Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujart vs Mukundray Umiyashankar Barot on 4 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2076 of 2006
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 of No
India or any order made thereunder ?
=========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJART
Versus
MUKUNDRAY UMIYASHANKAR BAROT & ANR.
=========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2
MR FENIL H BATHIYA(13663) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2
MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2
=========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 04/06/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Learned advocate Mr. Fenil Bathiya submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the respondents and Page 1 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined seeks permission to file his appearance. Registry to accept.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case No. 5 of 1994 on 15.07.2006, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as "the PC Act" for short) The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused as they stood in the rank and file in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
3. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
3.1 That the accused no. 1 was working as a Superintendent and the accused no. 2 was working as a Page 2 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined clerk in the Civil Supply Department, Jamnagar and were public servants. That the complainant Bipinchandra Jentilal Doshi was holding the license of distributing crude kerosene at Dhutarpar village and in September 1993, the complainant got reduced stock of kerosene. That the complainant met both the accused and requested them for an increase in the quota of kerosene and at that time, the accused no. 1 demanded an amount of Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification for himself and for the accused no. 2 and the complainant agreed to pay the amount and hence, the quota of kerosene for October was increased. That on 17.11.1993, the complainant - Bipinchandra Jentilal Doshi went to the office of the Mamlatdar Rural and met the accused to request for increase in the quota of kerosene for the month of November and at that time, the accused no. 2 demanded the amount of Rs. 500/- which was promised by the complainant. That the complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification and the complainant went to the ACB Police Station at Jamnagar and filed the complaint against the accused which was registered at C.R. No. Page 3 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined 15/1993 on 18.11.1993. The Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and the demonstration of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp was carried out in the presence of the panch witnesses and the complainant and the characteristics of the anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp were explained to them. That the complainant gave five currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each to the Trap Laying Officer and the currency notes were smeared with anthracene powder and placed in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant. That the complainant and the shadow witness went to the office of the accused and at that time, in the presence of the shadow witness, the accused no. 1 demanded for the amount of illegal gratification and the complainant took the tainted currency notes from his left side shirt pocket and gave it to the accused no. 1 who told the complainant to place the currency notes in a file and the complainant placed the currency notes in the file and the accused no. 1 placed the file in the rack. That at that time, the complainant gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party Page 4 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined came and caught the accused no. 1 red handed. That the necessary panchnamas were drawn and the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and after the order of sanction for prosecution was received, the charge-sheet was filed against both the accused before the Sessions Court, Jamnagar which came to be registered as Special ACB Case No. 5/1994.
3.2 The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and after the procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was followed, a charge at Exh. 10 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 11 and 12 respectively, wherein, the accused have denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
3.3 The prosecution has examined three witnesses and produced 27 documentary evidences and after the learned APP filed the closing pursis at Exh. 52, the further Page 5 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded and after the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by an judgement and order dated 15.07.2006 was pleased to acquit both the accused from all the offences.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and the learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the complainant has in his evidence successfully established the demand, acceptance and recovery. The complainant has fully supported the case of prosecution and there is no reason for the learned Trial Court to disbelieve the complainant. The panch witness has also fully supported the case of prosecution and the evidence of the complainant is corroborated by the evidence of the panch witness. The prosecution has not examined the Trap Laying Officer as he Page 6 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined expired but PW3 - Bhikhusha Alisha Shahamdar who was the member of the raiding party has been examined and he has fully supported the case of prosecution. That the learned Trial Court has committed an error in not accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the impugned judgement and order of acquittal is erroneous, unjust and improper and is required to be quashed and set aside and the accused must be found guilty of the said offence.
5. Heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant -
State and learned advocate Mr. Fenil H. Bathiya for the respondents. Perused the impugned judgement and order and entire evidence of prosecution on record.
6. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution in detail and has stated that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. That the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery beyond reasonable doubts and the learned APP has urged this Court to quashed and set aside the impugned Page 7 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined judgement and order of acquittal and convict the accused.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Fenil H. Bathiya for the respondents has submitted that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated all the evidences and has rightly acquitted both the accused as there is no iota of evidence regarding demand of any illegal gratification or acceptance by the accused and the learned Trial Court, in a well reasoned judgement, has discussed all the evidences and has rightly acquitted the accused and hence, the appeal must be rejected.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2018, in para 9, has observed as under:
9....... The law with regard to interference by the Appellate Court is very well crystallized. Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with the same would not be warranted. Though, there are a catena of judgments on the issue, we will only refer to two judgments which the High Court itself has reproduced in the impugned judgment, which are as reproduced below: Page 8 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined "13. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P. (2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court has held that:-
In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and !aw. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. Appellate Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded."
14. Similar, In case of Harljan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat (2016) 12 SCC 665, the Supreme Court has held that:-
"No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the same. However, this does not mean that in all the cases where the trial Page 9 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined court has recorded acquittal, the same should not be interfered with, even if the view is perverse. Where the view taken by the trial court is against the weight of evidence on record, or perverse, it is always open far the appellate court to express the right conclusion after reappreciating the evidence If the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt on record, and convict the accused."
8.1 In the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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 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.Page 10 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined
(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 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 Page 11 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined 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 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.
Page 12 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined
(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."
9. In view of the settled principles of law in acquittal appeals, it is essential to reappreciate the evidence Page 13 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined produced by the prosecution on record before the learned Trial Court and to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 - Bipinchandra Jentilal at Exh. 15. The witness is the complainant who has fully supported the case of prosecution and has narrated the details about the complaint and has thereafter, stated that when he went along with the panch witnesses to the office of the accused, the accused were not in the office and there was some other person who told them that the accused would come. That they waited and the accused no. 1 came and at that time, the accused demanded for the amount and he gave the amount of Rs. 500/- from his left side shirt pocket. The accused no. 1 told him to keep the amount in the file and after he had put the amount in the file, the accused no. 1 placed the same in the rack. That thereafter, the accused no. 1 came out of the room in the lobby and he was taken to the room and the amount was recovered from the file. No traces of anthracene powder were found on the hands of the accused no. 1. The witness has stated that the panchnama Page 14 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined was being written by Mavani Saheb and has produced the complaint at Exh. 16. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that he had earlier deposed in a case under the PC Act and he was also arrested and sent to jail at Bhuj for black marketing. That does not know who has the power to allot the quota of kerosene and any application for allotment of kerosene has to be made to the Mamlatdar. The witness has further stated that he was known to Mavani Saheb earlier and he had told Mavani Saheb that the accused were demanding for money to increase his quota of kerosene but no complaint in writing was taken at that time. That when he went to give the predetermined signal, the accused came out from his chamber and the accused was two steps in front of him and the panch witness was with him and at that time, there was no one in the room. The rack which had the file was at a distance of about 5-7 feet from where he was standing and the rack was an open rack and the table was a distance of 2 feet from the rack. That the accused no. 1 had taken two to three files from the rack and Page 15 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined when the members of the raiding party came, the accused no. 1 was in the lobby. That he had deposed before the Court about ten months prior to his deposition in this case and he was declared hostile in that case. That the case was filed against a Superintendent, Civil Supply Department and a Deputy Mamlatdar. That his brother is also doing the business of kerosene and his brother has also filed a case in the ACB Police Station. The witness has further stated that the allotment of quota of kerosene is done by the Mamlatdar (Rural) and an order is passed regarding the monthly allotment for the quota of kerosene by the Mamlatdar (Rural). That he has not filed any application for increase in quota of kerosene to the Mamlatdar (Rural) and has not met the Mamlatdar (Rural). That the Superintendent, Civil Supply Department comes to his place for checking and if there is any irregularity, it is reported to the Mamlatdar. 9.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Chamanlal Hiralal Rajyaguru at Exh. 23 and this witness is the panch witness who has stated that on 18.11.1993, he had gone to the ACB Office and met the complainant and the other Page 16 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined police officials. The complainant had given five currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each on which anthracene powder was applied and he and the complainant and another panch went in a rickshaw to the Mamlatdar Office, Jamnagar. That he had gone along with the complainant and the accused no. 1 had asked the complainant whether he had brought the money and the complainant replied in the affirmative and gave the amount to the accused no. 1 and the accused no. 1 took a file and told the complainant to put the money in the file. That the complainant was instructed to give the predetermined signal and he went and gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused. That he was called to the ACB Office on 19 th November and was asked about the incident and his signatures were taken in the panchnama on that day. The witness was permitted to refresh his memory and the panchnama was read over to him and thereafter, the witness has stated that his signatures were taken in the office on the same day. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the Page 17 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined accused, the witness has stated that the complainant was not questioned in their presence and when the complainant gave the predetermined signal, the other staff rushed in and the accused no. 1 was seated on his chair and when Police Inspector - Mr. Mavani introduced himself, the accused stood up from his chair. That at that time, the file was on the table and he was called to the ACB Office on 19.11.1993 and had affixed his signature on the paper at five to seven places. That the writing on 19.11.1993 was of five to six pages and after the writing was over, both the panch witnesses and Mavani Saheb had affixed their signatures. That anthracene powder was found on one hand of the accused no. 1.
9.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Bhikhusha Alisha Shahamdar at Exh. 26 and this witness is the member of the raiding party and the lamp operator who had conducted the demonstration of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp in the office on the day of the trap and was in the lobby at the time of the trap. That after the predetermined signal was given, the witness had gone into Page 18 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined the office and had conducted the ultraviolet lamp test and found traces of anthracene powder on the currency notes which were in the file. The witness has stated that no anthracene powder was found on the hands of the accused. The witness has thereafter, stated that the entire investigation was done by the Trap Laying Officer - Mr. Mavani and thereafter, Police Inspector - Mr. Nagar had filed the charge-sheet. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate of the accused, the witness has stated that after the predetermined signal was given, the accused no. 1 was in the lobby and the panch no. 1 was in the room and the complainant was also in the lobby.
10. On meticulous appreciation and dissection of the entire oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court, it is on record that the prosecution has not examined the Trap Laying Officer and the Investigating Officer as they have expired. The prosecution has in all, examined the complainant, the panch witness and PW3 who was a member of the raiding party and the lamp operator. In the evidence of the Page 19 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined complainant and the panch witnesses, there are a number of contradictions and there is no iota of evidence of demand or prior demand made by any of the accused in the evidence. Admittedly, the accused no. 2 was not present on the day of the trap and the tainted currency notes were found in the file but there is a contradiction in the location of the file. The complainant has stated that the accused no. 1 had asked him to place the tainted currency notes in the file and he had placed the file in the rack from where it was recovered but the panch witness says that the file was lying on the table. There is also a contradiction in the place where the accused no. 1 was found; and the complainant and the PW3 - Bhikhusha Alisha Shahamdar states that the accused no. 1 had come out of the office and was in the lobby and the complainant states that he was two feet behind the accused no. 1 and gave the predetermined signal and at that time, the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused from the lobby and brought him inside the office. The panch witness - PW2 - Chamanlal Hiralal Rajyaguru states that the accused no. 1 was seated Page 20 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined at the table and the complainant went out to give the predetermined signal and at that time, the members of the raiding party came and when Police Inspector - Mr. Mavani introduced himself, the accused no. 1 stood from his chair. As per the case of prosecution, the tainted currency notes were placed in the file as per the instruction of the accused and the file was placed in the rack but the panch witness has stated that the left hand of the accused was found with traces of anthracene powder. It appears that there are huge contradictions in the evidence of the complainant - Bipinchandra Jentilal Doshi and the panch witness - Chamanlal Hiralal Rajyaguru and it is also on record that the complainant had been arrested for black marketing and was in jail at Bhuj. That the complainant had also earlier filed a complaint against the officers of the Civil Supply Department and he has turned hostile in the case, wherein, his deposition was recorded about ten months prior to his deposition in this case. In these circumstances, when there is no independent evidence regarding the demand made by the accused persons, and except for the bald allegations of Page 21 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined the complainant that the amount of Rs. 500/- was demanded for the increase in quota of kerosene when it is on record that the accused had no power to increase the quota of kerosene and it was the Mamlatdar (Rural) who was the competent authority to increase the quota of kerosene for the complainant. Moreover, it is also on record that the office of the accused was open and when the complainant and the panch witness had gone earlier, there was no one in the office and the possibility that the tainted currency notes were placed in the file without the knowledge of the accused cannot be ruled out. There is no cogent and convincing evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of any amount of illegal gratification and the evidence of the prosecution does not inspire confidence.
11. As discussed above, on meticulously dissection of the evidence of the prosecution as also considering the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgement and order passed by the learned Trial Court is with proper reasons and the learned Trial Court is Page 22 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2076/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2024 undefined fully justified in acquitting both the accused from all the charges levelled against them. This Court does not find any illegality, perversity or infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of acquittal.
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 Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Jamnagar in Special Case No. 5 of 1994 on 15.07.2006 is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 23 of 23 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 14 22:06:22 IST 2024