JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“The Code” for short) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.10.2006, recorded by learned Special Judge, Patan in Special (A.C.B.) Case No.2 of 2003, whereby the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent – accused of the charges, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Brief facts leading to the prosecution case is that, the complainant Baldevji Sartanji Rajput of village Siddhpur, filed a complaint before ACB Police Station, Mehsana alleging that while he was having his own “fair price shop” at village: Siddhpur, for verification of books as well as relevant records of the shop, respondent-accused demanded Rs.1,000/- per month as illegal gratification for not raising any queries towards illegalities if any, committed by him. Respondent, at the relevant time was discharging his duties as Dy. Mamlatdar (Supply) in the office of Mamlatdar, Siddhpur. As the complainant was not ready and willing to pay the illegal gratification of Rs. 1000/-demanded by respondent – accused, he filed a complaint before ACB Police Station, Mehsana. Pursuant to the complaint, a trap was arranged and during the trap, respondent – accused was caught with illegal gratification from his possession. It was further case of the prosecution that muddamal currency notes were recovered from possession of respondent – accused in presence of independent panchas and thereafter offences under Sections 7, 12, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Act were registered against respondent-accused.

3. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During course of investigation the respondent was arrested and thereafter released on bail. Ultimately, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Special Judge, Patan where the case was registered as Special Corruption Case No.2 of 2003. The trial was initiated against the respondent.

4. To prove the case against present respondent, the prosecution had examined in all four witnesses and also produced several documentary evidences.

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

6. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by learned trial Judge the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal.

7. Heard Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP for the appellant – and Mr. Param Buch learned advocate for Mr. Hriday Buch for the respondent – accused.

8. Appearing for the State, Ms. Jhaveri, learned APP submitted that the learned Special Judge had not properly appreciated the evidence and learned Special Judge ought to have held that the evidence of independent panch was sufficient to establish the demand. Referring to the deposition of P.W. 2 at Exh.17 (independent panch witness), she submitted that the tainted notes were recovered from the respondent and the serial numbers of currency notes also matched, therefore the learned trial Judge had erred in not considering the said evidence. She, therefore, contended that the judgment and order of learned trial Court is contrary to the provisions of law and the learned trial court had erred in not properly appreciating the evidence led by prosecution looking to the provisions of the Act. The prosecution, had proved all the ingredients of alleged charges against respondent. By taking this Court further to various oral and documentary evidence, she submitted that the learned trial Court’s order of acquittal is based on inference not warranted by the facts of the present case and it is based on presumption which is not permitted by law. Further, the oral as well as d