STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. AMBALA MATHURBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY preferring this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [ Cr. P.C.], the appellant - State of Gujarat challenged the legality and validity of the judgment rendered by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Vadodara on 17/1/1991 in Criminal Appeal No. 30/1988. By the impugned judgment, the Ld. Sessions Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent herein and Ld. Sessions Judge was pleased to set aside judgment and order delivered by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Padra Dist. Vadodara [for short 'Ld. Magistrate'] passed in Criminal Case No. 47/1986. The Ld. Magistrate by his judgment and order dated 29/10/1988 convicted the respondent herein who was original accused in Criminal Case No. 47/1986 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 477(A), 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/ - for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs. 100/ - for the offence punishable under Section 477(A) of the IPC. No separate sentences were passed for the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 471 of the IPC.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment passed by the Ld. Magistrate, the original accused preferred criminal appeal in the Court of the Ld. Sessions Judge, Vadodara. The Ld. Sessions Judge admitted Criminal Appeal No. 30/1988 and after considering the record of the trial Court and after hearing arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides, delivered the impugned judgment in the appeal dated 17/1/1991 and was pleased to allow the appeal and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Ld. Magistrate was set aside. The appellant - State of Gujarat challenged the legality and validity of the impugned judgment delivered by the Ld. Sessions Judge.

(3.) IN fact, it is well settled that it is the prerogative of the prosecution to examine witnesses and even to decide which witness, who is not material witness, to be dropped. That therefore, no material witnesses were dropped and the prosecution examined relevant and material witnesses and was successful in proving its case. That there was no reason whatsoever for the Ld. Sessions Judge to interfere with the judgment delivered by the Ld. Magistrate convicting the accused for the offences charged against him and passing appropriate sentences. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment delivered by the Ld. Sessions Judge be set aside and the judgment and order delivered by the Ld. Magistrate convicting the respondent accused for the offences charged against him and imposing required sentences for such offences be restored and the respondent accused be convicted and sentenced accordingly in accordance with law.