{"id":47792,"date":"2011-08-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011"},"modified":"2015-06-09T08:50:06","modified_gmt":"2015-06-09T03:20:06","slug":"dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Dr vs The on 2 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Dr vs The on 2 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Z.K.Saiyed,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/514\/1999\t 16\/ 16\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. 514 of 1999\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \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 be\n\t\t\treferred 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\nDR.\nHARSHADRAI PRANJIVAN MEHTA - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nKB ANANDJIWALA for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR HL JANI Ld. APP 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: 02\/08\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n
1.\tThe
\npresent appellant has preferred this appeal under sec. 374(2) of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of
\nconviction and sentence  dated 26.5.1999 passed by the learned
\nSpecial Judge, Mehsana, in Special  Case (ACB) No. 15\/1992, whereby,
\nthe learned Judge has convicted the appellant under sec. 7 of the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act  and sentenced to undergo R\/I for 2 \u00bd
\nyears  and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000\/-  in default, to undergo
\nfurther R\/I for six months. The appellant is also convicted under
\nsec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to
\nundergo R\/I for a period of 3 \u00bd years  and to pay a fine of
\nRs. 14000\/-,  in default, to undergo further R\/I for eight months,
\nwhich is impugned in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nbrief facts of the prosecution case is as under:\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\nappellant-accused was elected member of Nagarpalika since 1988 and he
\nwas declared elected vide Ex. 52 by the Collector. The accused was
\nalso discharging his duties as the Chairman of Town Planning
\nCommittee. One Purshottambhai C. Patel – PW-2 Ex. 25, who is the head
\nof Town Planning Office used to prepare plans\/map of Town Planning
\nand Development of Mehsana city and Banaskantha district. The plans
\nof Mehsana town were prepared and they were under implementation  and
\nafter every 10 years such plans are to be revised.  The revised plans
\nwere also prepared and the scheme drawn by Purshottambhai was handed
\nover to the Nagarpalika by addressing a letter to the President of
\nNagarpalika advising the President to follow the necessary procedure
\nas per Sec. 9 of the Act by sending a copy to the Government, and as
\nper  sec. 13 by showing the notification and calling for the
\nobjections within two months and thereafter to finalise the proposal.
\nAs advised by Purshottmabhai Patel, the objections were called for.
\nAfter the objections were received, the committee meeting was held,
\nheaded by the appellant-accused being the Chairman. All the committee
\nmembers thought over the objections and after giving sufficient
\nopportunity to the affected persons and after hearing and considering
\n their representations and objections, rejected the objections.
\nNecessary resolutions were passed vide ex. 74 dated 3.2.1989 by the
\nTown Planning Committee. So far as the procedure is concerned, the
\nTown Planning Committee (TPC) had accepted almost all
\nproposals\/opinions of the town planning officer and they were in
\nagreement. The final authority to take final decision on development
\nplan is the General Body of Nagarpalika. The decision of the TPC is
\nnot the final decision, more or less no individual member is
\nauthorised to take the final decision. Therefore, the final authority
\nis the General Body of the Nagarpalika and not the TPC. On 22.6.1989
\nvide Resolution  No. 22, Ex. 77, the TPC got extension to submit
\nplans to the Government  from 30.6.1989 to 31.12.1989. The resolution
\nwas passed as per sec. 9(1) of the Town Planning Act, vide Ex. 50 on
\n27.12.1990. The same was published in the Government  Gazette Ex. 47
\non page-667, calling for the objections. On 19.2.1991, the owners of
\nsurvey No. 1685 and 1686 gave their objections vide Ex. 66 to the
\nPresident of Mehsana Nagarpalika. The same is mentioned in the
\nobjection register vide Ex. 75 and 56. On 21.2.1991 Ex. 66, the
\nobjection application  was registered  in Inward Register at Sr. No.
\n3852 vide Ex. 48. On 8.5.1991, the TPC was constituted consisting of
\nsix members for the period during 8.5.1991 to 7.5.1992. The accused
\nwas appointed as the Chairman. The meeting of the TPC was held on
\n30.5.1991 at 1.00p.m., in that meeting, the objection applications
\nwere rejected and the resolutions were passed accordingly. On
\n30.7.1991, the General Meeting of the Nagarpalika was held and vide
\nResolution No. 154 Ex. 49 it was decided to produce the revised plan
\nafter necessary modification by the TPC. On 8.8.1991, a request was
\nmade to Nagarpalika to take appropriate action. Thereafter, the
\nmeeting  was called on 29.10.1991.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tSo
\nfar as the complainant is concerned, he was holding the plot bearing
\nS. No. 1684 admeasuring about 1 Hector 8 Are 75 mtr. Out of the said
\nsurvey number,  90 Are and 38 mtr. was belonging to the father of the
\ncomplainant viz. Jethabhai Madhubhai, rest of the field admeasuring
\n90 are and 37 mtr. was belonging to his maternal uncle Kanji Vaghji.
\nIt is further the case that for going to the field bearing S. no.
\n1684, a way was proposed from s. No. 1685 and 1686 in a Plan which
\nwas prepared before about 4 years from 25.10.1991. The said plan was
\naccepted  by the Nagarpalika and it was  implemented. It is alleged
\nthat the accused, who was the then Chairman of the TPC and member of
\nNagarpalika, told the complainant that the objections have been
\nsubmitted and he assured the complainant that he would make the way
\npermanently, after filing the said objection applications, but for
\nthat work, Rs. 1,50,000\/- would be required to be paid. This talk had
\ntaken place before about one month prior to 21.10.1991, as alleged in
\nthe complaint. At that time, the complainant was called at the
\ndispensary of the accused and, as alleged, such talk had taken place.
\nThe deal was ultimately settled at Rs 1.00 lakh.  It was also agreed
\nto make payment of Rs. 1.00 lakh in 2\/3 installments as the
\ncomplainant was not having sufficient arrangement for the same. It is
\nalleged that the accused was often demanding the amount from the
\ncomplainant.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tOn
\n25.10.1991, at about 8.00 or 8.30pm, the accused came to the
\nresidence of the complainant and informed the complainant that his
\nwork was being done and as per the agreement he had not paid the
\namount, that was not proper and told the complainant to make payment
\non that very day otherwise he would spoil his work.  Thereupon, as
\nalleged, the complainant told the accused that it would not be
\npossible for him to make necessary arrangement and therefore, he told
\nthe accused that he would make the payment in installment as early as
\npossible. Thereupon, it is alleged that the accused told  the
\ncomplainant to make payment in installment of Rs. 25,000\/-.
\nThereupon, the complainant told the accused that he would make some
\narrangement by evening and the accused told that he would come to
\nreceive the amount at about 4 or 5 pm on 25.10.1991 and told him to
\nmake arrangement of Rs. 25,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThereafter,
\nthe complaint was filed before PI ACB and panchnama of first part was
\ncompleted and the trap was arranged and the accused was trapped, as
\nstated above, accepting the amount of Rs. 25,000\/-. Thereafter,
\nnecessary second panchmama was also prepared in the presence of
\npanchas and statements of witnesses were recorded and on completion
\nof investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court, which was
\ngiven number as Special (ACB) Case No. 15\/1992.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThereafter,
\nthe charge was framed at Ex. 29 against the appellant. The appellant\n<\/p>\n
– accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIn
\norder to bring the home the charge levelled against the appellant-
\naccused, the prosecution has examined the following  witnesses:\n<\/p>\n
PW-1
\n\tGaneshbhai Jethabhai Ex. 35<\/p>\n
PW-2
\n\tParsottambhai C. Patel Ex. 55<\/p>\n
PW-3
\n\tMahesh Pandha Ex. 53<\/p>\n
PW-4
\n\tPI Parmar,I.O., Ex. 59<\/p>\n
PW-5
\n\tKokilaben W\/o the complainant Ex 70<\/p>\n
PW-6
\n\tNavnitbhai I Patel Ex. 73<\/p>\n
9.\tThe
\nprosecution has also  produced, in all, 31 documentary evidences, as
\nmentioned in the impugned judgment,  before the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThereafter,
\nafter examining the witnesses, further statement of the
\nappellant-accused under sec. 313 of CrPC was recorded in which the
\nappellant-accused has denied the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tAfter
\nconsidering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after
\nhearing the parties, learned Judge vide impugned judgment and order
\ndated 26.5.199 held the appellant – accused guilty to the
\ncharge levelled against him under sec. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention
\nof Corruption Act and convicted and sentenced the appellant accused,
\nas stated above.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tBeing
\naggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of
\nconviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Mehsana,
\nthe present appellant has preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tHeard
\nMr. KB Anandjiwala learned advocate for the appellant and Mr HL Jani
\nlearned APP for the respondent-State.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tMr
\nAnandjiwala has read the charge, oral evidence of the witnesses as
\nwell as the documentary evidence\t and vehemently argued that on the
\nface of the judgment, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
\nlearned Judge has committed grave error and the judgment and order of
\nthe learned Judge is not proper, legal and unwarranted on the facts
\nand circumstances of the case. Mr. Anandjiwala has argued that the
\nlearned Judge has not properly construed and appreciated  the
\nsanction order passed by the Director of Municipality. He has also
\ncontended that such sanction is non-application of mind.  He has also
\ncontended that from the evidence, it appears that the Sanctioning
\nAuthority has not considered all the investigation papers which were
\nplaced before him.  He has also read the papers and vehemently argued
\nthat the statement of the appellant-accused was the part of the
\ninvestigation papers and his statement was recorded by Police
\nInspector soon after the trap. Mr Anandjiwala has further contended
\nthat had it been taken into consideration by the Sanctioning
\nAuthority, he would have not passed the order for prosecution as the
\nsame was disclosing that the amount was towards the sale proceeds of
\nthe shares which the complainant wanted to purchase, and therefore,
\nthe amount was not towards the illegal gratification but the same was
\ntowards the sale proceeds of the sale of shares.  He has further
\ncontended that so far as  doing of business in the share is not
\nprohibited by a public servant.  He submitted that  the present
\nappellant is practicing doctor and, therefore, there is no bar in
\ndoing the business in shares.  He has also contended that the
\nsanction order is against the provisions of law and when it is
\nestablished beyond reasonable doubt that the sanction is given
\nwithout application of mind, then, it is fatal to the prosecution
\ncase. Mr. Anandjiwala, has contended that from the contents of the
\ncomplaint, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
\nreasonable doubt. He has read Ex. 29 charge and argued that it is the
\nallegation of the prosecution that demand was made by the present
\nappellant of Rs. 1,50,000\/-, and later on, it was decided to accept
\nRs. 1 lakh and the present appellant was agreed to accept that
\namount. But, from the oral version of the witness, it is the duty of
\nthe prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.  Mr.
\nAnandjiwala has read the oral evidence of PW-1 Ganeshbhai Jethabhai
\nPanch No. 1, Ex. 35 and vehemently argued that in his evidence it is
\nadmitted by this witness that at 4.00 O’clock, when this witness and
\ncomplainant were sitting in the room, at that time, the present
\nappellant came there and complainant has produced one file and shown
\nit to the present appellant and asked him that what about his work.
\nThen, the present appellant told him that his work will be done.
\nThereafter, the complainant asked the present appellant that what he
\nwill take. Then, in connection of that question, the present
\nappellant had never replied anything. Mr. Ananadjiwala has also
\ncontended, from the oral evidence of this panch witness, who is
\nindependent witness, that through the evidence of this witness also,
\nthe demand is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has also
\ncontended that even from the panchnama also, it is specifically
\nexplained that complainant has asked to the present appellant that
\n“Sir, how much will be taken”, and in reply, the present
\nappellant never said anything in connection of that suggestion asked
\nby the complainant in the presence of panch witness no. 1 and at that
\nevent, the present appellant was looking at the face of complainant
\nand panch no. 1.  He has contended that even from the contents of
\npanchnama, the prosecution has failed to prove that the demand was
\nmade by the present appellant from the complainant. Mr Anandjiwala
\nhas read the oral evidence of PW-3 Mahesh Pandha Panch no. 2, Ex. 53
\nand argued that from the oral evidence of this witness, the demand is
\nnot proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mr Anandjiwala has also argued
\nthat the complainant is not examined by the prosecution due to his
\ndeath. Mr. Anandjiwala has argued that wife of complainant PW-5
\nKokilaben Ex. 70 has been examined by the prosecution, who has
\ndeposed that her husband told her that Mehta Saheb is demanding money
\nof Rs. 25,000\/- but in light of this evidence,  Mr Anandjiwala has
\nread the oral evidence of PW-4 Police Inspector Mr Parmar, I.O., Ex.
\n59 and contended that at para-30, it is admitted by the I.O. that
\nPW-5 Kokilaen has never stated before him that her husband has told
\nher that for the purpose of way of the land, Mehta Saheb is demanding
\nRs. 25,000\/- as bribe amount or illegal gratification. Mr Anandjiwala
\nhas read the explanation which is given in writing by the present
\nappellant during the recording of his statement under sec. 313 of
\nCrPC and contended that it is explained by the present
\nappellant-accused that there were always transactions between the
\npresent appellant and complainant for the purpose of sale and
\npurchase of shares and as per the telephonic talk with the
\ncomplainant, when he called him at his residence for the share of
\nNarmada Cement, that amount was given to him just for the purpose of
\nshares and he was trapped by the Trapping Officer in connection of
\nthe said offence. He has also contended that this is not an
\nexplanation which can be considered that it is made by the appellant
\nafter-thought.  He has argued that prima-facie, when the demand is
\nnot proved beyond reasonable doubt, then the question regarding the
\nacceptance cannot arise. Mr Anandjiwala has also contended that the
\npresent appellant is a municipal councillor and therefore,  is  not
\ncovered within the meaning of public servant. In that view of the
\nmatter, Mr. Anandjiwala has contended that the impugned judgment and
\norder of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge
\ndeserves to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tAs
\nagainst this, learned APP Mr. HL Jani appearing for the State has
\nvehemently argued against the submissions of learned advocate Mr.
\nAnandjiwala for the appellant, and contended that it appears from the
\noral evidence of witnesses that the sanction which was given by the
\nsanctioning authority was given after considering all the
\ninvestigation papers and after applying  mind.  Mr. Jani learned APP
\nhas also contended that when prima facie, it is established beyond
\nreasonable doubt  that the sanction given by the sanctioning
\nauthority, after applying mind, then no question would arise that the
\nsanction is illegal.  Mr. HL Jani learned APP, in reply to the
\ncontention raised by Mr. Anandjiwala that the present appellant is
\nnot a public servant, has contended that as per the provisions of
\nlaw, municipal councillor is covered within the meaning of public
\nservant. As against this, Mr. Ajandjiwala has argued that so far as
\nspecial case under the  Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned,
\nthe remuneration of the present appellant is not proved beyond
\nreasonable doubt. Mr Anandjiwala has also contended that in the
\ndefinition of public servant, municipal councilor cannot be
\nconsidered as a public servant. Mr. Jani learned APP has relied upon
\nthe decision of Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Mustaq
\nAhmed Hasanbhai Mansuri vs. V.C. Trivedi, reported in 2003(1) GLH 572
\nand the decision of this Court in the case of Bharatbhai R.
\nBhavsar vs. Director of Municipalities and others, reported in
\n2008(2) GLH 752. Mr Jani has also read section 73 of the Gujarat
\nMunicipalities Act, 1963, which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
73.
\nCouncillors, etc., to be deemed public servants:- (1) Every
\nmunicipal councillor, officer or servant and every lessee of the levy
\nof any municipal tax, and every servant or other person employed by
\nany such lessee shall be deemed to be a public servant within the
\nmeaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860).\n<\/p>\n
(2)<\/span><\/p>\n
The word “Government” in the definition of “legal
\nremuneration” in section 161 of that Code shall, for purposes
\nof sub-section (1) of this section, be deemed to include a
\nmunicipality.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Jani also relied upon section 482 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal
\nCorporation Act, 1949, which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
482.
\nCouncillors, etc. to be deemed to be public servants.- (1) The
\nCommissioner and the Transport Manager and every councillor and every
\nmember of the Transport Committee who is not a councillor and every
\nmunicipal officer or servant appointed under this Act, and every
\ncontractor or agent for the collection of any municipal tax and every
\nservant or other person employed by any such contractor or agent
\nshall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section
\n21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).\n<\/p>\n
(2)<\/span><\/p>\n
For the purposes of sub-section (1) the words “Government”
\nin the definition of “legal remuneration” in section 161
\nof the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be deemed to include the
\nCorporation.”\n<\/p>\n
16.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Jani has also read sec. 130 and 135 of the BPMC Act, 1949 and section
\n21 of IPC and contended that in light of the provisions of sec. 73 of
\nthe Gujarat Municipalities Act, the ingredients of sec. 21 of IPC is
\nalso considered and present municipal councillors, who are getting
\nhonorarium from the Local Bodies, like, Nagarpalika or Municipal
\nCorporation, it can be considered that they are getting legal
\nremuneration. Mr. Jani has also contended that the complainant is not
\nexamined but  panch no. 1 is examined and money was given to the
\nappellant-accused and when acceptance is  proved, the demand is
\nfollowed by the acceptance. Proof of Notes in panchnama is also
\ntallied. Panch No. 2 has also supported the case of the prosecution
\nand complaint is also exhibited. He has contended that the present
\nappellant has misused his position of public servant and that issue
\nis also not challenged by the present appellant. He has also
\ncontended that as per the judgment of the Division Bench of this
\nCourt, when the complainant and panch turned hostile, even though the
\noral evidence of Panch no. 2 and Trapping Officer are required to be
\nconsidered and circumstantial evidence is also required to be
\nconsidered. The Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported
\nin GLR 1996(3) 620, while  considering the said question, has
\nquashed and set aside the acquittal and appellant of that case was
\nconvicted.  In that view of the matter, Mr. Jani has contended that
\nthe impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by
\nthe learned Special Judge is just,  proper and legal, the same
\ndeserves to be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tI
\nhave gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence produced
\non the record. I have read the oral evidence of prosecution witness
\nand also perused the charge framed against the appellant. From the
\nevidence of the case is concerned, it is true that in this case, the
\ncomplainant is not examined by the prosecution but it is the say of
\nthe learned APP that the oral evidence of panch is required to be
\nconsidered in the light of the complaint given by the complainant. In
\nthe present case, I have perused the contents of the complaint and
\nconsidered the same. It is established beyond reasonable doubt that
\nat the event when the present appellant came into the room and took
\nplace on the sofa in the presence of panch and when complainant had
\nasked to the appellant that how much to be paid, to which, appellant
\nhad never said anything and it is also proved that in the presence of
\npanch, no demand was made by the present appellant from the
\ncomplainant. I have  perused the contents of panchnama and from the
\ncontents of panchnama, it appears that no demand is made by the
\npresent appellant from the complainant. Even panch is also unable to
\nsay that the appellant has made demand for illegal gratification. The
\nprobable defence is established by the present appellant beyond
\nreasonable doubt. In the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
\ncase of  Banarsi Das vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2010 SC
\n1589, wherein, Hon’ble  Supreme Court has observed that mere
\nproof of recovery of bribe money from accused not sufficient to prove
\nthe offence. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary
\nevidence produced before me. It is also proved beyond reasonable
\ndoubt that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand which is
\nalleged to have been made by the present appellant-accused. It is
\ntrue that the trap amount  was recovered from the possession of the
\npresent appellant, but the defence made by the appellant is required
\nto be considered whether it is a probable defence or not. The
\nappellant-accused in his statement recorded under section 313 of
\nCrPC,  has explained that the complainant is a regular visitor and
\nthere was some business transactions of sale and purchase of shares
\nand from the oral evidence of wife of the complainant also, it is
\nproved  beyond reasonable doubt that the probable defence made by the
\nappellant is required to be considered and accepted.  In that view of
\nthe matter, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not proved
\nthe demand which is alleged to have been made by the present
\nappellant and when the demand is not proved beyond reasonable doubt,
\nthen simply acceptance is not sufficient to convict the appellant. I
\nhave also perused the meaning of criminal misconduct of public
\nservant. It is true that the appellant is a public servant, yet,
\nlooking to the evidence produced before this Court, I am of the
\nopinion that the defence  made by the present appellant in his
\nstatement recorded under section 313 of CrPC cannot be said to be
\nmade an afterthought.  In that view of the matter, I am of the
\nopinion that impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence
\npassed by the learned Special Judge requires to be quashed and set
\naside.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tIn
\nthe result, this appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment and order
\nof conviction and sentence dated 26.5.1999 passed by the learned
\nSpecial Judge, Mehsana in Special  Case (ACB) No. 15\/1992 is hereby
\nquashed and set aside. Bail bond stands cancelled. R & P to be
\nsent back to the trial court forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
[Z.K.SAIYED,
\nJ.]<\/p>\n
mandora\/<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Dr vs The on 2 August, 2011 Author: Z.K.Saiyed, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/514\/1999 16\/ 16 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 514 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-47792","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr vs The on 2 August, 2011 - 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\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr vs The on 2 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-09T03:20:06+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr vs The on 2 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-09T03:20:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3673,\"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\\\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Dr vs The on 2 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-09T03:20:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr vs The on 2 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Dr vs The on 2 August, 2011 - 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\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr vs The on 2 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-09T03:20:06+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr vs The on 2 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-09T03:20:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011"},"wordCount":3673,"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\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011","name":"Dr vs The on 2 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-09T03:20:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-the-on-2-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr vs The on 2 August, 2011"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/47792","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=47792"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47792\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}