JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 7.8.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Anand (hereinafter be referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Special (ACB) Case No. 1 of 2006 (Old Case No.1 of 2000), whereby the respondents-original accused persons were acquitted from the charges levelled against them under Sections 7 , 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of present appeal are as under:

2.1 The complainant Mr. J.J. Patel P.I., Anti Corruption Bureau ('ACB' for short) Nadiad, has received secret information that Anand Traffic Police are giving memo of R.T.O or Court to auto rickshaw drivers who have no license and overloading passenger, and the traffic police also demanding bribe of Rs. 50/- to 100/- for not doing further legal procedure. On this fact a complaint was lodged and a trap was arranged by the ACB police party and called the panch-witness. Thereafter, they have understood the matter to the panch-witness and also shown the principles of ultra violate lamp test. Thereafter, panch-witness, P.I. Mr. Patel and other ACB staff members reached at Samarkha Cross road and stopped their jeep and requested the auto rickshaw drivers to cooperate ACB staff. Thereafter, they hold one auto rickshaw driver Chhatrasinh Umarbhai Khokhar, residing at Mogar village, Tal-Dist-Ananad whose rickshaw’s registration No. is GJ-7-V-5922 and aware him about the complaint and trap and he also agreed with the ACB staff for the same and told that yesterday Anand Traffic Police had given him memo for rickshaw and thereafter, he saw memo to them. Thereafter, complainant told the rickshaw driver that he should contact the police (Accused-1) who had given him that memo and requesting him for not going further regarding that memo, and if he want bribe amount then you should give him money in presence of panch-witness and thereafter complainant has arranged the plan for trap. Thereafter, in the trap both accused were caught with red handed and the ultraviolet lamp test was positive, on this fact the offence came to be registered under sections 7, 12, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of Corruption Act 1988.

3. The charge came to be framed by the Trial Court vide Exhibit 9 for the aforesaid offences against the accused persons. On being explained it to them, the accused persons have denied having committed any offence. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for Trial and hence, the case was tried by the Trial Court.

4. The prosecution has led following oral evidence in support of its case:-

5. The prosecution has led following documentary evidence in support of its case:-