Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Punjabhai Mansurbhai Parmar Kutir ... on 5 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1324 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed YES
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PUNJABHAI MANSURBHAI PARMAR KUTIR UDHYOG OFFICER GRADE-II
================================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 05/06/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section
378(1)(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Rajkot at Gondal (hereinafter referred
to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (A.C.B.) Case No. 17 of
1997 on 11/01/2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has
acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under
Sections 7, 13 (1)(d), 13 (1), (2), (3) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as "the PC Act" for
short). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as the accused as
he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity
and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case
are as under:
2.1] That the accused was working as a Cottage Industry
Officer (Class-II) at District Industry Centre, Rajkot and was a
public servant. That the complainant Dineshbhai Bhimjibhai
Kaneriya wanted to take a loan under the Government Scheme for
Soda filling machine and met the accused on 08/12/1994 and
requested the accused to recommend to the bank to grant a loan
for him and at that time the accused demanded an amount of
illegal gratification of Rs.1,500/- from the complainant and an
amount of Rs.1,000/- was to be paid prior to sanction of loan and
the amount of Rs.500/- to be paid after the loan was sanctioned.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
That the complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal
gratification and hence the complainant went to the ACB Police
Station, Rajkot and filed the complaint under Sections 7, 13(1)(d),
13(1)(2)(3) and 13 (2) of the PC Act, which was registered as
C.R.No. 23/1994 on 08/12/1994. That the Trap Laying Officer
called the panch witnesses and after the demonstration of
anthracene powder was conducted in presence of the panch
witnesses and the complainant and the characteristic of
anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was explained to them, a
trap was arranged and on 08/12/1994 at about 12:20 hrs, the
accused demanded for the amount of illegal gratification in the
presence of the shadow witness in room no. 13 in the Taluka
Panchayat Guest House and accepted the same and after the
predetermined signal was given, the members of the raiding party
came and caught the accused red-handed. The Investigating
Officer recorded the statements of connected witnesses and after
the order of sanction for prosecution was received, a charge sheet
was filed before the Sessions Court, Rajkot, which came to be
registered as Special A.C.B. Case No. 17 of 1997.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
2.2] The accused was duly served with the summons and
the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and after the
procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
was followed, a charge at Exh. 11 was framed against the accused
and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 12,
wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the
entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.3] The prosecution has examined three witnesses and
has produced 15 documentary evidences in support of their case.
2.4] After the learned APP filed the closing pursis at Exh:
64-A the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and after the arguments
of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were
heard, the learned Trial Court by an judgement and order dated
11/01/2008 was pleased to acquit the accused from all the
offences.
3] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the
present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to
law, evidence on record and principles of justice. That the learned
Trial Court has committed an error in holding that the prosecution
has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. That the
prosecution has examined three witnesses and has produced 15
documentary evidences but the evidences have not been
appreciated by the learned trial Court in proper perspective. That
the prosecution has proved that the accused was discharging his
duty as a Cottage Industry Officer (Class-II) at District Industry
Centre, Rajkot and all the evidence regarding the loan of the
complainant have been produced by the prosecution on record.
That the accused had called the complainant to Room No. 13 of
the Taluka Panchayat Guest House and had accepted the tainted
currency notes and the same were recovered from the possession
of the accused but the learned trial Court has erred in not believing
the evidence. That the learned trial Court has misinterpreted some
part of the evidence and as believed the confession of the accused
whereas the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused upto
the hilt. That the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated
the evidence of the panch witness and has given undue
importance to minor omissions and contradictions and has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
committed grave error on record and has discarded the positive
evidence available on record. That the learned trial Court has not
appreciated that there were marked of anthracene powder on the
currency notes and the accused had accepted the amount of bribe.
That when the money was recovered couple with other
circumstances, the learned trial Court ought to have concluded
that the accused had accepted the amount of illegal gratification
from the complainant and in view of the provisions contained in
Section 20 of the PC Act, the learned trial Court ought to have
convicted the accused. That without resorting to the presumption
under Section 20 of the PC Act, the learned trial Court has
acquitted the accused and the prosecution has established the
case beyond reasonable doubts. Moreover, the prosecution has
proved all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery
and hence the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is illegal,
unjust and irrelevant and is required to be quashed and set aside.
That the prosecution has successfully established the case against
the accused beyond reasonable doubts and the learned trial Court
has erred in acquitting the accused and hence the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal must be quashed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
4] Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant-
State and learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval for the respondent.
Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have
reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of
the case.
5] Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court
through the entire evidence of the prosecution and has submitted
that in the evidence produced by the prosecution, the ingredients
of demand, acceptance and the recovery have been proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubts and the complainant has
clearly stated that he had wanted a loan for Soda filing Machine
and had asked the accused to make recommendation to the Bank
and at that time the accused had demanded for the amount of
illegal gratification and had told the complainant to come to Room
No. 13 of the Taluka Panchayat Guest House and give him the
amount of illegal gratification. That the complainant and the
shadow witness went to the Guest House and in the presence of
the shadow witness, the accused had accepted the amount of
illegal gratification and the same was recovered from the
possession of the accused and hence even though the prosecution
has proved by oral and documentary evidence all the ingredients
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
of demand, acceptance and recovery, the learned trial Court has
erred in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and
hence learned APP has urged this Court to allow the appeal and
set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and find
the respondent guilty for the said offences.
6] Learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval for the respondent
has submitted that there is a definite improvement in the
deposition of the complainant and in the complaint, the
complainant has stated that the amount of Rs.1500/- was
demanded and after bargaining, the amount was fixed at
Rs.1,000/- whereas in his deposition before the learned trial Court,
the complainant has stated that the demand was for Rs.2,000/-
and he had given the amount of Rs.1,000/- to the accused and had
promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,000/- when he
would come to the Guest House on Thursday. That, if the
complainant had paid the amount of Rs.1,000/- to the accused, he
has not mentioned the said fact in the complaint and has thereafter
in his deposition, made the improvement in the facts of the case.
Moreover, the complainant has stated that he had given ten
currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each to the Trap
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
Laying Officer whereas the panch witness has stated that the
complainant had given six currency notes of the denomination of
Rs.100/- each to the Trap Laying Officer and the remaining amount
of Rs.400/- which were four currency notes of the denomination of
Rs.100/- each was paid from the government money by the Trap
Laying Officer.
6.1] Learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval further submits that
in the instance present case, the Trap Laying Officer, Police
Inspector Mr. Vasantbhai Nagnath Satput is the office in whose
presence the complaint was registered and he had arranged for
the trap and had thereafter taken over the investigation and
recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and made
necessary correspondence for receiving the order of sanction for
prosecution and had thereafter filed the charge-sheet before the
competent Court. That the Trap Laying Officer has done all the
procedure right from registering of the complaint till filing of the
charge sheet and there is a doubt cast on the credibility of the Trap
Laying Officer. Learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval further submits
that the learned trial Court has rightly passed the judgment and
order of acquittal and hence no interference is required in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
impugned judgment and order of acquittal and the appeal of the
appellant must be rejected.
6.2] Learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval for the respondent
has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of
Jashwantsinh Udesinh Parmar Versus State of Gujarat passed
in Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2000, wherein, this Court in para 27
has observed as under:
"27. Moreover, one more disturbing feature is
emerging out from the evidence available on record.
Mr. Joshi, Police Inspector has assumed all roles
right from the stage of recording complaint, arranging
for the trap as well as members of raiding party,
carrying out investigation and he himself lodged the
complaint before himself. This course of action go
against the basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence and
fair investigation. The credibility of the case of
prosecution becomes suspicious on this count only,
in the present facts of the case, the status of
investigating officer could not be placed on any
pedestal higher than of a complainant and the
complainant himself cannot be the sole agency of
investigation. There should be no occasion to
suspect fair and impartial investigation. The said view
is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of "Bhagwan Singh vs. State of
Rajastha", reported in AIR 1976 SC 985, followed by
this Court in the case of "Kanubhai Kantibhai Patel
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
vs. State of Gujarat" reported in 1998 (1) GLH 924.
Therefore, in this case, the prosecution case suffers
from the aforesaid basic infirmity which itself is
sufficient to vitiate the whole investigation and
accordingly the whole proceedings based on such
investigation deserves to be quashed and set aside
on this count only."
6.3] Learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval for the respondent
has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Darshan
Singh Versus State of Punjab, reported in 2024(0) AIJEL-SC-
72964, wherein, the Apex Court in para 26 has observed as
under:-
26. If the PWs had failed to mention in their
statements u/s 161 CrPC about the involvement of
an accused, their subsequent statement before court
during trial regarding involvement of that particular
accused cannot be relied upon. Prosecution cannot
seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness
which such witness had not stated to police during
investigation. The evidence of that witness regarding
the said improved fact is of no significance. [See : (i)
Rohtash Vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589 (ii)
Sunil Kumar Shambhu Dayal Gupta Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2011 (72) ACC 699 (SC). (iii)
Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur Vs. State of Karnataka,
(2004) 7 SCC 422 (iv) Vimal Suresh Kamble Vs.
Chaluverapinake, (2003) 3 SCC 175]"
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
7] Before adverting to the facts of the case on hand, it
would be apt to refer to the scope of the appellate courts in
acquittal appeals and the Honourable Apex Court in Criminal
Appeal No.1167 of 2018 in the case of Ballu @ Balram @
Balmukund and Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh in para
Nos. 8 and 9 has observed thus:-
8. It is settled law that the suspicion, however
strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof
beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be
convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how
strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent
unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
9. Apart from that, it is to be noted that the
present case is a case of reversal of acquittal. The
law with regard to interference by the Appellate
Court is very well crystallized. Unless the finding of
acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible,
interference with the same would not be warranted.
Though, there are a catena of judgments on the
issue, we will only refer to two judgments which the
High Court itself has reproduced in the impugned
judgment, which are as reproduced below:
"13. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of
U.P. (2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court has held
that:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
"In an appeal against acquittal where the
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is
reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with
the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of
fact and !aw. However, we believe that the
paramount consideration of the Court is to do
substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice
which can arise by acquitting the accused who is
guilty of an offence.
A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the
acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the
conviction of an innocent. Appellate Court, while
enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of
powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against
acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review
and relook the entire evidence on which the order of
acquittal is founded."
7.1] The Honourable Apex Court in the case of Neeraj
Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 0
Supreme (SC) 1248, has observed in Para No. 68 as under:
"68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as
under:
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
(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.
(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.
(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 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
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 intern 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.
(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 whether the fact of demand
has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal
by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal
presumption stands.
(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.
(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.
(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."
8] In view of the above settled principles of law in acquittal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
appeals and more particularly in cases under the PC Act as settled
by the Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Datta (Supra), the
evidence produced by the prosecution is minutely dissected and to
bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has
examined Prosecution Witness No. 1 - Dineshbhai Bhimjibhai
Kaneria at Exh: 44. The witness is the complainant, who has
stated that he had gone and met the accused at Cottage Industry
in Rajkot as he wanted a loan for a machine for cold drink and at
that time the complainant got up from his chair and had come to
the ground floor of the office and demanded an amount of
Rs.2000/- from him. That at that time he gave Rs.1000 to the
accused and he told the accused that he would pay the remaining
amount at Government Guest House, Gondal. That when he met
the accused at Government Guest House, the accused had given
him one form and a list of documents and at that time he told the
accused that he had six documents out of the required seven
documents but he could not produce the quotation and the
accused had told him that he would arrange for the quotation. That
he had gone to ACB Police Station, Rajkot and filed the complaint
which is produced at at Exh: 45. The complainant has thereafter
stated that he had given 10 currency notes of the denomination of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
Rs.100/- each to the Trap Laying Officer and necessary
instructions were given and thereafter they had gone to
Government Guest House. That after some time the accused
came on a blue coloured Vespa Scooter and parked the scooter
and went into Room No. 13 and hence he and the panch witness
went to Room No. 13. That the accused recognized him and asked
him whether he had brought the amount of Rs.1000/-. That as
panch No. 1 was with the complainant, the accused asked about
the identity of the panch no. 1 wherein the complainant stated that
he was his friend and he wanted a loan and the accused
discussed the details about the loan with the panch witness. That
the complainant gave the form and the tainted currency notes to
the accused who counted the same and placed in his left side
pocket. That the complainant went out and gave the predetermined
signal and the members of the raiding party came and caught the
accused red handed.
8.1] During the cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, this witness has stated that he had tried to get
quotation for the machine for cold drink but as the person giving
the quotation was demanding for money, he did not get the
quotation. An amount of Rs.1,000/- was demanded as a deposit for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
quotation and he had required one quotation but he was not ready
to pay the amount Rs.1000/- and had a verbal altercation with the
person who was giving the quotation. That he had told the accused
that he had a verbal altercation with the person who was giving the
quotation and hence the accused had told him that he would
arrange for the quotation but an amount of Rs.1000/- would have
to be paid for the quotation. That the complainant had stated the
he would give the amount when he would bring the form and the
amount of Rs.1000/- that was demanded by the accused was for
the quotation. That when he went into Room No. 13 along with the
panch witness and gave papers to the accused, the accused saw
the papers and stated that the quotation was not with the papers
and the complainant told the accused that the accused had to
arrange for the quotation and the hence accused had demanded
for the amount of Rs.1000/-.
8.2] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness
No. 2 Lalubhai Govindbhai Dagar at Exh: 55 and the witness is the
panch witness who has supported the case of the prosecution and
has stated that he had gone to the ACB office along with
Mahendrasingh Jadeja and had met the complainant and the ACB
Officials. At that time the complainant gave six currency notes of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
the denomination of Rs.100/- each and Rajput Saheb gave four
currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each from the
government treasury and the demonstration of the anthracene
powder and ultraviolet lamp was done in their presence and the
characteristic of the anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was
explained to them. That the currency notes were smeared with
anthracene powder and placed in the left side pocket of the T Shirt
of the complainant and necessary instructions were given to the
panch witnesses as well as the complainant. That they had gone to
the rest house compound and around 12:10 in the afternoon, the
accused came on a Vespa Scooter and went into Room No. 13.
That he and the complainant went into the Room No. 13 and the
complainant gave the loan papers to the accused and told the
accused that the quotation was remaining and the accused had
told the complainant that he would arrange for the quotation. That
the accused saw the papers and placed them in his attache and
thereafter demanded the amount of Rs.1000, which was taken with
his right hand by the complainant from the left pocket of his T Shirt
and gave it to the accused who took it with his left hand and
counted it with his both hands and placed it in his left pant pocket.
That the panch witness had a conversation with the accused about
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
the loan to be taken and at that time the complainant went out and
gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding
party came and caught the accused red-handed.
8.3] During the cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, the witness has stated that when they went into
the room No. 13, the accused had asked the complainant whether
all the documents are complete and the complainant had stated
that the loan form and the seven documents are there and the
accused verified the documents and stated that the quotation is
not with the papers. That the complainant told the accused that he
had to arrange for the quotation and hence the accused had
demanded for the amount.
8.4] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness
No. 3 Vasantbhai Nagnath Satpute at Exh: 59 and this witness is
the Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, who has recorded the
complaint of the complainant in his presence and has thereafter
called the panch witnesses and arranged for the trap. The witness
has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has described
in great detail about all the events that had unfolded and has
stated that after the trap was successful, the FIR was registered
and he had himself taken over the investigation. That he had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
recorded the statement of the connected witnesses and had
prepared a draft sanction for the prosecution and sent it to the
Head Officer through the ACB Office and after the order of
sanction for prosecution was received, the charge sheet came to
be filed against the accused before the Sessions Court. Rajkot.
The witness has produced all necessary documents and during the
cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that he has not investigated as to what
procedure was to be done by the accused for arranging for the
quotation. That he has not recorded the statements of any persons
regarding this issue and the complainant had tried to arrange for
the quotation but he has not investigated as to why the
complainant could not arrange for the quotation. That the
complainant had to arrange for the quotation for the machinery to
get the loan and the complainant had given six currency notes of
the denomination of Rs.100/- each and four currency notes of the
denomination of Rs.100/- each were taken from the Trap money of
the office.
9] The defense of the accused is mainly that there was no
demand of any illegal gratification but the complainant wanted a
loan for machine of cold drink and he had approached the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
and along with the form, the quotation had to be submitted. In the
evidence, it is on record that the complainant had a verbal
altercation with the person giving the quotation and the person was
demanding an amount of Rs.1000/- for the quotation. That at the
time of the trap, when the complainant and the panch witness went
into Room No. 13 in the Gram Panchayat Guest House, the
complainant had taken the form and the other documents, but the
complainant did not give the quotation and the accused had asked
the complainant for the quotation. At that time the complainant told
the accused to make arrangements for the quotation and the
amount of Rs.1000/- was demanded for the quotation. That this
version is supported by the panch witness also and the defense of
the accused is probablized. Moreover, there is no clear evidence
of any demand of illegal gratification in the evidence of the
complainant and the complainant has stated that he had given
Rs.1000/- to the accused but the said fact is not reflected in the
complaint. That if the complainant had, in fact, given an amount of
illegal gratification of Rs.1000/- to the accused, when he had met
the accused for the loan, he would have mentioned the said fact in
the complaint itself. That the complainant has made improvements
in his statements and cannot be said to be reliable and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
improvements in deposition of the complainant decreases the
credibility of the witness. Moreover, Prosecution Witness No. 3
Vasantbhai Nagnath Satpute is the officer who has undertaken
the entire procedure right from registering the complaint, making
entry in the station diary, arranging for the trap, recording the
statement of the witnesses, drawing the panchnama and making
necessary correspondence for the order of sanction for
prosecution from the competent authority and thereafter filing the
charge sheet before the learned Sessions Court and as the same
person has assumed all the roles, this goes against the basic
tenets of criminal jurisprudence and casts a shadow of doubt on
the credibility of the witness. As per the judgment of this Court in
cases of Jashwantsinh Udesinh Parmar (Supra) as well as
Darshan Singh (Supra) , the status of investigating officer could
not be placed on any pedestal higher than that of a complainant
and the complainant himself cannot be the sole agency of
investigation and the prosecution case suffers from the aforesaid
basic infirmities.
10] On minute dissection of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the infirmities in the evidence has come on record
and the learned trial Court has discussed the entire evidence of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
the prosecution in detail and has concluded that there is no reliable
evidence to support the case of the prosecution and the
prosecution has miserably failed to establish the offence against
the accused. It is settled law that unless and until, the evidence is
clear, cogent and reliable, no conviction can be recorded and on re
appreciating the entire evidence, the evidence is contrary and far
from convincing. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of
Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund (Supra) , the scope of the
appellate Court to interfere in the findings of acquittal is limited and
unless and until some perversity and illegality is found in the
judgment and the order of trial Court, the appellate Court will
interfere only to ensure that no miscarriage of justice has occurred.
In the present case, there is no iota of evidence that the accused
had made any demand for illegal gratification and that the accused
had accepted any amount of illegal gratification and the reasons
assigned by the trial Court in the impugned judgment and order
are just and proper. This Court has perused the findings of the trial
Court and has found that the trial Court has appreciated all the
evidence and has given proper reasons for acquitting the accused
and there is no perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by
the trial Court. This court is in complete agreement with the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1324/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2024
undefined
findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal
recorded by the Trial Court and finds no reason to interfere with
the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court.
11] In view of the above discussions, the present appeal is
devoid of merits and resultantly the same is dismissed. The
impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned
Special Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Rajkot at Gondal in Special
(A.C.B.) Case No. 17 of 1997 on 11/01/2008 is hereby confirmed.
12] Bail bond stands canceled. Record and proceedings be
sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
