Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/7649/2008 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 7649 of 2008
In
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1745 of 2008
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
RAKESHBHAI
BHANABHAI TADVI UNARMED POLICE CONSTABLE - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR.
K.P.RAVAL, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Applicant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 28/11/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)
The
present Application is filed seeking leave to Appeal against the
judgment and order dated 25.3.2008 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Rajpipla, in Special ACB Case
No.6 of 2006.
Heard
learned APP Mr.Raval for the State of Gujarat.
It
is the case of the prosecution that it was Accused No.1 and 2 who
were found to be indulging in offence under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d)
and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned APP
submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error in recording
acquittal of Accused No.2. So far as Accused No.1 is concerned, he
is convicted for the offences alleged against him. He has already
filed Criminal Appeal No. 1378 of 2008 which is admitted by this
Court on 17.4.2008.
Learned
APP submitted that the learned Judge ought to have believed the case
of the prosecution against Accused No.2 also.
Learned
APP invited the attention of the Court to the relevant part of the
judgment and submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error
in appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution.
Having
perused the judgment an order in detail, the Court finds that the
learned Judge is right in recording the acquittal so far as Accused
No.2 is concerned and the Court finds no reason to interfere with
the judgment and order of the learned Judge.
In
view of the aforesaid discussions, the Application for leave to
Appeal is rejected.
(Ravi
R.Tripathi,J)
(Rajesh
H.Shukla,J)
Jayanti*
Top