Decided on November 14,2014

Bharat Sankleshwar Vyas Respondents


Z.K.SAIYED, J. - (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 22.10.2003 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar, in Special Case No.3 of 1991, whereby the accused have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them.
(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are such that by raising allegations for the offence under Sections 7, 12, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are levelled against the accused that the complainant had the contract for construction of rooms for Malpur Taluka Panchayat School and small bridges on the roads and the amount of the contract was to be paid by the Construction Department of the Taluka Panchayat, Malpur. The work of preparing of the bill for the contract was being prepared by the clerk and supervisor i.e. accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively. As per the case of the prosecution, the bills for the work, were not prepared for full amount and same were prepared in piece mill. It is alleged that in respect of bills of village Ambava, the accused demanded an amount of Rs.825/ - and same was ultimately fixed at Rs.400/ - from the complainant and same was paid for encashment of cheque of Rs.11,921/ -. The complainant did not want to pay said amount and therefore, he filed complaint with the ACB office, Himmatnagar. The ACB office thereafter, arranged trap and on success of trap, offence was registered as alleged against the accused and charge -sheet was filed. 2.1 To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined, in all 6 witnesses and produced several documentary evidence. 2.2 At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 22.10.2003.
(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 respondents. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. He further submitted that the demand made by the accused from the complainant is very well established and therefore, the accused therefore, it can be said that prosecution has established the case against the accused. The accused being public servants, were duty bound to do the work but the accused told the complainant for doing his official work, to give bribe to them. The accused had accepted illegal gratification and therefore, the case of the prosecution is on right footing and the accused are required to be convicted. He lastly prayed to allow the Appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order.;

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