BALVANTSINH VAKHATSINH RATHOD 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 Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Vadodara, (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case No. 15 of 2004 on 12/11/2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec. 13(1)(d)(ii)(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 by and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of conviction, the accused has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order is against the provisions of law and against the evidence on record and the allegations leveled by the prosecution are prima facie not believable and probable and the learned Trial Court ought to have acquitted the accused. That the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery are not proved and the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not trustworthy, reliable and dependable. That there are basic improbabilities and infirmities in the evidence of the prosecution and as per the case of the prosecution, the trap failed on 18/2/2004. That thereafter, the trap was arranged on 29/2/2004 and there is no evidence to show that after the first trap failed, the complainant had ever contacted the accused. That if the accused had in fact, demanded the amount of illegal gratification, he would have remained present on 18/2/2004 and would have accepted the same and this shows that the allegations leveled against the accused regarding demand of illegal gratification is false and baseless. That even on 29/2/2004, when the second trap was arranged, the accused did not accept the amount, even though, the complainant had offered the amount and this itself proves that the allegations made against the accused are baseless. There is nothing on record to suggest that the accused had suspected and did not accept the amount of illegal gratification and if the second attempt had failed, the prosecution ought to have made a third attempt to substantiate their case which was not done after the second after the second attempt failed. The learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice and a wrong order of conviction which is contrary to law and against the express provisions of law. That the impugned judgement and order is required to be set aside and the accused must be acquitted from all the offences.