( 1 ) THE appellant-orig. convict (hereinafter referred to as the appellant ) has preferred present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20th July 1990 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Special Criminal Case No. 45/86. The appellant has been found guilty of the charge of the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and he has been asked to undergo one year imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 5 (2) of the Act and in default to undergo further three months imprisonment. So far as the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the appellant is asked to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo further three months punishment.

( 2 ) THE judgment and order of conviction and sentence is assailed on various grounds as mentioned in paragraph no. 6 of the memo of the appeal and Shri K. J. Shethna, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has taken this Court through the prosecution case and all these grounds along with the oral as well as documentary evidence led during the course of trial. He has also taken me through the relevant part of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under challenge and has argued that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that certain grave errors have been committed by the learned trial Judge while appreciating the evidence vis-a-vis the probabilities of false implications shown by the appellant by pointing out speaking circumstances. The absence of transparency in the investigation as well as the entire exercise of carrying out trap to implicate the appellant, is also one of the main arguments.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, Shri A. J. Desai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State, has strongly supported the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, and has argued that the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge while linking the appellant with the offence in question are sound in nature. The learned trial Judge has appreciated the evidence keeping in mind the basic principle and there is no illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge. The hammering by Shri A. J. Desai is on the point of conduct of the appellant and on the fact that he was not otherwise entitled to touch the currency notes. The learned trial Judge has rightly raised the presumption against the appellant and it is submitted that the finding of the learned trial Judge is absolutely logical for not accepting the theory of false implication. Detailed submissions have been made by both the sides, which shall have to be considered while evaluating the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under challenge.

( 4 ) IT would be appropriate at this stage to state the case of the prosecution in brief. The complainant-Bavanji Bhurabhai Ahir, resident of village Vadodar of Taluka Dhoraji, District Rajkot, was feeling pain in his abdomen and, therefore, he had gone to the Government Hospital at Dhoraji on 07th January 1986. The appellant was the Medical Officer and Gynaecologist in the said hospital and, therefore, the complainant approached the appellant for treatment. The appellant examined the complainant and told that he is suffering from Appendicitis and he should undergo a surgery. The complainant asked the appellant as to on which day the surgery can be performed so that he can come for the said purpose. In turn, the appellant told him that the surgery shall be performed on 09th January 1986 and the complainant should bring the amount of Rs. 200/- for expenses. The appellant told the complainant that if he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document