JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal 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 23.06.2006, recorded by learned Special Judge (Fast Track Court No.5), Bhuj- Kutch in Special Case No.99 of 1993, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted respondent – accused from the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Brief facts leading to the prosecution case is that, on 29.12.1991, respondent was discharging his duties as a Nayak - Peon in the office of Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation, Bhuj and on that day, complainant-Ramesh Kanji Rathod, resident of Mahdapur, Junavas, Taluka: Bhuj, District: Kutch, came with loaded truck bearing No.GRN 3668. The said truck was loaded with DAP Fertilizers of Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd., Bhuj Depot, Village: Moti Khavdi, Jamnagar, Sikka and required to be offloaded at the godown of Gujarat Warehousing Corporation, Bhuj. For offloading the truck, on 29.12.1991, the complainant met respondent, who told the complainant that today being Sunday, it was not possible to offload the truck and if he wishes to do the same, he had to pay Rs.50/- and also told him to meet at ‘Octroi naka’ at around 2:30 p.m. It was case of the prosecution that as the complainant was not ready and willing to pay the amount of illegal gratification, demanded by respondent, he approached Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, Kutch- Bhuj. Pursuant to the said compliant, Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, arranged a trap by calling independent panch witnesses and during course of trap, respondent was caught with the amount of illegal gratification and therefore, an offence punishable under sections 7, 13(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, was registered against him.

Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, the respondent was arrested. Ultimately, chargesheet came to be filed before the learned Special Judge, Kutch at Bhuj, where the case was registered as Special Case No.99 of 1993. The trial was initiated against the respondent.

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

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

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

6. Heard Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP for the appellant – State and Mr.Divyesh Sejpal, learned advocate for respondent – accused.

7. Appearing for the State, learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri by taking this Court to deposition of PW-5- investigating officer, who is also a trapping officer, submitted that, PW-5 in his cross-examination had stated that after following due procedure, the amount of illegal gratification was found from the pocket of respondent. Therefore, as the illegal gratification was accepted by the respondent, there is clear evidence in relation to demand and acceptance, which trial Court had erred in considering. She further submitted that learned trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence on record and learned trial Court ought to have considered the deposition of PW-5 (investigating officer), who was trapping officer, to establish the demand. Further, the learned trial Court had erred in not properly appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution looking to the provisions of the Act, which establishes that the prosecution had proved all the ingredients of allege