MADHABHAI MALABHAI CHAMADIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT appears that either Mr. Parekh, learned Advocate, or Mr. Parmar, learned Advocate for the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 -the appellants, herein, are not willing to appear in this matter. These matters have been rotated for about 22 times. This Court passed following order on 12.03.2015;

(2.) AN appeal, in the absence of learned Advocate, should not be heard, but, when the careless attitude is shown by the learned Advocates, can this Court do nothing and the answer is found in 2014 (14) SCC 222, wherein, the Apex Court has laid down the principles. Nearly 11 years have elapsed after the filing of the appeal, more particularly, 15 years have elapsed after accused were charged and at that point of time, the original accused No.1 was aged about 58 years and was on the verge of retirement, whereas, accused No.2 was aged about 46 years and they came to be convicted for the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) I have perused the judgment and order of the trial Court. There are several infirmities in the order of the trial Court. At the time of the incident and at the time of recording deposition of the complainant, no case was made out against accused No.2 that he had demanded any amount nor was there any acceptance by accused No.1; The prime fact that the complainant, who happened to be the brother of the original accused, who was to be produced before the Court. The clinching evidence shows that the accused No. 1 neither demanded any amount nor was any amount recovered from him. The finding of facts recorded by the learned trial Judge is not only perverse, but, based on no evidence. I am fortified in my view by the judgment of the Apex Court in "SATVIR SINGH VS. STATE OF DELHI THROUGH CBI, 2014 AIR(SC) 3798" In that case, the trial Court found that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance on the part of the original accused, and thereby, acquitted the accused of the charges of corruption leveled against him. However, on an appeal, the Delhi High Court reversed the judgment and order of the trial Court and convicted the accused for the charges under Prevention of Corruption Act. Being aggrieved with the same, the original accused moved the Apex Court and Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court. While setting aside the order of the Delhi High Court, the Apex Court observed as under in Paragraph -37, thereof;