STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NANALAL BHANUSHANKER RAVAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order dated 23. 01. 1992 passed by the learned Special Judge, Junaagdh in Special Case No. 1/1987, whereby, the respondent-accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: 2. 1 The complainant, Pravinchandra Ramdas Sheth, filed a private complaint against one Amilal Girdharlal Gandhi in connection with a quarrel that had taken place between them before the Court of learned J. M. F. C. at Mangrol. In pursuance of the said complaint, the complainant was sent to Govt. Dispensary, Mangrol for necessary treatment. The respondent herein, who was working as a Doctor in the said Dispensary, treated the complainant and issued a Medical Certificate in that regard to him. When the necessity arose to produce the Medical Certificate in the Court, it was found missing from the possession of the complainant. Therefore, on 27. 10. 1985, the complainant went to the respondent and requested him to issue another Certificate. On 04. 11. 1985 when the complainant went to collect the Certificate, the respondent informed him that he will have to pay Rs. 20/- for getting the Certificate and was asked to come on the next day, though the requisite fees was Rs. 10/- only. 2. 2 Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint before the A. C. B. and a trap was arranged on 05. 11. 1985, which was successful. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, as sufficient material was found against the respondent, he was arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed against him before the Court of learned JMFC, Mangrol. However, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court, Junagadh. 2. 3 On production of the accused, charge was framed against him but, as he pleaded not guilty, trial was initiated. To prove the case against the respondent, the prosecution had examined ten witnesses and had placed reliance upon several documentary evidence. On submission of the closing purshis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. was recorded. Ultimately, the learned Asst. Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him, by impugned judgment and order. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) IT was contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Court below is against the provisions of law; the Court below has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and that looking to the provisions of law, it is established that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence against the respondent beyond doubt. Learned APP has taken us through the oral as well as the documentary evidence available on record.