Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Yogeshkumar Dinkarrai Bhatt on 26 March, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/822/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 822 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? YES
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 interpretation of the Constitution NO
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
YOGESHKUMAR DINKARRAI BHATT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RUSHABH R SHAH(5314) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 26/03/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 378(1)(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Page 1 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/822/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special ACB Case No. 32 of 1997 on 22.11.2004, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) (1-2-3) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act" for short).
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 brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 That the accused was working as a Motor Vehicles Inspector at the RTO Check Post at Deesa in Banaskantha District and on 26.06.1996, the accused demanded an amount of Rs. 1000/- as illegal gratification from Kuldeepsinh Gulabsinh - the driver of truck bearing registration no. HR-45-1932 for overload entry fee and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs. 1000/- and an offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) (1-2-3) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as "the PC Act" for short) was registered by the complainant Police Sub-Inspector Mr. S.K. Parmar, ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural and Gandhinagar at the ACB Police Station, District Banaskantha at Palanpur which was registered as C.R. No. 5/1996 on 26.06.1996. That the Page 2 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/822/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined offence was investigated by the Investigating Officer and after the panchnama was drawn and the statements of the connected witnesses were recorded, the charge-sheet came to be filed before the Sessions Court, Banaskantha which was registered as Special Case No. 32/1997.
2.2 The accused was duly served with the summons and after the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, the procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was duly followed and a charge at Exh. 10 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 11, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.3 The prosecution has produced the following oral evidences in support of their case.
Sr. No. PW Particulars Exh. 1. 1 Vasumatiben Chandulal 83 Chaudhary 2. 2 Gurdeepsing Gulabsing Oad 97 3. 3 Manubhai Shambhubhai Satasiya 99 4. 4 Shankarbhai Khatubhai Parmar 102 5. 5 Hareshkumar Prafulchandra 105 Agrawat 6. 6 Hasmukhbhai Bhailalbhai Barot 106 2.4 The prosecution has produced the following
documentary evidences in support of their case.Page 3 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:22 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/822/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined Sr. No. Particulars Exh.
7. Sanction for prosecution. 84 8. Sanction for prosecution. 869. Draft of sanction for prosecution. 87, 88, 90 10. Letter to Director by PI, ACB Police 89 Station.
11. Seizure memo. 91 & 104 12. Letter of Director, Ahmedabad to 92 Assistant Director, ACB, Ahmedabad.
13. Relevant page of Service Book. 93 14. Order directing the accused to appear 94on duty.
15. Office order of transfer. 95 16. Bilti of truck. 98 17. Panchnama 100 18. Complaint. 1032.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and after the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by a judgement and order dated 22.11.2004 was pleased to acquit the accused from all the offences.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the order of acquittal is contrary to law and the evidence on record and the prosecution has examined six witnesses and has Page 4 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/822/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined produced 11 documentary evidences in support of their case, however, the learned Trial Court has erred in not appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in its true and proper perspective and has acquitted the accused which is improper. That the learned Trial Court has erred in concluding that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is not proved by the prosecution, whereas, the evidence fully corroborates the complaint and the accused ought to be convicted for the said offence. That the learned Trial Court has given undue importance to minor contradictions and omissions and the prosecution has clearly established that the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused. That merely because the overload entry fee would be Rs. 1000/-, it cannot be said that the accused has not demanded the bribe amount, whereas, in the entire evidence, the recovery has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act is not properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court. That the judgement and order of acquittal is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal must be allowed.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Vrunda Shah for the prosecution and learned advocate Mr. Rushab R. Shah for the respondent.
5. Learned APP Ms. Vrunda Shah has taken this Court Page 5 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/822/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined through the entire evidence and has stated that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and that the learned Trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused. That the entire evidence, if read in toto, eatablishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts and hence, the judgement and order of acquittal must be quashed and set aside and the accused must be found guilty for the said offences.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Rushab R. Shah for the respondent has submitted that unless the findings of the learned Trial Court are perverse or illegal, it is not permissible for the Appellate Court to interfere with the same. That there is no iota of evidence that there was any demand of bribe of Rs. 1000/- and the evidence qua the acceptance is also not proved by the prosecution on record. That demand is a sine qua non in corruption cases and in the absence of any proof of demand, mere recovery of tainted currency notes cannot be said to be sufficient to convict the accused. That the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated all the evidences and the order does not call for any interference and hence, the appeal of the appellant must be rejected.
6.1 Learned advocate Mr. Rushab R. Shah for the respondent has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. Page 6 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/822/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined of Delhi) reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248 and the judgement of this Court in case of Gopalla Ghisulal Chhipa (Since Decd) Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1999) 1 GLR
546.
7. Before dissecting the evidences adduced by the prosecution on record of the learned Trial Court, it is essential to reiterate the cardinal principles of Criminal Jurisprudence as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions and the first cardinal principle is that the prosecution is required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution cannot claim any benefit of the weaknesses of the defence. The second cardinal principle is that in a criminal trial, the accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty beyond reasonable doubts from the evidence of the prosecution and the third cardinal principle is that the burden of onus of proof never shifts from the prosecution.
7.1 At the outset, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Datta (supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 68 has observed as under:
"68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a Page 7 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/822/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined 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
(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.
(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.
(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 bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it Page 8 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/822/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined 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 Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe 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 Section 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 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 inturn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)
(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(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 Page 9 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/822/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined 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.
(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.
(g) In so far 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 Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature."
8. To bring home the charge against the accused, the Page 10 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/822/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined prosecution has examined PW1 - Vasumati Chandulal Chaudhary at Exh. 83 and this witness is the clerk of the RTO Office in Ahmedabad. The witness has stated that the ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad had sought for sanction of prosecution and had submitted the necessary documents and the draft sanction order which was placed before the Commissioner. That the draft sanction order was signed and the file was sent back and the clerk had thereafter, on the basis of the draft sanction order; prepared the sanction order and placed it before the Commissioner and the sanction order is produced at Exh. 86. During the cross- examination, the witness has stated that the draft sanction order was prepared and sent by the ACB Police Station and the same is produced at Exh. 87 and on the basis of this draft sanction order, the sanction order was prepared. That in the draft sanction order, one officer has signed and then the signature is cancelled and there is another signature below that cancelled signature, but she does not know as to who has signed the same and merely on the basis of the draft sanction order sent by the ACB Police Station, the sanction order was typed and signed by the Competent Authority.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Gurdeepsing Gulabsing Oad at Exh. 97 and this witness is the decoy punter who has stated that he was working as a driver in the Gurunanak Transport Company in Gandhidham and Page 11 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/822/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined was a driver on a ten wheel turbo truck bearing registration no. HR-45-1932. That on 25.06.1996, he was going from Kandla to Punjab Mandi Govindnagar with iron scrap and while he was passing Manpura, a jeep and a sumo were on the road and they halted the truck and asked him as to how much money was being taken at Deesa Checkpost. That he has stated that Rs. 1000/- was being taken and the officers who were in the vehicles had applied some powder on some currency notes of Rs. 100/- and placed in his pocket and two persons had sat in his vehicle. That at around 04.00 am, when they reached near Deesa Check Post, he had gone to the RTO Office with his bilti. That no one had accompanied him and the persons accompanying him, were seated in the truck and at that time, the officer had asked him where was his vehicle and how much goods were loaded in the vehicle and he had told the officer that 30 tons of goods were filled and at that time, the officer had demanded for an amount of Rs. 1000/- which he had taken from his shirt pocket and given to the Officer. That he came towards the car and gave the predetermined signal and the officers who were in the car and in the truck came and caught the accused. That around Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 12,000 and around Rs. 15,000 from the RTO Vehicle was seized by the officer and thereafter, they has asked him to leave. That he does not know who was the officer who had demanded for the amount from him. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that in the bilti, the name of the driver Page 12 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/822/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined Sultansing is written and it bears the signature of Sultansing and the bilti is produced at Exh. 98. That when his truck was halted at Manpur, Sultansing was in the truck but there was no conversation with Sultansing. That his truck has the capacity of 22 tons and it was overload by 8 tons and if a truck has overload of more than 2.50 tons, a fine of Rs. 1000/- has to be paid and when the RTO Inspector asked him how much load was in the truck, he had replied 30 tons and thereafter, he was informed to pay the fine of Rs. 1000/-. The witness has stated that after paying the fine, a receipt is given but he did not wait to take the receipt.
8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Manubhai Shambhubhai Satasiya at Exh. 99 and this witness is the shadow witness at the time of trap. This witness has stated that he and Mahendra Laxmanbhai Patel were called to the ACB Office on 25.06.1996 and they met Mr. S.K. Parmar who told them that they were going towards Deesa Checkpost regarding the vehicles on the Gandhinagar to Gozariya to Mehsana to Harij to Radhanpur - Deesa Highway where the employees of the Forest, Sales Tax and RTO were demanding for an entry fee ranging from Rs. 20/- to Rs. 1000/- from the truck drivers and taking illegal gratification and hence, the trap was to be arranged. That the experiment of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was shown to them and the driver of a truck was halted Page 13 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/822/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined near Manpura and he had told them that his truck was overload by 8 tons and he would pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- at the RTO Checkpost. That the driver was given ten currency notes of Rs. 100/- each which were laced with anthracene powder and they sat in the truck and when the truck halted at Deesa Checkpost at around 05.10 am, the truck driver took the bilti and gave some other papers to him and they both went towards the checkpost and stood in the line. That at that time, one person came and inquired from him where his vehicle was and he told him that his vehicle was far away and showed him the papers and he stood in the line but in the meanwhile, two to three persons had come between the driver and him. That thereafter, the driver of the truck came to the window and immediately gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused. That along with the tainted currency notes of Rs. 1000/-, Rs. 14,200 and Rs. 51,000/- of various denominations of currency notes were found and the panchnama was drawn. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that there is no note in the panchnama about the currency notes of Rs.430/- that was found from the pocket of the accused and he does not remember as to whether the ultraviolet lamp test was done on the currency notes of Rs. 430/- which was found. That no lists of the things that were seized from the RTO Officer are mentioned and the notes and the receipt was prepared before the panchnama was written down. That Page 14 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/822/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined the accused had submitted a memo book but it is not mentioned in the panchnama that the accused has submitted a memo book and next to the accused, clerk Prajapati was seated from whose possession the record was seized. That the receipt book of amount of fine collected was also seized and the memo book was on the table of the RTO Officer. That the witness does not know as to whether the driver had actually given the amount at the window and the ultraviolet lamp test was done when the currency notes of Rs. 430/- and Rs. 1000/- were in the hands of the RTO Officer. That he does not remember as to whether florescent colour was found on the hands of the accused and the panchnama is produced at Exh. 100.
8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Shankarbhai Khatubhai Parmar at Exh. 102 and this witness is the complainant and Trap Laying Officer and has deposed as per the case of the prosecution. During the cross- examination, the witness has admitted that in the panchnama, there is no mention of the numbers of the currency notes besides the Rs. 1000/- that was seized. That he has not seized the memo book from the accused and he does not remember as to whether the accused has produced the memo book at the time of recording of his statement. That he came to know about the conversation between the accused and the driver from the panch witness no. 1. That he had seen the license of the decoy punter truck driver but Page 15 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/822/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined had not mentioned the same in the panchnama and in the complaint he has not stated that on doing the test of ultraviolet lamp on the hands of the accused, florescent colour was found on the hands of the accused. That at the time of raid, the accused was preparing to write the memo.
8.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 - Hareshkumar Prafulchand Agravat at Exh. 105 and PW6 - Hasmukhbhai Bhailalbhai Barot at Exh. 106. Both the witnesses are the Investigating Officers and they have deposed in detail about the investigation that was done and the filing of the charge- sheet. During the cross-examination of PW6 Hamukhbhai Bhailalbhai Barot, the witness has stated that the charge- sheet was filed only for the amount of Rs. 1000/- and no procedure or charge-sheet for the other amount that was seized, has been done.
9. On minutely dissecting the entire evidence produced by the prosecution, the case of the prosecution is that the accused was a Motor Vehicle Inspector and he was seated at the RTO Checkpost. That the accused was entitled to collect the amount of fine for overload vehicles and as per the say of the truck driver i.e. the decoy, he had alone gone to the checkpost and his vehicle had an overload of 8 tons and the fine amount as per rules would be Rs. 1000/-. There is no iota of evidence in the deposition of the decoy truck driver that the accused had demanded for the amount of illegal Page 16 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/822/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined gratification of Rs. 1000/- and merely to presume that as the accused had demanded for an amount of Rs. 1000/-, it would be the amount of illegal gratification, is not proper. There is evidence on record that the memo book and others documents were also seized by the Trap Laying Officer at the time of the trap. Moreover, there is no independent evidence regarding the demand as the Trap Laying Officer - PW4 Shankarbhai Khatubhai Parmar states that PW3 - Manubhai Shambhubhai Satasiya - the shadow witness had told him about the demand of illegal gratification by the accused but PW3 - Manubhai Shambhubhai Satasiya has clearly stated that there were three or four drivers between him and the decoy driver and he could not hear the conversation between the driver and the accused. That there is no direct evidence about the demand on record in the evidence by the prosecution and the panch witness merely states that he saw the decoy driver going towards the window and thereafter, making the predetermined signal. That the receipt book and memo book have been seized from the cashier and the fine amount was being collected by the personnel seated there which was their duty and there is no dispute about the same. That as per the rules, if there was more than 250 quintals, an amount of Rs. 1000/- has to be recovered as fine and according to the scheduled, the accused had recovered the amount of fine of Rs. 1000/-. There is evidence that the accused was preparing the memo and the decoy driver says that he had immediately left the Page 17 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/822/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined window without waiting for the receipt to be given. There is no evidence to the effect that the decoy driver had demanded for the receipt and the accused had refused to give any evidence. Moreover, even if the sanction for prosecution is perused, the sanction has not been given with proper application of mind and PW1 - Vasumatiben Chandulal Chaudhary who is the clerk of the RTO Office, Ahmedabad does not identify the signature of the Competent Authority who has signed the sanction for prosecution. There is evidence on record to suggest that the draft sanction order was sent by the ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad and the signatures of some persons were obtained on the draft sanction order.
10. The prosecution has not examined the authority who has given the sanction for prosecution even though the signature of the Competent Authority is not proved by PW1
- the clerk of the RTO and in the entire evidence, the demand and acceptance of the tainted currency notes as illegal gratification is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts and the learned Trial Court has discussed all these aspects in detail in the impugned judgement.
11. In view of the settled position of law and as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Neeraj Dutta (supra) and considering the judgement and order of learned Page 18 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/822/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/03/2024 undefined Trial Court, the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence produced by the prosecution in proper perspective and has given proper reasons for acquittal of the accused. This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court is completely justified in acquitting the accused from all the charges levelled against him and there is no illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. This court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court.
12. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgement and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly the same is dismissed. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Banaskantha at Palanpur in Special ACB Case No. 32 of 1997 on 22.11.2004 is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 19 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 02 20:32:22 IST 2024