SHANTILAL MADHURBHAI VASAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant - original accused under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and order of conviction in Special (ACB) Case No. 54 of 1997 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 3rd Fast Track Court, Surat (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') on 15/10/2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the respondent for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C.Act'). That Special (ACB) No. 54 of 1997 was filed against the present appellant, who was the accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3 were also charged along with the accused No.1 and by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Trial Court has convicted the present appellant - accused No.1 and has acquitted the accused Nos. 2 and 3 from the said offence and the appellant - accused No.1 and acquitted the co-accused are hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as they stood in their rank and file in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

(2.) The relevant facts leading to filing the conviction appeal are as under:

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dtd. 15/10/2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 3rd Fast Track Court, Surat, the accused No.1 has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the impugned judgment and order is illegal, improper, unjust and without considering the material on record. That the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and the learned Trial Court has merely on conjectures and surmises convicted the accused No.1. That there are major contradictions and omissions in the depositions of the Investigating Officer and the panch witnesses and the impugned judgment and order has caused great injustice and prejudice to the accused. That in fact, the complainant had forcefully put the currency notes in the pocket of the accused No.1 and there is evidence on record that there was no light at the place of the trap. That the panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have clearly stated that they have no knowledge about the contents of the complaint and the panchnama is drawn by the Investigating Officer himself and the panchnama was not read over or explained to the panch witnesses, who had merely signed the panchnama, which was prepared by the Trap Laying Officer. That both the panch witnesses have been declared hostile and even though, there is no evidence of any independent witness, the learned Trial Court has convicted the accused and has committed s serious error of law. That no demand of any illegal gratification was made by the accused No.1 and the evidence to that effect has come on record in the depositions of the panch witnesses, but the learned Trial Court has presumed the evidence of recovery, which is not legal in the absence of the specific evidence of demand and acceptance. That in fact, it is on record that at the time of the trap, there were other police personnel present at the outpost, but no such witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and there are serious infirmities in the proceedings and hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is unjust and improper and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appellant be acquitted from all the offences.