ZAVERILAL RAMJIBHAI GALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed by the appellant - original accused under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Kutch at Bhuj (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case (ACB) No. 50/2003 on 31/7/2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act" for short). The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.9,000.00 and in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Sec. 7 of the PC Act and rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.9,000.00 and in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) 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 judgment and order of conviction, the appellant - original accused has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order is contrary to law and evidence on record and is passed without considering the facts of the case in proper perspective. The testimony of the witnesses have not been appreciated in the proper manner and the evidence has been completely misread and the learned Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant when the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the complainant had filed a civil suit before the Civil Court at Mehsana and had a grievance against the appellant and even though there was no specific demand of money proved, the order of conviction has been passed. The Trap Laying Officer - Police Inspector Mr. Vyas has not been examined during the trial and the evidence of the complainant materially contradicts the facts stated in the panchnama. In the cross-examination, the complainant has stated that he left the office at 01.00 pm and the complaint is registered at 06.00 pm on 29/1/2003 and this casts a doubt on the complaint. Moreover, the telephonic contact of the complainant with the appellant through the STD telephone booth is not proved and the STD booth owner has not been examined during trial. The learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the complainant has stated that the appellant told him to put the money in the table but the panch witness has stated that the appellant has directly taken the money in his hands and both these facts are contradictory. Moreover, no traces of phenolphthalein powder was found on the table and the panch witness has categorically stated that the appellant did not demand any amount from the complainant and hence, the demand is not proved. The learned Trial Court has gravely erred in concluding that the appellant had demanded the amount of Rs.20,000.00 as illegal gratification and has not appreciated that the appellant is falsely implicated by the complainant. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish demand and acceptance and hence, the presumption under the PC Act does not arise in the present case and as the impugned judgment and order is illegal and perverse and has been passed without proper appreciation of the evidence, the appeal be allowed and the judgment and order of conviction may be quashed and set aside.