IMPORTANT POINT
In cases of acquittal, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and major contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence can lead to the acquittal being upheld.

JUDGMENT :

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 dated 25.11.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Bhavnagar (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 6 of 1997, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as he 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.15 of 1996 was filed by complainant Bhavnaben Damjibhai Bundeliya on 10.10.1996 against accused mainly stating that she was working as an Administrator in the ‘Midday Meal Scheme’ at Gariyadhar, District Bhavnagar and the accused had come for a surprise inspection on 07.09.1996 and at that time, the complainant was not present as she had taken leave from the Principal and had gone home. That the accused took note of the same and initiated action to remove her as an Administrator and after 3-4 days, she went with her husband Rameshbhai Bhatti to Gariyadhar along with one Vinodrai Vishwanath Dave, who was known to the accused. That at that time, the accused demanded an amount of Rs.500/- for winding up the procedure initiated for dismissal of the complainant. That on 08.10.1996, Vinodrai Vishwanath Dave came to the house of the complainant and told her that Rs.500/- has to be paid as a bribe amount to the accused for winding up the procedure initiated for dismissal of the complainant, so the complainant went to the ACB Office, Rajkot with Vinodrai Vishwanath Dave and her husband Rameshbhai Bhatti and a complaint was lodged. That the panch witnesses were called and after following the necessary procedure and given necessary instructions to all concerned, the trap was laid, which was successful. That after due investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Sessions Court, Bhavnagar and the case was registered as Special (ACB) Case No. 6 of 1997.

2.2. That the accused was 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.3 and the statement of the respondent - accused was recorded at Exh.4, wherein the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. That after the closing pursis was given by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and the arguments of both the parties were heard and the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 25.11.2004, gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him from all the offences.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.11.2004 passed by the learned Trial Court, the State has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. The impugned judgment and order of acquitting the accused is against the evidence on record of the case and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and has erred in concluding that the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification is not proved. That the learned Trial Court has not relied on the evidence of the complainant and has concluded that the demand and the acceptance are not supported by the evidence of the complainant but the complainant has clearly stated that the amount was to be paid through Vinodrai Vishwanath Dave and he has supported the case of the prosecution. That the learned Trial Court has wrongly concluded that there was no demand from Bhavnaben Damjibhai Bundeliya or from Vinodrai