1. The present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the applicant-original accused, who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad dated 02/03/2010 in Criminal Case No. 35/2008 as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate court-learned Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 1, City Civil Court,Ahmedabad dated 14/03/2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 136/2010 by which the learned appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the applicant- original accused confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court.
2. Shri Hemant Raval, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original accused has assailed the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below mainly on the ground that the affected persons were not examined as witnesses and the learned trial Court has relied upon the evidence of only the interested witnesses. When a pointed question was asked to Shri Raval, that which affected persons were not examined, he is not in a position to point out any affected persons. Now so far as the contention on behalf of the applicant that the learned trial Court has relied upon the deposition of the interested witnesses i.e. Police Officers are concerned, it is required to be noted that merely because the witnesses are Police Officers and/or Investigating Officer by that itself it cannot be said that they are interested witnesses. Unless and until it has been pointed out that there was a raid carried out with the some oblique reason and/or Investigating Officers were interested in prosecuting the applicant falsely and/or malafidely then and then only they can be said to be interested witnesses. Shri Raval, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has fairly conceded that it is not the case on behalf of the applicant that those Police Officers whose deposition have been relied upon has falsely implicated the applicant. There are concurrent finding of fact given by both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence holding the applicant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) At. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant is not in a position to point out how the finding of facts given by both the Courts below are perverse and/or contrary to the evidence on record. Even, this Court has also gone through and considered the evidence/deposition of the witnesses and considering the finding given by both the Courts below it appears to the Court that the finding of fact given by both the Courts below are on appreciation of evidence and they are neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record. Under the circumstances, no interference of this Court is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In view of the above, the present Criminal Revision Application fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji