Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Samsuddin Husainmiya Shaikh on 6 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2979 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SAMSUDDIN HUSAINMIYA SHAIKH & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEET THAKKAR, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 06/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the State under Section-378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 30.08.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Special ACB Case No.01 of 2001. By way of the impugned judgment and order, the Accused have been acquitted of all Page 1 of 20 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined the charges levelled against them under Sections-7, 12, 13(1)
(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Corruption Act").
2. The short facts emerging from the record, reads as under:-
2.1. The accused no.1 herein was serving as a Deputy Mamlatdar, and accused no.2 herein was serving as a Clerk, Civil Supply Department. Mother of complainant Shri Mansukhbhai Shankarlal Raval having license for selling and stocking about 3000 to 4000 liters kerosene. However, the business was run by the complainant due to old-age of his mother, following the rules and regulations.
2.2. It is the case of the prosecution that every month a meeting calling all license holder held by the accused persons, and after meeting, the accused persons demand money from all the license holders for the work which was coming under the duty of the accused persons and if any license holders did not pay money, the accused harassed them. Hence, the complainant used to pay money to the accused persons every month since 1984. Gradually, the accused persons increased Page 2 of 20 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined the amount and the complainant was paying of Rs.300/- to the accused no.1, and Rs.100/- to the accused no.2. The complainant did not want to pay bribe amount to accused persons, so, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ahmedabad and filed a complaint with Police Inspector, ACB, Ahmedabad.
2.3. After verifying the correctness of the said complaint, the Police Inspector called two panchas and explained about the trap which will be done by him. For the purpose of trap, the Police Inspector, ACB collected Rs.500/-, five notes each of Rs.100/-, for giving the same in the trap when the demand will be made.
2.4. Thereafter, all of them were explained the use and characteristics of Antharacene powder and experiment of Antharacene powder was made. Thereafter, notes of Rs.500/-
treated with the Antharacene powder were put in the left- hand side pocket of the shirt of complainant with the instruction that unless and until demanded, he should not touch the currency notes. Panch witness no.1 was instructed to accompany the complainant and watch, hear and see what transpires between the complainant and the accused. The Page 3 of 20 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined complainant was instructed that if accused asks any amount, then only he was to pay and when the notes were accepted he must give a signal to the members of raiding party. Accordingly, first part of the Panchnama was prepared in presence of panchas.
2.5. Thereafter, panchas, complainant alongwith the members of raiding party proceeded towards the Mamlatdar Office. The complainant and Panch no.1 went to the Mamlatdar office via Viramgam Bus stand to Golvadi Darwaja by walking, and Panch No.2 and raiding staff were also went the Mamlatdar office and sitting outside in the gallery. Thereafter, the complainant went into the cabin and asked to the accused no.1 'where should he put the money.' The accused no.1 asked him to put it into the drawer of his table. Hence, the complainant took out tainted currency notes of Rs.300/-, each of Rs.100/- denomination, smeared with Antharacene powder from the left side pocket of his shirt and put the same into the drawer of table of the accused, and thereafter, the complainant gave Rs.100/- to the accused no.1 who accepted the same with his right hand and put into the left pocket of his shirt.
Page 4 of 20 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined 2.6. Thereafter, the complainant gave a fixed signal to the raiding party and upon getting the signal, the raiding party came to scene of the incident. The bribe amount of currency notes which were smeared with Antharacene powder were recovered from the conscious possession of the accused and necessary procedures were followed. The raiding party obtained signatures of the panch witnesses and issued seizure memo to the accused respondents.
2.7. After due completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused persons, filed charge-sheet against the them before the Special Court, Ahmedabad and upon production of the accused persons and after verifying the receipt of all the necessary police papers by the accused persons, the charges were framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13 (2) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2.8. The accused persons were also explained and read over charges to which they denied their involvement in the offence and pleaded to be tried. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Trial Court for its final disposal. Upon filing of closing pursis, in further statement under Section 313 of the Code of Page 5 of 20 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined Criminal Procedure also, the accused denied the charges in toto.
3. The prosecution led following oral and documentary evidences in support of it's case and to bring home the charges against Accused.
Oral Evidences of Prosecution Sr. No. Name and Particulars Exh.
1. Deposition of Mansukhlal Shankarlal 23
Raval 2. Deposition of panch witness Pravibhai 37 Chandubhai 3. Deposition of Police Inspector 48 Shankarbhai Khatubhai 4. Deposition of approver Katikithal 62 Shrinivas 5. Deposition of Police Inspector Examiner 66 Kerman Khursid Maisurwala Documentary Evidences Sr.No. Document Particulars Exh.
1. Original Complaint 24 2. Panchnama 38 3. Office copy of receipt of items taken in 42
custody from accused no.1 4. Office copy of receipt of items taken in 44 custody from complainant 5. Office copy of receipt of items taken in 46 custody from accused no.2 6. Permission letter to prosecute against 63 accused 3.1. After conducting the Trial and appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court has found that prosecution has Page 6 of 20 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined failed to establish the case and not able to prove the charges beyond doubt, thereby acquitted the Accused from all the charges levelled against them.
4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Meet Thakkar for Appellant - State.
4.1. Learned APP has taken me through various oral as well as documentary evidence, which are on record of the case. I have also independently examined and re-appreciated evidence of witnesses examined by prosecution. 4.2. Learned APP would submit that the findings of acquittal are contrary to law and evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court are erroneous and based on irrelevant material.
4.3. Learned APP would submit that prosecution has established the guilt of accused as complainant and Panch witnesses have clearly deposed that accused had demanded and accepted bribe from complainant during the course of trap thereby, Trial Court required to have convicted accused. 4.4. Learned APP would further submit that since inception, Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined complainant has maintained the fact that there was a rampant corruption going on in the office of the accused and every month all license holders of kerosene were required to pay bribe money to the officer including accused of the concerned Mamlatdar Office through Precedent of their License Holder Association.
4.5. It is submitted that once such serious allegation of demanding and accepting the bribe are proved on record, Trial Court ought not to have drawn undue inference and unwarranted observation contrary to record. Learned APP would further submit that merely because complainant was not a license holder, but, his mother was undisputedly license holder of selling kerosene, his evidence cannot be brush aside on such aspect of the matter.
4.6. So, making the aforesaid submissions, learned APP would request this Court to allow the present appeal.
5. Before dealing with merit of the appeal, at this stage, I would first like to remind myself the position of law propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its various decisions, whereby it has laid down several criteria while Page 8 of 20 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined deciding acquittal appeal especially in Anti-Corruption cases. 5.1. It would be apt to refer and rely upon the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case of Neeraj Dutta V/s. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731 wherein it held as under.
"88.What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
88.1 (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the Accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.
88.2 (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
88.3 (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
88.4 (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant Page 9 of 20 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and inturn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.5 (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the Accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. 88.6 (f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the Accused public servant. 88.7 (g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.8 (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature."
(emphasis supplied)"
5.2. It would be also appropriate to refer and rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mallappa and Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544 wherein scope of acquittal is succinctly Page 11 of 20 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined discussed and elaborated held thus:-
"24. We may firstly discuss the position of law regarding the scope of intervention in a criminal appeal. For, that is the foundation of this challenge. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the Accused, unless proven guilty. The presumption continues at all stages of the trial and finally culminates into a fact when the case ends in acquittal. The presumption of innocence gets concretized when the case ends in acquittal. It is so because once the Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, finds that the Accused was not guilty, the presumption gets strengthened and a higher threshold is expected to rebut the same in appeal."
"25. No doubt, an order of acquittal is open to appeal and there is no quarrel about that. It is also beyond doubt that in the exercise of appellate powers, there is no inhibition on the High Court to re-appreciate or re- visit the evidence on record. However, the power of the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence is a qualified power, especially when the order under challenge is of acquittal. The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the Trial Court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence. The second point for consideration is whether the finding of the Trial Court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact. If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a fairly possible view. A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion. What is required is an illegality or perversity."
"26. It may be noted that the possibility of two views in a criminal case is not an extraordinary phenomenon. The 'two-views theory' has been judicially recognized by the Courts and it comes into play when the appreciation of evidence results into two equally plausible views. However, the controversy is to be resolved in favour of Page 12 of 20 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined the Accused. For, the very existence of an equally plausible view in favour of innocence of the Accused is in itself a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it reinforces the presumption of innocence. And therefore, when two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the Accused is the safest course of action. Furthermore, it is also settled that if the view of the Trial Court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for the High Court to convict the Accused by reappreciating the evidence. If such a course is permissible, it would make it practically impossible to settle the rights and liabilities in the eyes of law. In Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka, 2015 10 SCC 230 "13. Considering the reasons given by the trial court and on appraisal of the evidence, in our considered view, the view taken by the trial court was a possible one. Thus, the High Court should not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal. This Court in Jagan M. Seshadri v. State of T.N., 2002 9 SCC 639 has laid down that as the appreciation of evidence made by the trial court while recording the acquittal is a reasonable view, it is not permissible to interfere in appeal. The duty of the High Court while reversing the acquittal has been dealt with by this Court, thus:
"9. We are constrained to observe that the High Court was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. It was required to deal with various grounds on which acquittal had been based and to dispel those grounds. It has not done so. Salutary principles while dealing with appeal against acquittal have been overlooked by the High Court. If the appreciation of evidence by the trial court did not suffer from any flaw, as indeed none has been pointed out in the impugned judgment, the order of acquittal could not have been set aside. The view taken by the learned trial court was a reasonable view and even if by any stretch of imagination, it could be said that another view was possible, that was not a ground sound enough to set aside an order of acquittal.""Page 13 of 20 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined (emphasis supplied) In Sanjeev v. State of H.P., 2022 6 SCC 294 the Hon'ble Supreme Court analyzed the relevant decisions and summarized the approach of the appellate Court while deciding an appeal from the order of acquittal. It observed thus:
"7. It is well settled that:
7.1. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the reasons which had weighed with the trial court in acquitting the Accused must be dealt with, in case the appellate court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the trial court deserves to be upturned (see Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka, 2019 5 SCC 436 Anwar Ali v. State of H.P., 2020 10 SCC 166) 7.2. With an order of acquittal by the trial court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced (see Atley v. State of U.P., 1955 AIR(SC) 807) 7.3. If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal (see Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, 1998 5 SCC 412)"
(emphasis supplied)"
5.3. The law on the issue germane in the present appeal has also been succinctly discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its recent judgment in the case of State of Lokayuktha Police, Devanagere V/s. C. B. Nagaraj (supra), wherein held as under:
"25. It is pertinent to note that till 05.02.2007, when the Respondent had conducted the physical/spot inspection, Page 14 of 20 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined there is not even a whisper of there being any demand of bribe. Moreover, when the Complainant went back to the Respondent's office at 5:30 PM with the money, the prosecution case itself as per the deposition of its witnesses makes it clear that the Respondent had informed the Complainant that he had already forwarded the concerned file. Thus, if the same is accepted, there was no occasion for the Complainant to go ahead with paying the amount, which he claims to be in the nature of bribe demanded by the Respondent, after the work for which the bribe was purportedly sought, had already been done. The observation of the High Court to this extent is correct that just because money changed hands, in cases like the present, it cannot be ipso facto presumed that the same was pursuant to a demand, for the law requires that for conviction under the Act, an entire chain - beginning from demand, acceptance, and recovery has to be completed. In the case at hand, when the initial demand itself is suspicious, even if the two other components - of payment and recovery can be held to have been proved, the chain would not be complete. A penal law has to be strictly construed [Md. Rahim Ali v State of Assam, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695 @ Paragraph 45 and Jay Kishan v State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 296 @ Paragraph 24]. While we will advert to the presumption under Section 20 of the Act hereinafter, there is no cavil that while a reverse onus under specific statute can be placed on an Accused, even then, there cannot be a presumption which casts an uncalled for onus on the Accused. Chandrasha (supra) would not apply as demand has not been proven. In Paritala Sudhakar v State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1072, it was stated thus:
21. As far as the submission of the State is that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, as it then was, would operate against the Appellant is concerned, our analysis supra would indicate that the factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of animus between the Appellant and complainant, is not proved. In such circumstances, the presumption Page 15 of 20 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined under Section 20 of the Act would not militate against the Appellant, in terms of the pronouncement in Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 250:
22. In view of the aforementioned discrepancies in the prosecution case, we are of the opinion that the defence story set up by the appellant cannot be said to be wholly improbable. Furthermore, it is not a case where the burden of proof was on the Accused in terms of Section 20 of the Act. Even otherwise, where demand has not been proved, Section 20 will also have no application. (Union of India v.
Purnandu Biswas [(2005) 12 SCC 576: (2005) 8 Scale 246] and T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401: (2006) 1 Scale 116])"
5.4. Thus, it is now a well-settled legal position of law that a heavy burden is cast upon the prosecution to prove that the Accused persons have demanded and accepted the bribe, and the same would have to be recovered from Accused. In a case where any of these ingredients are missing, the charges levelled against Accused under Section 7 read with Section 13 would not be attracted.
6. After reexamining and re-appreciating evidence on record, following glaring facts emerge from evidence led by prosecution need to be considered:-
i. It has been deposed and admitted by complainant in his oral evidence that at the time of trap, when he along with Page 16 of 20 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined Panch No.1 went inside office of the accused, he put bribe money in the drawer of the table of the accused no.1 as other persons were doing it. There is no whisper in his evidence that at the time of such trap, accused no.1 has demanded any money as bribe from him.
ii. So far as case of accused no.2 is concerned, complainant has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that Rs.100/- received by accused no.2 was as such required to be paid to him as per the instruction given by his elder brother as Rs.100/- was due by his elder brother to accused no.2.
iii. It has further not come on record that accused no.1 has actually received any amount from complainant in presence of panch witness (PW-2). The recovery of Rs.300/- from the drawer of the accused no.1 as referred to hereinabove was due to volunteer act on the part of the complainant to put such money in the drawer of the accused no.1. Rs.100/-
recovered from the accused no.2 was an amount due and payable by elder brother of the complainant which has come on record through cross-examination of complainant.
iv. The evidence of panch witness examined by prosecution Page 17 of 20 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined has also not thrown any more light in relation to demand and acceptance of bribe money by accused. Furthermore, complaint given by complainant was not recorded in presence of Panchas. It appears from reading cross-examination of PW-
2 that even he stated anything different than what has been stated in Panchnama, he might be subjected to departmental proceeding. So, possibility of independentness of giving evidence cannot be ruled out. Trial Court has correctly observed that Panchas were ready to be a part of trap under compulsion thereby their evidence may not be as independent as to be accepted in trial of corruption cases.
v. The prosecution has not examined any other independent witness like any other license holder as their presence were confirmed by complainant in his evidence when actual alleged demand and acceptance of bribe money by accused. Even, no statement of President of Association wherein, the mother of the complainant being member, was recorded by Investigating Officer to confirm the fact about any rampant corruption going on in the concerned Mamlatdar Office.
7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and Page 18 of 20 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined circumstances of the present case, prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that accused have demanded and accepted the money from the complainant as per the charge levelled against them. Once, prosecution has failed to prove these basic ingredients in the case on hand, no fault can be found with the Trial Court when it acquitted accused from charge.
8. Hence, an overall assessment and examination of evidence would suggest that the prosecution has egregiously failed to prove the fact that Accused has demanded a bribe thereby, failed to prove the charges levelled against the Accused. So, after overall assessment of evidence and its re- appreciation as well as reasons assigned by learned Trial Court, I am in complete agreement with view taken by the Trial Court having acquitted the Accused.
9. So, considering these set of evidence on record and in light of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reproduced hereinabove, which deals with the law on acquittal so also issue germane in the appeal, I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by the Trial Court while acquitting the respondent.
Page 19 of 20 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025 undefined
10. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of the trial court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record and proceedings, if called for, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Bhoomi Page 20 of 20 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:42 IST 2025