IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. Pinto, J.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Vs.
Vilasbhai Jangeshbhai Patel - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1586 of 2006
Decided On: 12-07-2024
JUDGMENT :
S.V. Pinto, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-State under Section 378(1)(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, 4th Fast Track Court, Surat (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in Special (ACB) Case No. 57 of 1996 on 31/08/2005, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), (1)(2)(3) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter 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:
[2.2] That the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and after the necessary documents including the service record and the order of sanction for prosecution was received, a chargesheet came to be filed before the learned Sessions Court, Surat, which was registered as Special ACB Case No. 57 of 1996.
[2.3] That the accused was duly served with the summon and the accused appeared before the learned trial Court and after the due procedure of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was followed, a charge at Exh: 6 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh:7. The accused denied all contents of the charge and the evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
[2.4] The prosecution has produced the following oral as well as documentary evidences in support of their case.
[2.5] After the closing pursis was filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor at Exh:46, the further statement under Section 313 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution and further stated that he was a Medical Officer in the Community Health Centre at village Patal and he has never demanded for any amount of illegal gratification from Dhansukhbhai Chimanbhai Gamit or from any other person. He is residing at Bardoli and was commuting to Village Patal from Bardoli and on 19/9/1995, Dhansukhbhai Chima
Jagan M. Seshadri v. State of T.N (2002) 9 SCC 639
Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case.
A presumption of innocence accompanies acquittal; the prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue, and the credibility of witness testimony is crucial in establishing guilt.
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, comprehensive appreciation of evidence, and the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as a fact in issue, and the presumption of innocence must be upheld. A thorough appreciation of evidence is required befo....
The judgment underscores the fundamental legal principle that the prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and that suspicion alone cannot lead to a conviction.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient for conviction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.