JEMUBHAI NOORJIBHAI VADVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Sec. 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, 1st Fast Track Court, Surat (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court ") in Special (ACB) Case No. 3 of 2005 on 4/5/2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act ").

(2.) The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgement and order of conviction, the appellant has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of conviction is illegal, improper, unjust, unreasonable and has been passed without considering the materials on record. That the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and has convicted the accused merely on conjunctures and surmises and the learned Trial Court has failed to consider that the prosecution is liable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. That if any defence of the accused has come on record, the benefit would never go to the prosecution and the liability would never change. The learned Trial Court has failed to consider the cross-examination of the panch witness which is disqualifying the case of the prosecution and does not throw any light in respect of any involvement of the appellant. That the recovery of the tainted currency notes has not been proved and the basic ingredients of demand and acceptance have not been proved beyond reasonable doubts. That the prosecution has failed to prove the first demand of 24/8/2004 and this creates a doubt as to the veracity of the complaint. That even the evidence of Lalsing Vasabhai Chaudhary - the complainant shows that he was habitual of filing such complaints and he clearly intended that the offence be registered against Savjibhai Keliyabhai and merely to pressurize the police officials, he has filed the complaint. Moreover, in the deposition, he has categorically stated that on 24/8/2004, he gave a written complaint to the Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau but the said written complaint has not come on record. In the cross-examination of the Police Officers, it is stated that no such written complaint was given, but the complaint was authored by the officers carrying out the trap themselves and hence, the benefit of doubt is required to be granted in favour of the appellant. As far as recovery aspect is concerned, the same is not proved as, as per the case of the prosecution, the appellant had accepted the currency notes and held in his hand after counting and it has also come on record that the currency notes were placed in the pocket but the fact was said for the first time in the courtroom in the deposition. The seizure of muddamaal has also not been done and there are irregularities in seizure of solution of sodium carbonate and the muddamaal has been changed.