Gujarat High Court
Ashwinbhai Prabhudas Kachhela vs State Of Gujarat on 26 March, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1173 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Yes
judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the No
interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
================================================================
ASHWINBHAI PRABHUDAS KACHHELA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR.K.B.ANANDJIWALA SENIOR ADVOCATE with VISHAL K ANANDJIWALA
(7798) for the Appellant
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Respondent
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 26/03/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - original accused under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and order of conviction in Special Page 1 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined (ACB) Case No. 3 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court Judge, Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') on 06.09.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as 'the P.C.Act'). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present conviction appeal are as under:
2.1. That the accused was working as a Junior Supervisor in the office of Standard Weights and Measurement Department, Keshod and the complainant Amit Rameshbhai Joshi had a license for repairing scales of customers. On 01.08.2001, the complainant Amit Rameshbhai Joshi had given six scales for verification, certification and stamping to the accused, and the accused calculated the charges, which came to Rs.342/-.
That the accused demanded 80% amount of the bills as Page 2 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined illegal gratification, which came to Rs.278/- and in all, the accused told the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.620/- That the accused also told the complainant to give the amount on the next day and as the complainant did not want to give the amount of illegal gratification to the accused, he went to the ACB Police Station, Junagadh on 02.08.2001 and filed a complaint, which was registered as C.R.No.17 of 2001 under Sections, 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C.Act. The Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and after a detailed explanation about the use of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp to the complainant and the panch witnesses, the experiment was done and the trap was laid and the complainant and the shadow witness went to the office of the accused on 02.08.2001 at around 14.40 hours. That the accused demanded and accepted the amount of illegal gratification and the complainant gave the pre- determined signal and the members of the raiding party rushed in and caught the accused red handed. The Investigating Officer investigated the offence and after drawing the necessary panchnama and recording the Page 3 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined statements of the panch witnesses, a charge sheet was filed before the learned Sessions Court, Junagadh, which came to be registered as Special (ACB) Case No. 03 of 2002. 2.2. The accused was duly summoned and after following the procedure of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.7 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.8, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.76, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused were heard and the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.2007, convicted the accused and sentenced the accused to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default, imprisonment of three months for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C.Act. Page 4 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed in Special (ACB) Case No. 3 of 2002 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court Judge, Junagadh on 06.09.2007, the appellant has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the impugned judgment and order is illegal, improper and unjust and without considering the material on record. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the oral as well as the documentary evidence in true perspective and the recovery of the alleged amount is from the cash box and the cash register and no recovery is made from the person of the accused. That if any demand of illegal gratification was made by the accused, he would have kept the amount with him and not in the cash box or cash register and from the deposition of the complainant, the demand is not made out. That there are many discrepancies on record and if the learned Trial Court had appreciated the material discrepancies, the impugned judgment and order of conviction would not have been passed. That the learned Trial Court has committed a serious error of law in Page 5 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined convicting the accused and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside and the accused must be acquitted for the said offences.
4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.K.B.Anandjiwala assisted by learned advocate Mr.Vishal Anandjiwala for the appellant and learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the respondent - State.
5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.K.B.Anandjiwala assisted by learned Mr.Vishal Anandjiwala has submitted that in corruption cases, the prosecution has to prove the initial demand and acceptance of bribe amount and recovery of the tainted currency notes beyond reasonable doubts to bring home the charges under the P.C.Act. As far as the initial demand is concerned, the complainant has been examined by the prosecution and in the complaint itself, the complainant has stated that the bills at Exh.13 to 18 of six businessmen were given to the accused and one bill was missing and as per the say of the complainant, the bill was cancelled on 07.08.2001. In the deposition before the learned Page 6 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined Trial Court, the complainant has stated that the bill was cancelled on 02.08.2001 and there is no demand, whatsoever, to corroborate the say of the complainant. It is not the case of the complainant that the accused had demanded the amount of illegal gratification and had placed the tainted currency notes in his pocket, but the accused had prepared seven receipts, which were given to the complainant. As per the procedure, the stamping of scales were to be done and the accused had categorically told the complainant that one bill was missing. As per the say of the complainant, the accused had calculated the figure and gave the amount of Rs.620/- for all the bills. That the complainant took out the currency notes from the shirt pocket and gave to the accused and the accused had counted the same and put Rs.350/- in the cash box and Rs.270/- in the cash register which was the amount for the missing bill. The deposition of the complainant shows that powder was seen on the currency notes as also on the hands of the accused but the complainant has not deposed to the effect that light blue florescent marks were found on the currency notes; however, the complainant had stated that it Page 7 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined showed powder marks and no specific powder is stated by the complainant. During the cross-examination, the complainant has stated that he had never met the accused on 01.08.2001 and hence, it is proved that there was no meeting of the accused and the complainant on 01.08.2021 and the factum of prior demand is not proved. It has come on record that the complainant had not given the bill at Sr.No. 203 and in the complaint, the complainant had stated that the accused had demanded the amount after calculation on the calculator but in the statement before the police on 03.08.2001 and 18.08.2001, he has not stated that the calculator was used for calculation of the amount of Rs.620/-. It is the case of the accused that the complainant had produced one less bill and the remaining amount was returned by the accused but the complainant had told him that it was the amount of the charges of the bill, which is not in the list and he would come in the evening or on the following day and if this part of the evidence is considered, the aspect of demand and acceptance is not proved. Moreover, as per the case of the prosecution, the witness has Page 8 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined stated that the accused had demanded the amount of illegal gratification for himself and for other two staff persons, but the other two persons have not been arraigned as accused by the prosecution. As far as the evidence of the panch witness is concerned, there is no evidence to show that the accused has calculated the amount of Rs.620/- and the panchnama has not been properly drawn. As far as the case of the prosecution is concerned, the statement of the Controller of Standard Weights and Measures Department is recorded at Exh.50, but he has stated that he had received a draft of the sanction order along with the papers. In the entire evidence of the prosecution, no demand of illegal gratification is proved beyond reasonable doubts and hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction must be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the respondent - State has opposed the present appeal and has mainly stated that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence properly and no order of interference is required in the Page 9 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined impugned judgment and order, hence, the present appeal may be dismissed.
7. The Apex Court, in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731, has observed in Para-88, as under:
88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. 88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the e bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (1) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-Page 10 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and
(ii), respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe-giver which 9 is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)
(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.5. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. 88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns "hostile", or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. 88.7. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature."
8. In cases under the P.C.Act, the prosecution has to prove the demand and acceptance by the public servant and recovery Page 11 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined from the public servant beyond reasonable doubts as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments including the judgment in the case of Neeraj Dutta (Supra) and to bring to home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Amit Rameshbhai Joshi at Exh.10. The witness is the complainant and he has stated that he had a license for repairing the scales of the traders for Junagadh District, which includes the Talukas of Keshod, Mangrol, Moliya, Madhupur (Ched) and the accused was the Junior Supervisor in the office of Standard Weights and Measurement Department, Keshod. A camp of the Standard Weights and Measurement Department was organized at Shil and the complainant had gone to Shil on 01.08.2001 and had met the accused and shown him some bills and the scales and at that time, the accused had demanded 80% additional amount of bills as illegal gratification. That on inquiry, the accused had also told the complainant that out of this amount, 45% amount was for him, 20% amount for his clerk and 15% amount for his peon and the stamping fees for six bills was Rs.342/- and 80% amount of Rs. 342/- was Page 12 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined Rs.274/-. That the complainant did not have the amount and he told the accused that he would come on the next day. The complainant had immediately gone to the ACB Police Station, Junagadh and filed the complaint and the Trap Laying Officer had called the panch witnesses and the complainant on the next day. On 02.08.2001, he went to the ACB Police Station, Junagadh where the experiment of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was done in the presence of the panch witnesses and an amount of Rs.620/- consisting of 4 notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each, 2 notes of the denomination of Rs.50/- each and 2 notes of the denomination of Rs.10/- each were given by the complainant to the Trap Laying Officer, which were laced with the anthracene powder and the same tainted currency notes were placed in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant and the necessary instructions were given to the complainant and the panch witness. That they went to the office of the accused and the shadow witness accompanied the complainant and when they met the accused, the complainant gave six bills to the accused and the accused Page 13 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined wrote the calculation of the bills on a piece of paper, which was Rs.342/-. That the accused told the complainant that one bill was less and hence, the complainant told the accused that the bill was cancelled and thereafter, the accused made a calculation in the calculator and demanded Rs.620/- and the complainant gave the accused the amount of Rs.620/- from his left side shirt pocket, which was accepted by the accused. That out of this amount, Rs.350/- was kept in the cash box and the remaining amount of Rs.270/- was placed in the cash register by the accused. The accused, thereafter, gave a receipt of Rs.342/- and in all seven receipts were given by the accused to the complainant. That the complainant came out of the office and gave the pre-determined signal and the members of the raiding party rushed in and the accused was caught red handed. During the cross-examination of the complainant, the witness has stated that the camp at Shil was from 06.07.2001 to 01.08.2001 and he had gone 2 to 4 times for stamping and verification. He had not met the accused before 01.08.2001 and 01.08.2001 is the date, on which, he had filed the complaint. In the bills produced at Exh. 13 to Page 14 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined 18, no dates are mentioned and the bill at Exh.14 had some corrections. Moreover, at that time, peon Chandubhai was present in the office and before going to the office of the accused he had taken all the scales to the office in a hand cart. That the person with the hand cart and scales had come with all the scales 10 to 15 minutes after he had reached the office and when he had given the bills to the accused, he had told the accused that one bill was missing and bill number 203 was not presented. When the complainant gave the amount of Rs.620/- to the accused, the accused had separated the amount of Rs.350/-. That the complainant was the owner of an STD PCO and the officers of the Standard Weights and Measurement Department had visited his STD PCO booth. The complainant had told the accused to send a positive opinion as he wanted to purchase necessary scales and weight but the accused did not send the necessary opinion. That his amount as deposit for the license was seized on 31.03.2001 and during the cross-examination, the complainant has stated that the accused did not demand 80% of the amount of bill.
Page 15 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined 8.1. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Balubhai Lakhmanbhai Khavadu at Exh.22. This witness is the shadow witness, who had accompanied the complainant on the date of the trap. This witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that when they went to the office of the accused, the accused had told the complainant that bill No.3 is missing and the complainant had stated that the bill was cancelled and the accused had made the calculation of these bills on a chit and thereafter, had calculated the amount in the calculator and demanded an amount of Rs.620/- from the complainant, which was given by the complainant from his left side shirt pocket. The accused had taken Rs.350/- and placed it in the cash box and the remaining amount of Rs.270/- was placed in the cash register. In his statement before the police, this witness has stated that the accused had calculated the amount in the calculator and demanded the amount of Rs.620/-.
8.2. The prosecution has examined PW-3 Sunilbhai Maheshchandra Patel at Exh.45. This witness is the Page 16 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined authority, who has granted sanction for prosecution of the accused. This witness has stated that he had received the papers for sanction for prosecution and had granted the sanction for prosecution of the accused. During the cross- examination, this witness has stated that from the documents, it has also come on record that the amount that was demanded by the accused was for himself and other two employees namely Lodhiyabhai and Sachaniyabhai, but no sanction for prosecution was sought for other two persons. This witness has stated that a draft of sanction was sent to him and he had not thought it fit to check whether the complainant was in fact a license holder of the Standard Weights and Measurement Department.
8.3. The prosecution has examined PW-4 Yasinkhan Ahmedkhan Shaikh at Exh.56 and this witness is the Trap Laying Officer, who has recorded the complaint of the complainant and has, thereafter, laid the trap. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that when the complainant came to file the complaint, the complainant had stated that he is a license Page 17 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined holder to repair scales, but no copy of license was taken from him. That the bills produced at Exhs. 13 to 18 do not bear any date and the witness has not verified whether the accused was, in fact, collecting double charges than the amount that is required to be collected. The witness has not verified the same and no documents to that effect have been collected. That when they went to the office of the accused on the date of the trap, the complainant and the panch witness had not gone to any other place and they had gone directly to the office of the accused.
9. In the entire evidence of the prosecution, it has come on record that the complainant had not met the accused on 01.08.2001 and / or prior to that and the prior demand has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution. That even on 02.08.2001 i.e. the date of the trap, there is no evidence, whatsoever, that the accused had, in fact, demanded the amount of illegal gratification, which has come on record in the depositions of the complainant or the shadow witness. What has emerged from the evidence is the Page 18 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined fact that the complainant had given the bills to the accused and at that time, the accused had made a calculation and given the complainant on a chit and had also told the complainant that one bill was less. The complainant gave the accused the amount of Rs.620/-, which was laced with anthracene powder and accused took the amount and placed Rs.350/- in the cash box and the remaining amount of Rs.270/- in the cash register, from where, it was recovered. It is the case of the accused that as one bill was less, the complainant had stated that he would come later in the evening or on the next day with the bill and the amount was kept in the cash book for the remaining bill. In the entire evidence, there is no evidence of prior demand or evidence of demand at the time of the trap and if the demand of illegal gratification was made by the accused, the accused would have taken the amount and kept the same in his pocket, but the amount was recovered from the cash box and the cash register. That the document at Exhs. 13 to 18 do not bear the date and the prosecution has failed to establish that the complainant met the accused prior to 01.08.2001 and there is Page 19 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined no iota of evidence of the prior demand and the demand at the time of the trap of the accused. Moreover, as per the case of the prosecution, the accused had demanded the amount for himself and the other two staff persons, but the entire evidence is completely silent as to why the other two staff persons have not been arraigned as accused or whether at that time, any such persons were working in the office of the accused. It appears that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence qua prior the demand and any demand on the date of the trap in the proper perspective and has misread the evidence of the complainant and as also the evidence of the panch witness and has come wrong conclusion and convicted the accused in the absence of any proof of demand. Moreover, there is no evidence that the complainant had, in fact, taken the scales for stamping to the accused.
10. As per the settled principles of law, proof of demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused under the P.C.Act Page 20 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined and the accused cannot be convicted in the absence of evidence of demand and unless the evidence of demand is clear, cogent and reliable, no conviction can be recorded. In view of the above infirmities and as discussed above, the entire circumstances of the prior demand are not proved and no iota of evidence that the complainant met the accused prior to filing of the complaint and in the absence of demand, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubts That the evidence is contradictory and far from convincing and there is no reliable evidence to support the conviction of the accused and hence, the appeal succeeds and is allowed.
11. The impugned judgment and order of conviction in Special (ACB) Case No. 3 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court Judge, Junagadh on 06.09.2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)
(d) and 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988 is hereby quashed and set aside and the accused is acquitted from all the charges Page 21 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1173/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined against him. Bail bonds stand cancelled. Fine to be refunded to the accused after due verification.
12. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO, J) F.S.KAZI....
Page 22 of 22 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:19 IST 2024