DILIPKUMAR BHALCHANDRA RAVAL 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, 5th Fast Track Court, Surat, (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special ACB Case No. 4 of 1998 on 28/12/2005, 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 and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of conviction, the accused has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the impugned judgement and order is illegal, improper and unjust and the judgement is passed without considering the material on record and the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence in true perspective. That the impugned judgement and order is merely based on presumptions, conjectures and surmises and the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery beyond reasonable doubts. That the evidence of the witnesses are not properly appreciated and the learned Trial Court has only considered the examination-in-chief of the witnesses and has not considered the cross-examination, wherein, the defence of the accused is put up. Moreover, the driver punter Shaikh Saeed Shaikh Fayyaz has stated that the currency notes in the denomination of Rs.100.00, Rs.50.00, Rs.20.00, Rs.10.00 and Rs.5.00 were handed over when in fact, it is the specific case of the prosecution that the currency notes of denomination of Rs.50.00 and Rs.10.00 were handed over to the driver punter. That the driver has stated that he entered into the cabin where the accused was sitting and after verifying the papers, the accused had demanded for the illegal gratification from him but during the cross- examination, he has admitted that he had not entered into the check post. Moreover, the currency note of Rs.50.00 was recovered from the drawer of the table and other currency notes were also recovered. That the panch witness has not accompanied the punter driver and it has also come on record that the driver being a resident of the State of Maharashtra does know Gujarati and this is also creates a doubt in the conversation. That the prosecution has not proved the demand by the accused and it is also on record that there was no complaint and without any complaint, the trap has been arranged and the entire case has been concocted against the appellant who had the duty to maintain the accounts only. That the RTO Inspector was the person who had to check the documents of the truck and had to verify the other aspects of the truck but he has been conveniently let off and this creates a doubt on the case of the prosecution. That the complainant is himself the Investigating Officer and in this circumstances also, the case of the prosecution is not believable and in the evidence, it is on record that the panch witnesses were merely asked to sign the panchnama mechanically. That there are patent infirmities in the evidence of the prosecution and the learned Trial Court has misread all the evidences and has wrongly convicted the appellant and the judgement and order of conviction must be set aside and the accused may be acquitted from all the offences.