PRAVINBHAI RATILAL CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants - original accused under Sec. 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 5, Surat (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special ACB Case No. 16/1995 on 6/12/2006, whereby, the learned Trial Court was pleased to convict the accused and sentence the accused no. 1 to rigorous imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs.5,000.00 and in default, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 12, 13(1)(d) 1, 2, 3 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act") and the accused no. 2 to rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.1,000.00 and in default, simple imprisonment of one month for the offence punishable under Sec. 12 of 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 appellants have filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, improper, unjust and without considering the material on record and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in true perspective and has convicted the accused just for the sake of conviction merely based on presumptions, conjunctures and surmises and hence, the judgement and order is required to be quashed and set aside. That the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses and has not given proper reasons for relying on the evidence of the witnesses. That the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt even in cases under the PC Act and in the instant case, one Jitubhai was present at the time of compromise and settlement, but he has not been shown as an accused in this case. That the evidence of the complainant does not corroborate the story of the prosecution and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the vital ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery and hence, the conviction cannot be sustained. That mere recovery of tainted currency notes that too lying on the table, is not sufficient proof of acceptance of bribe by the accused and this recovery lends credence to the case of the accused that the currency notes fell on the table while the complainant was trying to forcible thrust the tainted currency notes in the hands of the accused. That the recovery of the tainted currency notes is not from the possession of the accused and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the impugned judgement and order is required to be quashed and set aside and the accused must be acquitted from all the offences.