{"id":178204,"date":"2010-10-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-03-14T07:36:18","modified_gmt":"2017-03-14T02:06:18","slug":"fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Fulachand vs The on 21 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Fulachand vs The on 21 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/1368\/1999\t 17\/ 17\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 1368 of 1999\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nFULACHAND\nAMBALAL PATEL - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nKB ANANDJIWALA for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR HL JANI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC\nPROSECUTOR for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 21\/10\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n
1.\tThe
\npresent appellant has preferred this Appeal under Section 374 of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order of
\nconviction and sentence dated 17.12.1999 passed by the learned
\nSpecial Judge,  Court No.8, Ahmedabad, in Special Case No.16 of 1994,
\nwhereby the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant,
\naccused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention
\nof Corruption Act and sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. for
\nsix months and to pay a fine of Rs.300\/-, in default, to undergo R.I.
\nfor 15 days. Learned Judge also convicted the appellant –
\naccused for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one
\nyear and pay a fine of Rs.300\/-, in default, further R.I. for 15 days
\nfor the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
\nCorruption Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nbrief facts of the prosecution case is as under:\n<\/p>\n
2.\tAs
\nper the case of the prosecution,  the complainant Kumari Uzma
\nMohmadnasir Machiswala, is a practicing lawyer. It is alleged that
\none M. Case No.62 of 1992 before Vejalpur Police Station against one
\nAshwinkumar Krupasanker Dave and four others, was filed and they have
\nbeen arrested. Said Ashwinkumar engaged the complainant as his
\nadvocate in the matter of bail. In the said case, the appellant –
\naccused was Assistant Public Prosecutor. On 20.7.1993, the
\napplication for bail was kept for hearing before Metropolitan
\nMagistrate Court, Mirzapur and at about 1:00 p.m., the appellant
\nAssistant P.P. met the complainant and called her nearby Court room
\nand some conversation between them took place, wherein the appellant
\ntold the complainant that if you want to get the accused released on
\nbail, then she (complainant) has to understand something. The
\nappellant – accused told the complainant that if you pay
\nRs.500\/- i.e. Rs.100\/- per accused then appellant – accused
\nwill not take objection. But as the complainant did not want to give
\nbribe and, therefore, she approached ACB and gave complaint. After
\nreceipt of complaint against the appellant, panchas were called, trap
\namount was given by the complainant and after following necessary
\nprocedure, raid was carried out. Therefore, the complaint was
\nregistered against the appellant – accused, after obtaining
\nnecessary sanction for prosecution against the accused. After
\ncompleting due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the
\naccused.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\ncharge was framed at Exhibit 25 and same was read over and explained
\nto the appellant – accused. Plea of the appellant was recorded
\nat Exhibit 26.  He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be
\ntried. His reply about receiving of police paper was recorded.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe
\nstatements of the witnesses were recorded, panchnama was drawn and
\naccused was arrested. The case was numbered as Special Case No.16 of
\n1994.\n<\/p>\n
5.
\n\tTo prove the case against the appellant, the prosecution has
\nproduced documentary evidences and also examined three witnesses from
\nthe prosecution side and also on behalf of defence side, three
\nwitnesses have been examined.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThereafter,
\nafter examining the above referred witnesses, further statement of
\nthe appellant – accused under Section 313 of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure was recorded in which the appellant –
\naccused has denied the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tAfter
\nconsidering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after
\nhearing the parties, learned Special Judge, Court No.8, Ahmedabad in
\nSpecial Case No.16 of 1994 vide impugned order dated 17.12.1999 held
\nthe appellant  accused  guilty to the charge levelled against him and
\nsentenced him as stated above.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tFeeling
\naggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of
\nconviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the
\npresent appellant has preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala, appearing on behalf of the appellant
\nsubmitted that there were several contradictions in the documentary
\nevidences produced by the prosecution and they are never proved and
\neven then the learned Special Judge held the appellant guilty for the
\noffence alleged against him. Therefore, the order impugned is
\nrequired to be quashed and set aside by allowing the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Anandjiwala has contended that from the oral evidence of
\nP.W.1 complainant and P.W.2, Panch witness, it is established beyond
\nreasonable doubt that the evidence of both the witnesses are totally
\ncontradictory. He also contended that the judgment and order passed
\nby the learned Special Judge is punitive in nature, illegal and
\nsuffers from erroneous appreciation of law. The evidence against the
\naccused is divisible into two parts viz. the evidence prior to trap
\nand secondly the evidence after the trap. He further contended that
\nform the oral evidence of P.W.1, it appears that she is an advocate
\nand it is established beyond reasonable doubt from her
\nexamination-in-chief at Exhibit 32 that the complainant was engaged
\nas lawyer of Ashwinbhai, who was arrested by the police for the
\noffence punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. He
\nalso contended that this complainant, P.W. 1 is an interested witness
\nbecause the said person Ashwinbhai is related to her senior Mr. Raval
\nand that was the goal of the complainant as well as her senior Mr.
\nRaval that Ashwinbhai, who is in custody of the police, should easily
\nbe released on bail. Learned advocate also contended that first the
\ndemand is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has read the oral
\nevidence of P.W.1 and contended that at the event of meeting with
\npresent appellant – accused, there was no demand made by the
\npresent appellant and sharing the common object with senior advocate
\nMr. Raval, the said complaint was filed by the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
He
\nalso contended that from the oral evidence of the present
\ncomplainant, it is brought on record that on the day of trap in the
\nnoon, the demand was made by the present accused, but the oral
\nevidence of the P.W.2, panch, is not corroborating with the evidence
\nof P.W.1 complainant. He has contended that the prosecution has not
\nproduced any corroborative piece of evidence in connection with the
\ndemand made by the appellant – accused, therefore, the prosecution
\ncase should be considered as not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He
\nalso contended that with regard to the aspect of second demand at
\nthat time, when the present appellant accused was Assistant Public
\nProsecutor in the lower Court and proceedings were going on, so the
\nquestion of second demand is not proved beyond reasonable doubt
\nbefore the Court. He has read over oral evidence of the panch witness
\nP.W. 2 and argued and the prosecution has totally failed to prove the
\ndemand made by the appellant – accused. He also argued that the
\ndemand which is in conflicting manner so the demand is not proved and
\ntherefore, no question of conviction would arise. Only presumption
\nwas raised by the learned trial Judge and based thereon has awarded
\nsentence upon the appellant – accused. He has read the
\nstatement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code also and
\nwritten statement submitted by the present appellant – accused.
\nHe further submitted that the question of presumption would not arise
\nbecause sufficient explanation was given by the present appellant.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Anandjiwala read over the oral evidence of the P.W.2
\nexhibit 40 para 2 from the middle part and contended that the talk
\nwhich took place between the accused and the complainant is the most
\nmaterial talk to ascertain the nature of the offence committed by the
\naccused and that the said aspect is not established and when there is
\nconflicting evidence of two witnesses on this aspect, the case
\nagainst the accused has not been proved by the prosecution. There is
\nno direct evidence and therefore, prosecution has completely failed
\nto prove case against the appellant. He has also submitted that when
\nthe P.W.2 was there  even though he has not uttered any single word
\nregarding demand  and therefore, there is contradiction is in
\nconversation qua the said demand and hence, the benefit of doubt is
\nrequired to be given to the present appellant. He has read defence of
\nthe present appellant viz. from page 181 and argued that sufficient
\nprobability is established by the present appellant accused before
\nlearned Special Judge, but the learned Special Judge has not
\nconsidered that issue. He has also read the oral evidence of trapping
\nofficer – P.W.3 and argued that when this witness had entered into
\nthe room of the appellant accused, at that time, the trap amount was
\nlying on the floor and it was not in the knowledge of the trapping
\nofficer that whether that trap amount was accepted by the said
\nappellant or not ?. He has contended that the object of the
\ncomplainant was only to see that the accused of that case Mr.
\nAshwinbhai, who was related to the advocate Mr. Raval, who is senior
\nof the present complainant P.W.1 can easily come out from the
\ncustody. He has argued that from the oral evidence of complainant
\nP.W.1 that during the talk regarding bail application of Ashwinbhai
\nat that time, no copy of the FIR was presented by the complaint and
\neven they have tried to argue that bail application. He has read the
\noral evidence of defence witness and contended that the evidence is
\nhelpful to the appellant No.1. From the contents of panchnama as well
\nas complaint, it is required to be considered that the P.W.1 and 2
\nwho are the star witnesses of prosecution, their evidences are
\ntotally not corroborated with each other and from cross-examination
\nof these witnesses, some contradictions are brought on record in the
\nversion given by P.W.1. Therefore, the probability of the defence is
\nalso established beyond reasonable doubt. When the defence of
\nappellant is such that said trap amount was inserted in the pocket of
\nthe appellant without his knowledge and when he felt that something
\nwas inserted in his pocket, he saw the currency notes, he threw away.
\nSo the probability is required to be considered in favour of the
\npresent appellant. He has argued that from the evidence of panch
\nwitness No.2, that he has deposed that the panchnama was not prepared
\nby him and his signature was simply obtained. He, therefore,
\nsubmitted that from the oral evidence of P.W.2 also, the prosecution
\nhas failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore,
\nso the probability raised form the oral evidence of the witnesses, is
\nrequired to be considered in favour of the appellant – accused.
\nTherefore, the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned
\nSpecial Judge is required to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tLearned
\nAPP Mr. H.L. Jani for the respondent – State has supported the
\njudgment of the trial Court and submitted that the charge is proved
\nby the evidence of P.W.1 to 3. He has read over the oral evidence of
\nP.W.1 complainant and contended that the first demand which was made
\nby the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has read
\ncomplaint as well as contents of panchanama and oral evidence of P.W.
\n2 and vehemently argued that in presence of panch P.W.2, some oral
\nconversion has taken place there and from ground floor, when
\nappellant accused met  the complainant and then he came back to his
\nchamber at upper floor from ground floor and in presence of P.W. 2,
\nthe demand was made and the trap amount was handed over to the
\naccused. He argued that from the
\nstatement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code
\npresent appellant, accused, it was his defence that the said trap
\namount was inserted into his pocket, without his knowledge and that
\namount was thrown away by him. He read the contents of panchnama as
\nwell as oral evidences of the panch witness and trapping officer and
\nthe anthracene powder was found on both the hands of accused and so
\nfar as that probability of the defence is concerned, it can be
\nconsidered that the anthracene powder which was found on both the
\nhands of the appellant which might be possible by the act of the
\nappellant. Mr. Jani, learned APP has tried to establish that
\nthe complainant of this case is a practicing lawyer and because of
\nthe fact that said Ashwinbhai was relative of her senior, the present
\nappellant – accused has no right to take any lenient view in
\nthe case. He has contended that from the evidence of panch witness
\nand the complainant, the prosecution has proved its case beyond
\nreasonable doubt and therefore, the contention of Mr. Anandjiwala,
\nlearned advocate that demand is not proved has no substance. Mr. Jani
\nhas relied upon the decision in the case of Raj Rajendra Singh Seth
\nV. State of Jharkhand reported in 2008 (11) SCC 681, more
\nparticularly para 15 of the said decision, which is quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“15.\n<\/p>\n
In B.Noha v State of Kerala, it was, inter alia, observed by \tthis
\nCourt as follows : (SCC pp 280-81, Paras 10-11)<\/p>\n
“10.\n<\/p>\n
The evidence shows that when PW 1 told the accused that he had
\nbrought the money as directed by the accused, the accused asked PW 1
\nto take cut and give the same to him. When it is proved that there
\nwas voluntary and conscious acceptance of the money, there is no
\nfurther burden cast on the prosecution to prove by direct evidence,
\nthe demand or motive. It has only to be deduced from the facts and
\ncircumstances obtained in the particular case. It was held by this
\nCourt in Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v\/s State of Maharashtra as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
“12.\n<\/p>\n
The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the
\npresumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification.
\nOnce the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is
\nthat the said gratification was accepted “as motive or reward”
\nfor doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word
\n“gratification” need not be stretched to mean reward
\nbecause reward is the outcome of the presumption which the Court has
\nto draw on the factual premise that there was payment of
\ngratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the
\ncollocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like
\n“gratification or any valuable thing”. If acceptance of
\nany valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was
\naccepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an
\nofficial act, the word “gratification” must be treated in
\nthe context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public
\nservant who received it.”\n<\/p>\n
“11.\n<\/p>\n
This decision was followed by this Court in M. Narsinga Rao v\/s.
\nState of A.P. There is no case of the accused that the said amount
\nwas received by him as the amount which he was legally entitled to
\nreceive or collect from PW 1. It was held in State of A.P. v.
\nKammaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy<\/a> that when amount is found to have
\nbeen passed to the public servant the burden is on public servant to
\nestablish that it was not by way of illegal gratification. That
\nburden was not discharged by the accused.”\n<\/p>\n
13.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Ananjiwala has lastly submitted that if  this Court is
\nof the opinion that the judgment of the trial Court is proper then
\nlooking to the age of the appellant and now the appellant has already
\nretired, some lenient view may be taken. As against this, Mr. Jani
\nhas relied upon the decision in the case of Motaram Ram Vs. State of
\nHaryana reported in 2009 (12) SCC 727, more particularly, para 14,
\nwhich is as under:\n<\/p>\n
“14.\tSo
\nfar as the issue of sentence is concerned, in view of the provisions
\nof Section 5(2) of the Act, the minimum sentence a Court could award
\nis one year and it may extend to seven years and a fine can also be
\nimposed. None of the grounds submitted by the learned Counsel for the
\nappellant that it was a very old case; the appellant had already
\nserved about six months in jail; the appellant had refunded the
\namount taken by him from the complainant; that the complainant
\nhimself had been the abettor and could have been a co-accused for an
\noffence punishable under Section 109 IP Code, can be the mitigating
\ncircumstances for which the Court may reduce the sentence taking into
\nconsideration the proviso to Section 5(2) of the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
14.\tI
\nhave gone through the judgment and order of the trial Court. I have
\nperused oral as well as documentary evidence on record. I have gone
\nthrough the further statement recorded under Section 313 of the IPC,
\nof the accused. I have also gone through the judgment of the learned
\nSpecial Judge and decisions cited by the learned APP.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tFrom
\nthe oral evidence of the complainant as well as Panch witness, I am
\nof the view that the case is established beyond reasonable doubt that
\nthe demand,which was made by the present appellant original accused,
\nis proved through the evidence of the panch witnesses as well as
\ncomplainant. I have also perused oral evidence of the complainant and
\nit is also proved beyond reasonable doubt that the present
\ncomplainant is a practicing lawyer and as she was not willing to
\naccept the demand made by the appellant accused, she approached ACB
\noffice and the complaint was registered against the appellant,
\naccused. So from the contents of the complaint and oral evidence of
\nthe complainant as well as the  contents of the panchnama, the
\ndemand, which was made by the preset appellant, is proved beyond
\nreasonable doubt. I have found that the complainant as well as
\npresent appellant accused, they are from same profession. I have not
\nfound anything to say that there was some business rivalry between
\nthe complainant and the appellant and, therefore, the appellant has
\nbeen booked by her. Even from the sanction order, it is also
\nestablished that present appellant was a public servant and working
\nas Assistant Public Prosecutor in the lower court and, therefore, the
\nquestion of business rivalry does not arise. It was not found
\nanywhere that there was animosity between the complainant and
\nappellant and therefore, said false complaint was registered against
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tI
\nhave also perused the evidence of trapping officer P.W.3 and it is
\nvery much reflected from the oral evidence and from the contents of
\npart of preliminary panchnama that during trap, proper care and
\ncaution was taken by the said witness. I have also perused oral
\nevidence of the complainant as well as Panch witnesses. I have not
\nfound that there is no any material, which shows that the oral
\nversion of the witnesses is produced in contradictory manner. It is
\nalso on record that the Muddamal article contains antharacene powder
\nwas prepared in presence of panch witnesses as well as members of
\nraiding party and complainant. I have not found anything from the
\ndefence that as per the defence, the prosecution has not proved  case
\nbeyond reasonable doubt. It is true that it is not the case of the
\nappellant that Sanctioning Authority has given sanction without
\napplication of mind and that issue is not argued before this Court
\nand therefore, the issue cannot be discussed at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tFrom
\nthe evidence of prosecution as well as defencne, the conduct of the
\naccused is required to be considered. The appellant – accused
\nwas serving as Assistan Public Prosecutor in the lower Court since
\nlong time and so the trapping officer who is a police officer, was
\nknowing the present appellant very well. In view of this observation,
\nI am of the view that when the trapping officer entered into the
\nplace of offence at that time, said trap amount which was accepted by
\nthe present appellant, was thrown away on the ground floor. It is
\ntrue that the learned APP has also drawn the attention from the
\nwritten statement of the present appellant accused that some trap
\namount was inserted into the pocket of the present appellant without
\nhis knowledge and then it was thrown away by him. Even if it is
\nbelieved, then the anthracene powder can be found on one hand, but in
\nthis case from both the hands of the appellant accused, anthracene
\npowder was found. Therefore, the defence of the appellant is not
\nrequired to be considered. I am of the opinion that the submissions
\nmade by learned APP is required to be considered in a positive
\nmanner. I have also found from the oral evidence of the witnesses
\nthat their evidences are totally corroborated with the evidence of
\neach other. Even though minor discrepancy
\non trivial matters not affecting core of prosecution case and
\nit should not be resulted in rejection of evidence in entirety.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tLearned
\nAPP Mr.Jani has read the provisions regarding presumption enumerated
\nin the Prevention of Corruption Act and contended that looking to the
\nconduct of the appellant, presumption is required to be drawn against
\nthe appellant. If the defence version is believed that the amount was
\ninserted in the pocket of the appellant without his knowledge, then
\nthe anthracene powder would not have been found on both the hands of
\nthe appellant. I have not found that the appellant has warned the
\ncomplainant and refused to accept the money and asked him to go away
\nwith trap amount. However, from the explanation given by the
\nappellant, it appears that he has failed to explain regarding
\npresence of anthrancene powder which was found from both the hands of
\nthe appellant as well as receipt of the insurance. So the provisions
\nof Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act are straightway
\napplicable to the facts of the present case. It is true that the
\nprovisions of Section 20 of the Act, should be considered in light of
\nthe oral evidence of the witnesses as well as documentary evidence
\ncomplaint, panchnama etc.<\/p>\n
19.\tFrom
\nthe cross-examination of the witnesses made by the appellant before
\nthe learned Special Judge and perusal of the oral as well documentary
\nevidence, it is very much clear that the appellant accused has failed
\nto rebut the presumption as per the provisions of Section 20 of the
\nAct. Even the appellant has failed to prove his defence from
\ncross-examination of the witnesses beyond reasonable doubt before the
\nlearned Special Judge.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tI
\nhave perused the reasons assigned by the learned Special Judge. I
\nhave not found any substance to hold that the learned Special Judge
\nhas committed any error.\n<\/p>\n
21.\tIt
\nis true that learned advocate Mr. Anandjiwala has prayed to reduce
\nthe sentence imposed upon the appellant, but I have perused both the
\njudgments which are relied upon by the learned APP Mr. Jani. It
\nclearly appears that the learned Judge has awarded lesser punishment
\nand hence, the sentence awarded by the learned Special Judge is quite
\nproper and no interference is required to be called for.\n<\/p>\n
22.\tAs
\nper above observation, I am of the opinion that the learned Special
\nJudge has not committed any error and facts or law or in appreciation
\nof oral as well as documentary evidence in holding the accused guilty
\nfor the offence as alleged against him. I have no reason to interfere
\nwith the reasons and findings arrived at by the learned Special
\nJudge. Therefore, I am in total agreement with the reasons assigned
\nby the learned Special Judge. Hence, the impugned order is required
\nto be confirmed and the appeal is required to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
23.\tIn view of the
\nabove, the Appeal is
\ndismissed. The judgment and order dated 17.12.1999 passed by the
\nlearned Special Judge, Court No.8, Ahmedabad in Special Case No.16 of
\n1994, is hereby confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\tConsidering the request
\nmade by learned counsel for the appellant – Fulchandbhai
\nAmbalal Patel, the appellant shall  surrender before the Jail
\nAuthority within six weeks from the date of this order, failing
\nwhich, the concerned Court shall issue non-bailable warrant to effect
\nthe arrest of the appellant. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled. R &
\nP to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.)<\/p>\n
ynvyas<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Fulachand vs The on 21 October, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/1368\/1999 17\/ 17 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1368 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-178204","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nFulachand vs The on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Fulachand vs The on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-14T02:06:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Fulachand vs The on 21 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-14T02:06:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4001,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Fulachand vs The on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-14T02:06:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Fulachand vs The on 21 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Fulachand vs The on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Fulachand vs The on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-14T02:06:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Fulachand vs The on 21 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-14T02:06:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010"},"wordCount":4001,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010","name":"Fulachand vs The on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-14T02:06:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fulachand-vs-the-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Fulachand vs The on 21 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178204","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=178204"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178204\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178204"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178204"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178204"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}