PRAGJIBHAI KADABHAI MAKWANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dtd. 10/5/2006 passed by the learned Special ACB Judge (Fast Track Court No.3), Jamnagar (herein after referred to as 'the learned trial Court') in Special (ACB) Case No. 08 of 1997, whereby, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act."). The learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.1000.00 and in default simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the PC Act and rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1000.00 and in default simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Ss. 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act. The learned trial Court was further pleased to order that sentences of the appellant to run concurrently. The appellant is hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' and 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:-

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the appellant has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court is erroneous on facts as well as on law and the learned trial Court has committed a serious error in not appreciating the evidence on record as per the settled principles of law and it has caused a failure of justice. That the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has not proved the case by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence and has failed to appreciate that the defence of the accused has been probablized. The learned trial Court has merely drawn inferences against the defence and in favour of the prosecution and has committed a serious error in relying upon the complainant who is an accomplice and a person willing to give bribe. The learned trial Court has not considered that the shadow witness has not heard the conversation between the complainant and the accused and has not seen passing of the currency notes and the evidence of the panch witness is not corroborated by any evidence. That the accused has been falsely implicated and the sanction was not given after proper application of mind. That the learned trial Court has not considered that the demand, acceptance and the recovery are not proved by the evidence of independent panch witness and the evidence does not entail a conviction but the learned trial Court has alsely convicted the accused and hence the judgment and order of conviction must be set aside and the accused must be acquitted from all the offences.