RAMANLAL CHHOTALAL SANGHAVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are under Section 374 r/w Section 386 of CrPC challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by ld. Special Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Special Case No. 1/1987 dated 27.03.1991 holding both of them guilty of the offence punishable under Section 161 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and also for the offence punishable under Section 5(i)(d) R/w Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Old Act and/or the Act). The quantum of substantive sentence and fine imposed on both the appellants accused are same and they are asked to undergo R/I for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/, I/d to undergo further R/I for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 5(i)(d) R/w Section 5(2) of the Act and also to undergo R/I for 1 Year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ I/d to undergo R/I for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 161 of IPC. The ld. Special Judge, of course. ordered that all the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The appellant of Criminal Appeal No.268/1991 is original accused No.2 and the appellant of Criminal Appeal No.274/ 1991 is the original accused No. 1. For the sake of convenience, they are referred to as the accused No. 1, accused No.2 and/or accused considering the context of the reference.

(3.) Both the appellants accused have challenged the order of conviction and sentence on various grounds stating the gist of the evidence led during the course of trial in para-5 of the memo of the appeal. Mr. Shethna, ld. Sr.Counsel appearing for accused No. 1 has mainly argued the appeal and ld. Counsel Mr. Anandjiwala appearing for accused No.2 has accepted the arguments advanced by ld. Sr.Counsel Mr. Shethna and has made certain additional submissions in the background of the nature of the evidence led by the prosecution. They have taken me through the various grounds of challenge and so also the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. Ms. Pandit, ld. APP has also placed before the Court various submissions and has supported the finding recorded by the Id. Trial Judge and has attempted to reply the point of resistance placed by Mr. Shethna and Mr. Anandjiwala for the appellants accused.