JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“The Code” for short) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.4.2006, recorded by the learned Special Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj, in Special Case No.46 of 1992, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent – accused from the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded before the learned trial Court is such that the complainant was having agricultural field admeasuring about four acres in the name of his father at village-Vandh, which was also known as ‘Gogai’. The said land was to be transferred in the name of the complainant and therefore, the father of the complainant had given an application for transfer of the said field in the name of the respondent – accused. It was case of the prosecution that for registering the name of the complainant, the respondent demanded illegal gratification of Rs.400/-. As the complainant was not ready and willing to pay the amount as demanded by the respondent – accused, he approached P.I. of ACB Kachchh- Bhuj, pursuant to which a trap was arranged and in the trap arranged the respondent – accused was found guilty of the alleged offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case was registered against the respondent – accused.

3. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. Ultimately charge sheet came to be filed and submitted before the learned Special Judge and the case was registered as Special Case No. 46 of 1992. The trial was initiated against the respondent.

4. To prove the charges levelled against the respondent – accused, the prosecution has examined in all three witnesses and also produced several documentary evidences.

5. At the end, the trial Court, after recording the statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and defence, acquitted the respondent of all the charges levelled against him by the impugned judgment and order.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the present appeal is filed by the appellant- state.

7. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. B.J. Trivedi for the respondent – accused.

8. Learned APP for the appellant – State submitted that the learned Special Judge had not properly appreciated the evidence on record and learned Special Judge ought to have held that evidence of shadow Panch is sufficient to establish the demand. She further contended that the judgment and order of the learned trial Court is against the provisions of law as learned trial Court had not properly considered the evidence on record led by the prosecution. Considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of alleged charges against the respondent. Taking this Court to the deposition of PW-2 at Exh. 17/C – Motibhai Mohanbhai Parmar, she submitted that as deposed, the respondent had demanded illegal gratification as alleged and pursuant to which the amount as demanded was placed in the pocket of respondent’s shirt. Therefore, the trial Court is in error in recording that the ingredients of the charges as alleged are not proved.

9. Learned APP submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal, thus, passed by the learned Trial Court is based on inferences not warranted by the facts of the case and on presumption which is not permitted by law. Therefore, the learned Judge had erred in not properly appreciating the evidence on record and thereby committed error by acquitting the respondent for the alleged offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act,