried out by A.C.B. Valsad and currency notes pouring with phenolphthalein powder were put in the pocket of the complainant. Thereafter, the trap was arranged and the A.C.B. Staff, the complainant and two panchas proceeded towards the Sales Tax Office and caught the respondent accused with marked currency notes, which were given by the complainant to the respondent-accused. Thus, the accused committed breach of offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

2.2 On the basis of the FIR registered against the accused person, the 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 person and submitted the same before the concerned Court and the same is registered as Special A.C.B. Case No. 7 of 2005.

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 following four witnesses:

S. No. Witness Exhibit No.

1. Complainant - Shivnandan Ramdev Sharma 11

2. Witness - Somabhai Dhanabhai Ahir 14

3. Witness - Nareshchandra Bhikhabhai Koralwala 21

4. Witness - Rajghar Dolatrao Marathe 22

4. The prosecution has also produced following documentary evidence:

S. No. Documentary Evidence Exhibit No.

1. Complaint 12

2. Panchnama 15

3. Panchnama 23

4. Letter 26

5. Xerox copy of pages of service book 27

6. Transfer order 28

7. Order 29

8. Xerox copy of Attendance Sheet 30

9. Noting of Muddamal in F.S.L. 32

10. F.S.