In bribery cases, the prosecution bears the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt the demand, acceptance of bribe, and the link to the accused; failure results in acquittal.

JUDGEMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2197 of 2004 With CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2199 of 2004 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 ? ========================================= DALSUKHBHAI SAVJIBHAI PATEL POLICE SUB INSPECTOR - Appellant(s) Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR BM MANGUKIYA for Appellant(s) : 1,MS BELA A PRAJAPATI for Appellant(s) : 1, MR AJ DESAI, LD.APP for Respondent-State. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH Date : 28/02/2007 COMMON CAV JUDGMENT

1. The appellant of Criminal Appeal No.2197 of 2001, who is the orig.accused no.1; and appellant of Criminal Appeal No.2199 of 2001, 2/62 JUDGMENT who is the orig.accused no.2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') have filed these appeals respectively against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18th December, 2004, passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Veraval, in Special (ACB) Case No.1 of 2001 (Old Case No.11 of 1999). The accused have assailed the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under challenge whereby the accused persons have been held guilty for the charge of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3½ years on each count and also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for each offence; and in default of making payment of fine, further imprisonment of nine months for each offence.

2. The accused no.1 was the Police Sub-Inspector of Talala Police Station and the accused no.2 3/62 JUDGMENT was the Police Constable in the same Police Station. As both these appeals are arising out of the same judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the same are decided by present common CAV judgment. According to Shri Mangukiya, learned counsel appearing for the both the accused, there is no conflict of interest or even conflict of defence, and even both the accused were defended by the separate advocates before the trial Court. According to Shri Mangukiya, no prejudice is likely to be caused to any of the accused persons and, therefore, he may be heard on behalf of both the accused persons. Shri A.J. Desai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, after some deliberations, had agreed and he has also submitted that both the appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment. Therefore, the present appeals are being decided by the present common CAV judgment.

3. The brief facts placed by the prosecution before the trial Court reveal that the accused allegedly demanded an amount of Rs.200/- as 4/62 JUDGMENT regular instalment for plying a three