ASHOK PRABHULAL BAROT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present Criminal Appeal, appellant-original accused has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dtd. 9/12/2021 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI Court No. 7, City Civil and Sessions Court, Bhadra, Ahmedabad in CBI Special Case No. 21 of 2015.

(2.) Heard learned advocate for the appellant.

(3.) It is submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that looking to the oral evidence, prosecution has failed to prove charge against the present appellant as there are major discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses. That only complainant is the witness, who was dealing with the work of Railway since 2006. It is further submitted that prior to lodging the complaint, demands should be proved, which lacks in the present case as not verified and no demand panchnama was prepared by the prosecution. That neither the demand or acceptance nor any recovery was established by the prosecution, and therefore, ingredients of Sec. 7 of the Act are not proved by the prosecution. It is further submitted that appellant has not misused his official position on the alleged date of raid, and therefore, no offence is made out under Ss. 13(2) and 13(1)9(d) of the Act. It is further submitted that no one had seen the appellant accepting the bribe and no eye witness was examined who had seen the transaction of the bribe amount. That no file or documents were recovered from the possession of present appellant and at no point of time, work was pending with the present appellant. That learned trial court has failed to appreciate the aspect that after receiving the complaint, phone call was made by the complainant to the appellant only to ascertain the presence of the appellant in the offence but no other conversation had taken place regarding any amount work or demand.