Prosecution in bribery cases must establish demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, ensuring transparency and independence of panch witnesses to uphold credibility.

JUDGEMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 620 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= DR. NARENDRA RAMJIBHAI THANKI - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR ADIL MEHTA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR KJ SHETHNA for Appellant(s):1, MR AJ DESAI, LD.APP for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH Date : 28/06/2007 CAV JUDGMENT

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 2/108 JUDGMENT 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 3/108 JUDGMENT 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 4/108 JUDGMENT linking the appellant with the offence in question are sound in nature. The