STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BALVANTBHAI KACHARABHAI PATEL
LAWS(GJH)-2014-12-182
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on December 08,2014

STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
VERSUS
Balvantbhai Kacharabhai Patel Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE present appeal, under Section 378 (1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 6.12.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vadodara, in Special Case No.27 of 1993, whereby the accused have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them.
(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are such that the complainant Ganpatbhai T. Bhil was Dy. Secretary of Gujarat High Secondary Education Board, Examination Department, Vadodara and he filed compliant against six accused present respondents before Padra Police Station on the ground that the accused persons were appointed to take physical examination (New SSS) at Padra Center from 1.4.1991 to 4.4.1991. The examination was taken and sent mark -sheet of the students to the Gujarat Secondary Education Board Center. In the said mark -sheets, the previous marks were amended by way of erasures. As per the say of the complainant, the accused had taken money from the parents of the students through the students. The accused confessed the offence in writing and deposited the amount taken by them by demand draft in the Board. Therefore, the accused were arrested. As such the accused as a public servants demanded and accepted illegal gratification and thereby committed offence under Sections 7, 8 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 420, 406 and 468 and 161 of the Indian Penal Code. Chargesheet was filed against the accused persons. Thereafter, charge was framed and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.1 To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined, in witnesses Viz. (1) Vasant Narhar Kulkarni Exhibit 17, (2) Ganpatbhai Vikrambhai Bhil Exhibit 27, (3) Amrutlal Manilal Shah, Exhibit 29 (4) Amrutlal Lallubhai Desai Exhibit 31. The prosecution also produced several documentary evidence on record. 2.2 At the end of trial, while recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., it was stated that they had not committed alleged offence and they were totally innocent persons and they had been wrongly implicated in the offence. After hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 6.12.2000.
(3.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal. It is submitted by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. Therefore, as per his submission, the case of the prosecution was required to be believed by the learned Special Judge and other witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution. He therefore, submitted that impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be quashed and set aside and the accused is required to be punished as per the provisions of the alleged offence.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.