KACHRABHAI MOHANBHAI SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dtd. 25/3/2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 1), Narmada @ Rajpipla (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Special (ACB) Case No. 6 of 2006, whereby, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (herein after referred to as 'the P.C. Act'). The learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.10,000.00 and in default simple imprisonment for ninety days for the offence under Sec. 7 of the PC Act and three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000.00 and in default simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Ss. 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act. The learned trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused No. 2 Rakeshbhai Bhanabhai Tadvi for all the offenses and was pleased to further order that the sentences of the accused No. 1 were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant and the co-accused who is acquitted are hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as they stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

(2.) The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:-

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the accused No.1 Kachrabhai Mohanbhai Solanki has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the judgment and order of conviction is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and improper and bad in law. That the learned trial Court has not exercised the powers vested in the learned trial Court in proper manner and has committed an illegality by passing the impugned judgment and order and has not considered the defense raised by the accused. That the judgement and order of conviction is based on presumptions, conjunctures and assumptions and is required to be quashed and set aside. That witnesses are selected witnesses and interested witnesses and their evidences are not trustworthy and hence, the conviction cannot be allowed to be sustained on the basis of such evidence. That, even the sanction has not been given by the competent authority after proper application of mind and the trial is vitiated. That, the decoy punter Jagdishprasad Mangilal Saini has been declared hostile, and no evidence has come on record in his deposition. That as there is no evidence of any demand made by the appellant and, there is ample evidence to suggest that the place was well populated, and even though there was a cleaner along with the driver, no independent witnesses have been examined by the learned trial court. That the complainant, Mr. I.B. Vyas Police Inspector is the Trap Laying Officer, and he is directly involved in the result of the case and is an interested witness and it has come on record that the Police Inspector has himself registered the complaint and has lead the trap which casts a serious doubt on the credibility of the witness. That the impugned judgement and order passed by learned trial Court is not proper and has been passed without considering the defence of the accused and hence the same must be quashed and set aside.