Gujarat High Court
Bharatkumar vs State on 31 January, 2011
Author: Z.K.Saiyed
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/302/1998 18/ 21 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 302 of 1998
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
BHARATKUMAR
RAMNIKLAL SHAH - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KB ANANDJIWALA for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR KP RAVAL Ld. APP for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 31/01/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The present appellant has preferred this appeal under sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.3.1998 passed by the learned Jt. District Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Special Case No.38/1992, whereby, the learned Judge has convicted the appellant under sec. 7 and sec. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo R/I for two years, which is impugned in this appeal.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was serving as Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Mechanical Sub-Division, at Palanpur on 16.1.1989, whereas, the complainant was doing the business of supplying the materials. That it was the practice in the office of the appellant that for accepting the tender, 5% of total amount is to be paid to the Executive Engineer and other staff members and remaining 5% was to be paid on receiving the cheque amount. The tender was accepted in the month of November but there is no evidence that at the rate of 5% any amount was paid to the accused. However, it was alleged that a cheque of Rs. 3,900/- was prepared and given on 11.1.1989. The complainant has received the said cheque from Dy. Accountant and at that time he had also passed the receipt for the said amount to the Dy. Accountant. On 11.1.1989 the Dy. Accountant was one Asifbhai Sunasara. The complainant stated that the said cheque was given to him by the appellant on 11.1.1989 and at that time, the appellant asked as to what about his percentage. Thereupon, the complainant asked him that when he would be available, to which, the appellant informed him that he would be available on 16.1.1989. Thereafter, he went to ACB Office and lodged the FIR and produced Rs. 400/- before the PI, ACB at the time of lodging the FIR. Thereafter, the services of two panchas were sought from the office of District Panchayat, Palanpur, Dist. Banaskantha. The facts of the case was narrated to them and thereafter the demonstration was made on the currency notes with the help of anthracene powder. The basic ingredients of the anthracene powder were made understood to the panchas as well as the complainant. Four currency notes, each of Rs. 100/-, were smeared with anthracene powder and they were shown in ordinary light but no fluorescent effect could be found. When those currency notes were shown in UV Lamp, blue fluorescent marks were found on the same. After performing this demonstration, the preliminary part of the panchnama was drawn. The currency notes which were smeared with anthracene powder were put in the pocket of the bush shirt of the complainant and thereafter necessary instructions were given to the complainant that as and when the appellant-accused demands the money he has to touch the cover lying in the pocket and till that stage the complainant was specifically instructed not to touch the same. The panch no. 1 was instructed to remain with the complainant and to hear the conversation which takes place between them and to see the passing of the currency notes. The panch no. 2 was instructed to remain with the other members of the raiding party. This part of the panchnama was prepared between 3.00pm and 4.15pm in the office of the ACB. Thereafter, the raiding party proceeded to the office of the Executive Engineer. The peon of the appellant told them that the appellant-accused had gone to take break-fast at Lajvanti Hotel. Thereupon, the complainant and panch no. 1 went to Lajvanti Hotel, where, the appellant-accused along with other staff members was taking break-fast. Along with him, Dy. Accountant Mr Sunasara, one Mr Nasirbhai, a contractor staying at Ahmedabad and one another man were sitting in the said hotel. The appellant offered tea and the panch and complainant had taken the tea. Thereafter, the complainant told to the appellant that he wanted to settle the account and he was in hurry to go by the bus at 5.00 pm and requested the appellant to come to the office as early as possible. Thereupon, the accused told him that he would be coming to the office within two minutes. Thereafter, the panch and complainant went to the cabin and stood outside the cabin of the appellant. Thereafter, within five minutes, the appellant came to his chamber and so along with the panch, the complainant went inside the chamber of the accused. The complainant introduced the panch no. 1 as Parsottambhai as his contractor friend and he also told that he had filled-up tender form in Panel Board and he also requested the appellant to help him. Thereafter, it is alleged that the complainant at his own offered the said cover to the appellant-accused, thereupon the appellant did not show his inclination to accept the same. However, the complainant insisted by saying that he would not like to keep it pending and told the accused to accept the cover. Thereafter the complainant took-out the cover from the bush shirt pocket by his right hand and offered the same to the accused. It is alleged that the accused accepted the same by his right hand and put the same in the left side pocket. Thereafter, both the complainant and panch no. 1 went outside the chamber of the appellant and gave the signal as agreed upon. Thereupon, all the members of the raiding party including PI rushed to the chamber of the accused. The doors and windows were shut and thereafter the PI asked the accused where the cover is kept by him, which was given by Ravjibhai. Similarly, he also inquired from the panch no. 1. The panch no. 1 told that the complainant had given the cover to the appellant which he had kept it in his pocket. Thereafter, PI Mr Gohil searched the pocket of the appellant and took out four currency notes each of Rs.100/- from the pocket of the appellant. Along with it, one currency note of Rs.10/- was also recovered. Thereafter, the experiment in the light of UV Lamp rays was carried out and according to the evidence, inside the bush-shirt pocket as well as on the fingers and thumb of both the hands of the appellant and on the pieces of the cover fluorescent marks were seen. Thereafter, from the pant pocket the articles lying in it were taken out in which there were currency notes of Rs. 88/- and other papers were also found out. Those papers and currency notes were returned to the appellant-accused. In UV Lamp rays, inside the bush shirt pocket as well as on the outer side pocket shining marks have been seen. On the 12 pieces of the cover, part in UV Lamp rays the shining marks have been seen. So far as the currency notes which were taken out from the pocket of pant of the appellant, no fluorescent marks have been found. Thereafter, the second part of the panchnama was drawn and concluded at about 8.00 p.m.
4. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged. Statements of the complainant were recorded on different dates. After concluding the investigation by recording the statements of various persons, the papers were sent for investigation by PI MR Gohil and thereafter, PI Mr Gohil was transferred and the further investigation was being carried out by PI Mr Puvar. The papers of investigation were returned by the Head Office, ACB, Ahmdabad, before according the sanction to prosecute, directing PI Mr Puvar to investigate further into the matter on certain aspects. PI Mr. Puvar, thereafter, seized two diaries from the complainant and recorded some statements and thereafter sent all the papers for sanction. After obtaining the sanction from the appropriate authority, the charge-sheet was filed, which was given number as Special Case No. 38/1992.
5. Thereafter, the charge was framed at Ex. 5 against the appellant. The appellant accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to bring the home the charge levelled against the appellant- accused, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses Ravjibhai Kakaldas Parmar Ex. 14 Parshottambhai Jethalal Solanki Ex. 48 Ranjitsinh Laxmansinh Gohil Ex. 58 Ranvirsinh Vadansinh Puvar Ex. 61 The prosecution has also produced following documentary evidence before the trial Court.
Complaint Ex. 18 Panchnama of trap Ex. 52 Receipt Ex. 60
7. Thereafter, after examining the witnesses, further statement of the appellant-accused under sec. 313 of CrPC was recorded in which the appellant-accused has denied the case of the prosecution.
8. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.3.1998 held the appellant accused guilty to the charge levelled against him under sec. 7 and sec. 13(1)(d) read with sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and convicted and sentenced the appellant accused, as stated above.
9. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Jt. District Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge, Palanpur, Dist. Banaskantha, the present appellant has preferred this appeal.
10. Heard Mr. KB Ananjiwala learned advocate for the appellant and Mr KP Raval learned APP for the respondent-State.
11. Mr KB Anandjiwala learned advocate appearing for the appellant has read the charge ex. 5 and argued that the learned Judge has observed in charge that there was some understanding for the percentage regarding the work. Mr. Anandjiwala has further argued that as per the case of prosecution on 11.1.1989, demand was made and in connection with second demand, trap was carried out and trap amount was recovered. Mr. Anandjiwala has also argued that so far as charge is concerned, the learned Judge has not framed the same as per the contents of complaint. He has also argued that no demand is made out from the facts of the case and charge is also defective in nature. Mr Anandjiwala has read the oral evidence of complainant Ravjibhai Kakaldas Parmar Ex. 14 and argued that as per the say of the PW-1 complainant that, on 11.1.1989, the appellant had asked him for his percentage, so he asked the appellant accused that when he will be available, to which, the appellant-accused told him that on 16.1.1989 he will be available. So, Mr Anandjiwala has argued that as per the say of complainant, demand was made by the appellant on 11.1.1989 with a word what about my percentage. Mr Anandjiwala has read para-28 of the cross-examination of the complainant and argued that as per the evidence of complainant, he has received the cheque from Assistant Accountant Mr Asifbhai Sunasara on 11.1.1989 and it is an admitted fact by the complainant that on 11.1.1989 he has never obtained any cheque from the appellant-accused. The complainant has also admitted in para-4 of his examination-in-chief that the said cheque was obtained from appellant-accused on 11.1.1989, is not true. So, Mr Anandjiwala has also argued that when the cheque was not received from the appellant, then the question regarding demand on 11.1.1989 does not arise. He has also argued that from the oral evidence of complainant, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that no demand was made by the present appellant and the meeting on 11.1.1989 with the appellant is not established beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Anandjiwala has also read para-29 of the cross examination of complainant and argued that the complainant has admitted that he has not mentioned Rs. 25/- which is paid to the Assistant Accountant as an amount of percentage. He has also read further cross-examination of the complainant and argued that in the cover, which is recovered from the chamber of appellant, the signature of the complainant as well as panch witness and trapping officer were not obtained and on the muddamal shirt article no. 3, no signatures were made by panch, complainant and trapping officer. So, Mr. Anandjiwala has argued that looking to the said facts, the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. He has also contended that it was the duty of the trapping officer to obtain the signatures of panch, complainant and himself but the procedure of trap is not properly followed and the present appellant is wrongly booked by the trapping officer with the help of complainant and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is not proper in eye of law and requires to be quashed and set aside. Mr Anandjiwala has also read cross-examination of complainant and argued that the complainant has denied the facts of panchnama and admitted that when the complaint was written, at that time, panchas were present and panchnama was not prepared simultaneously. Mr Anandjiwala has also read ex. 63 and argued that the charge was taken by the appellant on 13.10.1988 and on 13.10.1988 first bill was approved and appellant was not knowing about the practice and tactics of the offence, so he has been wrongly booked by the prosecution in this false case. Mr. Anandjiwala has also read para-11 of the examination-in-chief of complainant and argued that as per the say of the complainant, he received some message regarding the presence of appellant at Lajvanti Hotel, and therefore, complainant and panch went to the said hotel along with the members of raiding party, where appellant along with Deputy Accountant Mr Asifbhai Sunasara, one contractor Mr. Nasir along with one other person have been found there taking some food and appellant had offered dish as well as tea to the complainant and panch and they had taken tea and at that place, the complainant told to the appellant that he wants to give accounts and also wants to talk for some other recommendation and he wants to go back by bus at 5.00 pm, and requested to return to the office as early as possible, and thereupon the appellant told him that he is coming within ten minutes. Therefore, panch and complainant went to the chamber of the appellant and within five minutes, the appellant came there in his chamber. When the complainant had offered that cover, the appellant told him that he is not in hurry and you can give it later on. So, complainant told him that he do not want to retain any money with him and kindly accept it. So, it was handed over to the appellant-accused and thereafter signal was given and muddamal was recovered from the possession of the appellant-accused. Now, from the oral evidence of complainant, learned advocate Mr. Anandjiwala has vehemently argued that even at Lajvanti Hotel, no demand was made and in his chamber also, when the complainant had offered that cover, yet, appellant-accused was not ready to accept it, so it is also contended by Mr. Anandjiwala that from the oral evidence of complainant, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that no demand was made by the appellant accused. Mr Anandjiwala has also read the para-33 of the oral evidence of complainant and argued that complainant had never explained anything regarding the use of anthracene powder and UV Lamp. Even no search was made out by the trapping officer into the bag of the complainant which was kept with him. Mr Anandjiwala has also contended that looking to the conduct of the I.O., investigation is bias in nature and he was also negligent.
12. Mr. Anandjiwala learned advocate for the appellant has also contended that the conduct of the complainant is also required to be considered. Mr Anandjiwala has argued that from the oral evidence of complainant, he has admitted that on 16.1.1989 he has filed the complaint against the appellant-accused and in the year 1991, the complainant had also filed a complaint at ACB Office, Ahmedabad against one Mr BJ Raval, Executive Engineer, Mehsana and charge sheet was filed. Mr. Anandjiwala has argued that the present complainant PW-1 is a court bird and he is in habit of filing such false complaints against the public servants. Mr Anandjiwala has produced a copy of judgment and order dated 26.6.1991 passed in Special Case No. 24/1992 by the learned Special Judge, Court no. 7, Ahmedabad and contended that the said case was filed against one Executive Engineer Mr BJ Raval by this very complainant, wherein, learned Judge has acquitted the said accused. Mr Anandjiwala has read the oral evidence of complainant and argued that complainant has admitted that on 16.1.1989 he has not filed any complaint before Mr Gohil, PI, ACB, and till the filing of the complaint, what was the talk took place between the complainant and appellant was not conveyed to Mr. Gohil, PI, ACB. It is also admitted by the complainant that appellant has demanded bribe in the name of percentage is not mentioned in the complaint. Mr Ajandjiwala has read para-33 of the oral evidence of complainant and argued that he has never visited the house of Mr. Gohil, PI, ACB, and he has admitted that he never talked with Gohil at his residence regarding the demand made by the appellant. Mr. Anandjiwala has also argued that it is also an admitted fact that when the complainant visited ACB Office, at that time, second PI Mr. Sindhi was present and he had a talk with Mr. Sindhi and as the PI Mr. Gohil was not there, complainant had reached the house of Mr. Gohil, Trapping Officer and thereafter the trap was carried out. Mr Anandjiwala has also argued that it was the intention of the complainant to book the present appellant in a false case because that facts were not explained before Mr. Sindhi, second PI, ACB, Palanpur. Mr Anandjiwala has read the oral evidence of complainant and argued that one Dayalal, who was serving at the said office and the bills and all quotations were prepared by Mr. Dayalal, yet Mr. Dayalal is not examined by the prosecution and non-examination of material witness is fatal to the prosecution case. Mr. Anandjiwala has also argued that on 16.1.1989 when he visited the house of Mr Gohil, PI, ACB, he was directed by Mr. Gohil to enquire about the whereabouts of the appellant, so he has taken proper time of the availability of the appellant at his office and talked with appellant-accused and the appellant had informed the complainant that between 4.00 pm to 4.15 pm he will be available in his office and thereafter the complaint was lodged by the Trapping Officer Mr. Gohil. So, in the context of the oral evidence of complainant, Mr. Anandjiwala has argued that the conduct of the Trapping Officer is also doubtful and malice and just to secure the goal of his trapping case, false trap was carried out and the appellant is wrongly booked by him in this case. Mr. Anandjiwala has also argued that complainant has admitted that he was always paying percentage of amount to the whole staff of the office and when he had received the cheque on 11.1.1989, he thought that now as per the practice of the office and contractor, he does not want to pay any percentage amount to the staff members, he has filed the complaint on 16.1.1989 against the highest officer. The complainant has also admitted that on 11.1.1989 and before the period, the appellant has never made any demand regarding percentage of amount and also he never agreed to accept that amount from the complainant. Mr. Anandjiwala has read the time of registration of the complaint and time of panchnama and argued that prior to the panchnama, no complaint was registered. So, it is also doubtful conduct of the trapping officer. Mr Anandjiwala has argued on the point as to what is the meaning of legal remuneration and gratification, demand and acceptance and contended that when the demand is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence requires to be quashed and set aside. From the contents of Ex. 26, Mr Anandjiwala has argued that the said complaint was filed due to the instigation of one staff member of the said office. He has read Ex. 26, a Note regarding date of 28.10.1988 and read the particular fact that just to teach a lesson to (Mr BR Shah) the present appellant, on 18.11.1988 one Mr. Devani who is staff member of the said office, conveyed the complainant just to file a complaint at ACB Office and for that all costs will be borne by Mr Devani. Mr Anandjiwala has further argued that due to the provocation of one staff member Mr Devani, who has animosity with the present appellant, the said trap was carried out and a false complaint was filed and innocent person, i.e. present appellant was booked by the present complainant in the said false case. Mr. Anandjiwala has also read para-38 of the oral evidence of complainant and argued that this is an omission made by the present complainant and is required to be considered that it is a contradictory version made by the witness himself. Mr Anandjiwala has also argued that the present appellant was too strict in his office work and just to teach lesson, the complainant had filed this bogus complaint. He has read Ex. 15, 30 and 32 and argued that it is admitted by the complainant that he has made signatures on blank papers. Mr. Anandjiwala also read Ex. 15 and argued that the amount of quotation Rs. 340/- was shown, but it was reduced up to Rs. 320/- by the present appellant, so just to take revenge because the complainant was looser, the bogus complaint was came to be filed against the present appellant. Mr Anandjiwala has relied upon the decision in the case of (1) G.V. Nanjundiah vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in AIR 1987 SC 2402, (2) Panalal Damodar Rathi vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1191 and (3) State of Maharashtra vs. Dyaneshwar Laxman Rao, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 200.
13. Mr Anandjiwala has read the statement of the appellant Ex. 63 which was recorded by the learned Judge under sec.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and contended that defence which was laid by the present appellant cannot be considered and treated that it was an after-thought. Mr. Ananjiwala has read the statement of peon and argued that in the statement recorded under sec. 313 of CrPC, it is explained by the present appellant that when the cover was handed over to him by the complainant, he immediately called his peon and told him to call the complainant who has left the chamber and when peon has tried to call the complainant, trap was carried out. Mr Anandjiwala has read the statement of peon from the police papers and argued that the contents of the statement of peon are also such that he was told by the appellant to call the complainant in his chamber. So, it is the say of Mr. Anandjiwala that probable defence was made out by the present appellant, yet the learned Judge has not considered the same. Mr Anandjiwala has read the oral evidence of panch witness no. 2 and argued that from the oral evidence of panch witness no. 2, demand is not established beyond reasonable doubt. Mr Ajandjiwala has read the oral evidence of panch witness and argued that the trap amount was shown by the appellant accused himself from his own pocket and it was not searched out by the panch or trapping officer, which is fatal to the prosecution case and from the oral evidence of Trapping Officer PW-3, he has never explained anything regarding search which was carried out by him. So, when the panch witness no. 2 has never stated that search was carried out by him, then the contents of panchnama are also not in favour of the prosecution case. In para-16 of the oral evidence of panch witness, it is admitted by him that presence of anthracene powder was found, was not mentioned. So, the said panch witness is also doubtful and the evidence of this witness cannot be considered to be reliable, trustworthy and acceptable. He has also contended that when the complainant came out from the chamber of appellant, that cover was inserted in his pocket by the appellant, is not mentioned in the pachnama, yet there is serious contradictions in the oral evidence of panch witness itself. In that view of the matter, Mr. Anandjiwala has contended that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence requires to be quashed and set aside.
14. As against this, Mr KP Raval learned APP appearing for the respondent State has argued that the prosecution has examined four witnesses in support of the prosecution case and from the oral evidence of complainant, it is established that demand was made by the present appellant as per the tactics and practice of the office of the appellant and in connection of the said trap, amount was paid to the present appellant and therefore, demand is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has read the oral evidence of panch, complainant and Trapping Officer and argued that trap amount was recovered from the pocket of the appellant-accused and anthracene powder was also found from the fingers and hands of the appellant, therefore, presumption is required to be drawn against the present appellant. He has read the impugned judgment and order and contended that the learned Judge has considered the defence as well as case of the prosecution and he has rightly convicted the appellant as per the provisions of law and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge requires to be confirmed. Mr Raval has contended that suppose as per the say of the appellant, the demand is not established, yet when the acceptance is established, then no question can arise that in absence of demand, the appellant accused is entitled for acquittal and, therefore also, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge requires to be confirmed.
15. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge and oral as well as documentary evidence produced on the record. I have read the oral evidence of prosecution witness-complainant and also perused the charge framed against the appellant. From the perusal of the oral evidence of complainant PW-1, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that at the event of first meeting, no demand was made by the present appellant to the complainant. Even on the said day when the complainant has received the cheque from the Assistant Accountant, the complainant never met the appellant. It is also admitted fact that on the same day, the complainant has never talked to the appellant and met him, so the demand as per the prosecution case is not established beyond reasonable doubt.
16. So far as the oral evidence of Panch witness as well as complainant is concerned, when they heard that the present appellant is taking some break-fast at Lajvanti Hotel, so the complainant went to the said hotel along with panch witness and even at Lajvanti Hotel also, the appellant has never demanded any bribe or illegal gratification from the complainant and it is also proved beyond reasonable doubt from the oral evidence of the complainant as well as panch witness that at Lajvanti Hotel, the appellant has never made any demand and only the complainant was told by him that he is coming to his chamber within two minutes and there in his chamber also, as per the evidence of complainant and panch witness, no demand was made by the present appellant in connection with the percentage of bill amount. So, no doubt, as per the say of the prosecution, recovery of trap amount and presence of anthracene powder is also established against the present appellant, however, looking to the contradictory version of the panch and complainant himself and the contents of panchnama itself, none has explained that the said trap amount was searched out by him. It is the case of the prosecution that the trap amount was found from the appellant and produced before the Trapping Officer, but when the demand is not established beyond reasonable doubt, then acceptance and recovery is not sufficient to convict the present appellant-accused. I have also perused the statement of the present appellant recorded under sec.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the statement of the Peon who is not examined by the prosecution, in that view of the matter, it cannot be considered that the statement of the appellant recorded under sec. 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, is an after thought. The probable defence is established by the present appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Banarsi Das Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2010 SC 1589, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that mere proof of recovery of bribe money from accused not sufficient to prove the offence. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that so far as the offence of bribery is concerned, the demand and acceptance of bribe is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and mere proof of recovery of bribe money from accused is not sufficient to prove the offence and to hold the person guilty. Therefore, in absence of any evidence regarding the demand, then mere recovery is not sufficient to convict the present appellant and hence, this appeal deserves to be allowed.
17. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.3.1998 passed by the learned Jt. District Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge, Palanpur, Dist. Banaskantha in Special Case No. 38/1992 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant-accused is hereby acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. The appellant-accused is on bail, his bail bonds stands discharged. R & P to be sent back to the trial court forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) mandora/ Top