- (1.)THE present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30. 6. 1997 passed by the learned Special judge, City Civil Court, No. 11, Ahmedabad in Special Case No. 36 of 1992,whereby the accused has been acquitted of the charges under sec. 7, 13 (1) (b) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, leveled against him.
(2.)THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
2. 1 One Kishorkumar Motibhai Kapadia residing at Kodiyarnagar Vibhag No. 2, Near Noblenagar, Naroda, Ahmedabad, gave a complaint on 3. 5. 1991 before the ACB, Officer, PI, Mr. Rathod. It is mainly stated in the complaint that he had acquaintance with one Mina Marwadi who is major. They have decided to marry each other, and therefore, on 8. 4. 1991 they have gone to various places and on 9. 4. 1991 they returned to Naroda. They have decided to have a legal marriage in Court. So on 9. 4. 1991, he had gone to court and when he returned, he came to know that Mina's relatives are searching for them and Sardarnagar Police is also searching him. Therefore, he has contacted his advocate Mr. Palejia to obtain anticipatory bail. On 29. 4. 1991, he and his advocate have gone to Sardarnagar Police Station and met PSI Mr. Chaudhary who is accused. They have talked about anticipatory bail obtained by them and Mr. Chaudhary has enquired about their movements at various places. He was asked to sit upto to 10pm and then he was asked to come on next day at 2. 30pm. On the next day, at about 3. 00pm, he has gone alone at police station where he was asked to sit upto 6 to 7pm and he was informed that vehicles were not available and so, they cannot go for investigation and he was asked to come on next day at 10. 30am. On next day, he has gone to Police station and met Mr. Chaudhary who asked his name and address and written down the same and asked him to sit in mobile and taken him to Mina's house and came to back to Police station. Then Mr Chaudhary told him that he will help him in his case, they have to go for investigation and for that, expenses to the tune of Rs. 200/- is required and he has to give the same. So, complainant told that he is poor man and he cannot afford that. Then, Mr. Chaudhary told him to sell his house and bring the money up to noon of 3. 5. 1991. He has tried to get the money but he could not get it. On 3. 5. 1991, he has gone again to the police station at about 1. 30pm and told Mr. Chaudhary that he is not able to arrange the money. Then Mr Chaudhary told him to bring the money of Rs. 200/- between 8 and 10 pm, otherwise he will cancel his anticipatory bail and he will put him behind the bar. As he has no money, he has approached the ACB Officer and gave the complaint.

2. 2 Therefore, a complaint with respect to the aforesaid offence was filed against the respondent with the ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, two panchas were called and preliminary panchanama of bribe money was prepared in the presence of panchas. Thereafter, after following due procedure, the raid was arranged. On receiving the signal from the complainant, raiding party rushed to the spot and recovered the muddamal notes from the right drawer of accused. Thereafter, necessary panchnama was drawn and investigation was carried out and statements of witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, respondent was arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed against him which was numbered as Special Case No. 36/1992. The trial was initiated against the respondent.

2. 3 To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses: shankarlal ramabhai Parmar kishor Motilal Kapadia pi Shri KK Rathod to prove the case, the prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence. Charge sanction Order complaint of Kishorkumar Motibhai panchnama of raid receipt of the muddamal recovered the defence has also produced the following documentary evidence: copy of Cri. Case No. 2952/91 filed against the complainant copy of Cri. Case No. 1199/92 filed against the complainant copy of Cri. Case No. 915/93 filed against the complainant copy of complaint against the complainant

2. 4 At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr. P. C. , and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 30. 6. 1997.

2. 5 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Special Court the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.

(3.)IT was contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Special Court is against the provisions of law; the Special Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence.