MULJIBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant - original accused under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and order of conviction in Special (ACB) Case No. 15 of 2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 6th Fast Track Court, Surat (herein after referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') on 19/4/2006, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the respondent for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as 'the P.C.Act'). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

(2.) The relevant facts leading to filing the conviction appeal are as under:

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dtd. 19/4/2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.6, Surat, the appellant has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the impugned judgment and order is illegal, improper and unjust and has been passed without considering the material on record. The learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in true perspective. The learned Trial Court has failed to consider the statement of the independent witnesses that have been recorded by the Investigating Officer, but no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and the evidence of the independent witnesses has deliberately been kept aside and suppressed and the presumption must go against the prosecution. That the defense has consistently maintained that there was no cause in existence as the names of the wife and the son of the complainant was mutated on 2/6/2001 vide Mutation Entry No.4369, which was much prior to the date of complaint i.e. 19/7/2001. There was no cause, for which, the accused had demanded the illegal gratification and the motive has not been proved against the accused. The necessary entry was made by the accused in discharging his duty and the sanction has been given by the Deputy District Officer, who is not a competent authority to grant the sanction for prosecution. Moreover, the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the principle of double jeopardy as per the case of the prosecution, the trap was laid on 23/7/2001, but it had failed. The complainant has, thereafter, filed a further complaint on 24/7/2001 pursuant to which, the trap was laid. That the provision of demand and acceptance are not satisfied and the panch witnesses have stated that there were no explanation about the use of the anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp. The accused had already mutated the entry in the revenue record on 2/6/2001 and the complainant has categorically admitted that no demand of any illegal gratification was made prior to the mutation of the entry in the revenue record, but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and the impugned judgment and order of conviction is without appreciation of the relevant material evidence on record and the same must be quashed and set aside and the accused must be acquitted from the all the offences.