Gujarat High Court High Court

State vs Madhubhai on 19 October, 2010

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

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/2342/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2342 of 2010
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 427 of 2010
 

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


 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

MADHUBHAI
NARANDAS PATEL & 7 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
8. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

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 appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the learned Special
Judge in Special (ACB) Case No.2 of 1991, whereby the accused have
been acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 408, 409,
418, 420, 423, 464, 465, 120-B and 511 of Indian Penal Code read
with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

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
and Ms. Megha Jani, learned Advocate appearing for the original
accused No. 1,2, 4, 5, 7 and 8.

3. It
appears that the prosecution case is that the bogus applications
for subsidy were made and the amount has been withdrawn, but there
is no evidence led by the prosecution to prove that the applications
were made in the name of the persons who were either not in
existence or they had not made any applications.

4. In
view of the absence of the aforesaid evidence, if the learned
Special Judge has taken the view that the prosecution has not been
able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the same cannot be
said to be erroneous.

5. Hence
leave does not deserve to be granted. Therefore not granted. The
application is disposed of accordingly.

[JAYANT
PATEL, J.]

[H.

B. ANTANI, J.]

msp

   

Top