LAWS(GJH)-2010-12-3

RAMESHCHANDRA BHOGILAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On December 02, 2010
RAMESHCHANDRA BHOGILAL PATEL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure are directed against the common judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.3.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No. 3, Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Case No. 25/1988, Special Criminal Case No. 26/1988 and Special Criminal Case No. 27/1988, whereby, the Appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 299/1996 - original accused No. 2 of Special Criminal Case No. 26/1998, has been convicted under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to suffer R/I for two years and to pay a fine Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer further R/I for two months, whereas, the Appellants No. 1 of Criminal Appeal No. 257/1996 - original accused No. 1 in Special Criminal Case No. 25/1988, 26/1988 and 27/1988 has been convicted under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC and also under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer R/I for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, to suffer further R/I for two months in all the above criminal cases and Appellant No. 2 of Criminal Appeal No. 257/1996 - original accused No. 2 in Special Criminal Case No. 27/1988 has been convicted under Section 420 read with Section 120 of IPC and also under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer R/I for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, to suffer further R/I for two months. It has been also ordered by the learned Judge that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) It may be stated at the outset that the Appellant No. 2 of Criminal Appeal No. 257/ 1996 has been expired during the pendency of this appeal and, therefore, his legal heirs have been brought on record to continue the appeal proceedings vide order dated 29.6.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 4715/2009.

(3.) The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under: