IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, comprehensive appreciation of evidence, and the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal in Special (Corruption) Case No. 36 of 2002 (Old Case No. 7 of 1999) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 1st Fast Track Court, Bhavnagar (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’ for short) on 07.10.2005. The respondent hereinafter are referred to as ‘the accused’ as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

2.1. That FIR No. I-C.R. No. 6 of 1997 was filed by Mr. A.C. Jadeja, Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, Valsad against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) mainly stating that the accused who were working in the RTO check-post at Bhilad were demanding illegal gratification from the vehicles that were passing by and different amount were being taken from the drivers of different vehicles. That information was received by the ACB Police Station and hence, with the intention of verifying the same, on 10.07.1999, the panch witnesses were called and after following the necessary procedure, a decoy trap was arranged and both the accused were caught red handed demanding the amount from a driver Bakulbhai Laxmanbhai Solanki and accepting the tainted currency notes and the amount of Rs. 2,000/- was recovered from the accused No. 1 and an amount of Rs. 480/- was recovered from the accused No. 2. That after due investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Sessions Court, Valsad and the case was registered as Special (Corruption) Case No. 36 of 2002 (Old Case No. 7 of 1999).

2.2. That both the accused were duly summoned and after following the procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.7 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs.8 and 9. That the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. That after the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and after the arguments of all the parties were heard, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 07.10.2005, gave the benefit of doubt to both the accused and acquitted them from all the offences.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order in Special (Corruption) Case No. 36 of 2002 (Old Case No. 7 of 1999) passed by the learned Trial Court on 07.10.2005, the State has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the prosecution has led the oral and documentary evidence and has proved the case against both the accused beyond reasonable doubts. That the accused No. 1 was working as a Police Inspector of Motor Vehicles at Bhilad RTO check post and was a public servant. That the necessary sanction to initiate the proceedings was taken from the superior officer and from the depositions of the witnesses, it is found that the offence was committed by the accused. That though there are minor contradictions and the trial cannot stand vitiated even though, a witness Bakulbhai Laxmanbhai Solanki, who had played an important role in the decoy trap, has turned hostile. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the entire evidence of witness Bakulbhai Laxmanbhai Solanki in proper perspective. That the Investigating Officer has supported the case of the prosecution and the impugned judgment and order is erroneous, improper and unjust and hence, the same may be quashed and set aside.

4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant-State and learned Advocate Ms. Kruti Shah for the respondent-accused.

5. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri