Gujarat High Court High Court

State vs Gopalbhai on 19 October, 2010

Gujarat High Court
State vs Gopalbhai on 19 October, 2010
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable H.B.Antani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/6451/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 6451 of 2010
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 976 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================================


 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

GOPALBHAI
CHATURBHAI PATEL & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 19/10/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

1. The
present application for leave to prefer appeal is directed against
the judgment and order dated 11.3.2010 passed by the learned
Special Judge in Special Corruption Case No. 3 of 2008 whereby the
accused have been acquitted for the offences punishable under
sections 7, 12, 13 (1)(d) read with section 13 (2) and 15 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. We
have considered the judgment and the reasons recorded by the learned
Special Judge. We have also considered the Records &
Proceedings and heard the learned APP for the State.

3. It
appears that the accused, in the capacity of Police Officers, while
investigating into an offence registered as CR No.I-115 of 2007,
were insisting for production of muddamal from the complainant. As
per the evidence on record, there is no acceptance of the amount by
the accused and on the contrary, the trap has also failed. The basic
requirement of demand is also not proved by spectrography for voice
testing. Therefore, even demand is also not proved.

4. In
above view of the matter, if the learned Special Judge has found that
the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt, the same cannot be said to be erroneous. Hence,
the leave to appeal does not deserve to be granted. Therefore, not
granted. The application is disposed of accordingly.

[JAYANT
PATEL, J.]

[H.

B. ANTANI, J.]

msp

   

Top