Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/5636/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5636 of 2010
In
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 880 of 2010
With
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 880 of 2010
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant/Appellant
Versus
ABDUL
MAJID AHMAD HAJI - Respondent
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KL PANDYA, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for
Applicant/Appellant
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
Date
: 23/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
This
is an application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and
order rendered by the Sessions Court, Surat, in Special (ACB) Case
No.50/1995, acquitting the respondent of the charges of corruption.
2. It
transpires from the impugned judgment that the complainant did not
give any specific identity of the accused, except that the person,
who made the first demand, was a muslim gentleman spotting beard. It
is also recorded that Panch No.1 has not supported the prosecution
case. However, upon being declared hostile, he has sailed with the
prosecution. Panch No.2, Rameshbhai Jadav, has stated that the
panchnama was prepared by the raiding team and not as per the dictate
of the panch witnesses. There is no identity of the notes and the
clothes of the accused were not examined under ultraviolet rays for
presence or absence of anthracene powder. It may be stated that the
complainant, right from the beginning, does not disclose the legal
identity of the person, who had made the demand. Even the name of the
respondent-accused is not found in the complaint itself. In this set
of circumstances, if the benefit of doubt is given by the trial
Court, it cannot be said that it is unjustified. This Court,
therefore, will not exercise its appellate jurisdiction in reversing
the acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
3. In
light of the above uncontroverted facts, leave to appeal is refused.
The application stands rejected.
4. Consequently,
Criminal Appeal No.880/2010 would also stand dismissed.
[A.L.Dave,J.]
[V.M.Sahai,J.]
(patel)
Top