KANJI KESHAVJI HARIJAN (DAFDA) 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 Special Judge, Kutch at Bhuj, (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case No. 47 of 1992 on 18/8/2005, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 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 judgement and order of conviction, the accused has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the judgement and order has been passed by the learned Trial Court without properly appreciating the facts and law and the judgement is based on presumptions, assumptions and surmises. That as per the case of prosecution, the accused had demanded for the amount of Rs.100.00 and there are material contradictions between the evidence of the complainant, the panch witness and the Investigating Officer. That the panch witness has not stated that he had signed the panchnama in the Panchayat Office and the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court regarding the signature of the panch witness, is not proper. That the panchnama was in fact prepared on the next day in the ACB Office and this creates a serious doubt on the case of prosecution and the accused would be entitled for an acquittal on this ground alone. That even there is contradiction in the predetermined signal and as per the complainant, the predetermined signal was given by the complainant, whereas, the panchnama and the panch witness say that it was the panch witness who had given the predetermined signal. That in the complaint, the name of the Talati is Asharbhai and the demand was made by one Asharbhai but the appellant is Kanji Keshavji Harijan (Dafda). There is absolutely no evidence produced by the prosecution to show that Asharbhai and Kanji Keshavji Harijan (Dafda) are one and the same person. That in fact, there was one Asharbhai who was the Talati of the village where the complainant was residing and this has created a serious doubt the story of the prosecution. Even the sanction produced by the prosecution on record is not proper and the documents relied by the prosecution were not produced before the Sanctioning Authority. That the impugned judgement and order is illegal and perverse and the same is required to be quashed and set aside and the accused must be acquitted for the said offences.