RAMSINGBHAI ABDABHAI VASAVA 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, Fast Track Court No. 5, Bharuch, (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Corruption Case No. 6 of 1999 on 30/7/2005, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Ss. 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 by and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of conviction, the accused has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the impugned judgement and order is erroneous in facts as well as in law. The learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record according to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence and it has caused a failure of justice. That the prosecution has failed to prove the case by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence and has failed to appreciate that the defence has been probabilized. That the learned Trial Court has drawn inferences against the defence in favour of the prosecution and has committed a serious error of law in relying on the complainant who has partly supported the defence version and has been declared hostile by the prosecution. That in the evidence it is on record that the panch witness had not heard the conversation between the complainant and the accused and had not witnessed the passing of the currency note and the evidence of the panch witness requires corroboration but the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the same. That even the sanction for prosecution was not legal and valid as it was given after non-application of mind and the demand, acceptance and recovery are not proved by any evidence of the prosecution. That the impugned judgement and order is required to be set aside and the accused must be acquitted for all the offences.