State Of Gujarat vs Samadmohmed Noormohmed Shaikh
2024 Latest Caselaw 4505 Guj

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Samadmohmed Noormohmed Shaikh on 6 June, 2024

                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




     R/CR.A/791/2008                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

                                                                                              undefined




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 791 of 2008

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO                             Sd/-

================================================================

 1      Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the                 YES
        judgment ?

 2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                                     YES

 3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?          NO

 4      Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the           NO
        interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made
        thereunder ?


================================================================
                        STATE OF GUJARAT
                              Versus
               SAMADMOHMED NOORMOHMED SHAIKH & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO

                                   Date : 06/06/2024

                                  ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under

Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

against the judgment and the order of acquittal in Special

Corruption Case No.7 of 2004 passed by the learned

Special Judge, 2nd Fast Track Judge, Valsad (hereinafter

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') on 31.08.2007,

whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the

respondents - accused from the offences punishable under

Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

P.C.Act'). The respondents are hereinafter referred to as

'the accused' in the rank and file as they stood in the

original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and

brevity.

2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal

are as under:

2.1. That the accused No.1 was working as Armed Police

Constable, Buckle No.103 in the Vapi GIDC Police Station

and was a public servant. That the accused No.2 was a

private person and having an ice-cream stall below the

over bridge, Vapi GIDC Cross Road, (Selvas Road), Vapi.

That the accused No.1 was on duty on 23.03.2004 between

14:00 hours to 22:00 hours at Vapi GIDC Cross Road

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

(Selvas Road) at the traffic point below the over bridge at

Vapi. That the complainant Police Inspector, Mr.

N.B.Koralwala, ACB Police Station Valsad had received

secret information that the police officials of the Traffic

Branch were halting the auto-rickshaws passing by the

cross-road and on the pretext of giving RTO memos were

collecting the amount of Rs.50/- to 100/- as illegal

gratification. That the complainant Police Inspector

Mr.N.B.Koralwala decided to arrange for a decoy trap and

two panch witnesses were called and the panch witnesses

and the members of the ACB Police Station, Valsad went

towards Vapi GIDC Cross-Roads. That they halted auto-

rickshaw No.GJ-15-Y-4885 and the driver of the auto-

rickshaw was Altafbhai Dawoodbhai Shah and the decoy

trap was explained to him and he agreed to cooperate and

act as a decoy. That the demonstration of phenolphthalein

powder and solution of Sodium Carbonate was carried out

in the presence of the panch witnesses and the decoy and

the characteristic of phenolphthalein powder and solution

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

of Sodium Carbonate was explained to them and two

currency notes of the denomination of Rs.50/- each

smeared with phenolphthalein powder and placed in the

shirt pocket of the decoy Altafbhai Dawoodbhai Shah.

Both the panch witnesses and other members of the ACB

Police Station sat in the auto-rickshaw No.GJ-15-Y-4885

and went towards the cross-roads and while they were

crossing the cross-roads, the accused halted the auto-

rickshaw and demanded an amount of Rs.100/- as illegal

gratification. That the decoy Altafbhai Dawoodbhai Shah

took the tainted currency notes with his right hand from

his left side shirt pocket and gave them to the accused.

That the accused told the decoy to give the amount to the

accused No.2, who had an ice cream stall and at that time,

the accused No.2 accepted an amount of Rs.100/- and the

decoy gave the pre-determined signal and the members of

the raiding party came and caught the accused red

handed. That the complainant Police Inspector

Mr.N.B.Koralwala registered a complaint with the ACB

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

Police Station, Valsad under Section 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and

13(2) of the P.C.Act, which was registered at C.R.No.2 of

2004 with Valsad ACB Police Station. That the panchnama

was drawn and the Investigating Officer recorded the

statement of the connected witnesses and after the order of

sanction for prosecution was received, a charge sheet came

to be filed before the Sessions Court, Valsad, which was

registered as Special Corruption Case No.7 of 2004.

2.2. The accused were duly served with the summons and the

accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and after

the due procedure under Section 207 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure was completed, a charge was framed

against the accused at Exh.18 and the statements of the

accused were recorded at Exh.19 and 20 respectively,

wherein, the accused denied the allegations made in the

charge and the evidence of the prosecution was taken on

record.

2.3. The prosecution has filed the following oral as well as

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

documentary evidence to prove the charge against the

accused.

Oral evidence :

1. Dineshbhai Maganbhai Patel Exh.28

2. Altafbhai Dawoodbhai Shah Exh.32

3. Nareshbhai Bhikhabhai Koralwala Exh.34

4. Rajdhar Doratrao Marathe Exh.42

Documentary evidence :

1. Panchnama Exh.29

2. Seizure Memo Exh.30, 31

3. Complaint Exh.34

4. Panchnama of place of offence Exh.43

5. FSL Report Exh.44

6. Sanction Order Exh.45

2.4. That after the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken

on record, the learned APP filed a closing pursis at Exh. 46

and the further statement of the accused under section 313

of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein,

the accused denied all the evidence against him.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

2.5. After the arguments of the learned APP and the learned

advocate for the accused, the learned Trial Court acquitted

the accused for all the offences vide the impugned

judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.08.2007.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and the order of acquittal passed by the learned

Trial Court, the appellant - State has filed the present

appeal mainly contending that the impugned judgment

and order of acquittal is contrary to law and the evidence

on record and the principles of natural justice and hence, is

required to be quashed and set aside. That the impugned

judgment and order of acquittal is based on inferences not

warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not

permitted by law. That the learned Trial Court has not

appreciated that there are direct or indirect evidences

connecting the accused with the crime but the learned

Trial Court has directly come to the conclusion that the

prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable

doubts. That the learned Trial Court has committed error

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

in appreciating the evidence of the witnesses of the

prosecution and in fact, the panch witnesses have clearly

stated that the accused No.1 had demanded the amount of

illegal gratification of Rs.100/- whcih was accepted by the

accsued No.2 on behalf of the accused No.1 and hence,

both the accused are liable for the comission of the

offences. That the tainted currency notes have been found

from the possession of the accsued No.2 and there were no

reasons for the learned Trial Court to disbelieve the

evidence of the panch witnesses. That the defence raised

by the accused that the amount of Rs.100/- was paid

towards the ice-cream has been believed by the learned

Trial Court but the learned Trial Court has committed a

grave error in believing the defence of the accused. That

the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable

doubts and hence, the impugned judgment and order is

illegal and contrary to the evidence on record and against

the settled principles of law and hence, the same deserves

to be quashed and set aside.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga

Jhaveri for the appellant - State. Though served, the

accused have chosen not to appear before this Court.

Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal

and have re-appreciated 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 produced on record of the trial

Court and has vehemently argued that the panch

witnesses and the driver have fully supported the case of

the prosecution. The prosecution has proved all the

ingredients of the demand, acceptance and the recovery of

the tainted currency notes from the accused No.2. That the

learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in

acquitting the accused and hence, the impugned judgment

and order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the

accused must be found guilty for the said offences.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-SC

70625 and the Apex Court has in Para - 88 observed 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 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 e 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

(iii) In both cases of (1) 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 Sections 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 9 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 in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(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 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) Insofar 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

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 Sections 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 sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature."

7. The law with regard to the interference of the Appellate

Court in acquittal appeals is observed by the Apex Court

in the case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Anr. Vs.

The State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal

No.1167 of 2018 and relevant Para-9, as under:

"9. ... ... ....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:-

"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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

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 9 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."

14. Similar, In case of Harljan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat (2016) 12 SCC 665, the Supreme Court has held that:-

"No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the same. However, this does not mean that in all the cases where the trial court has recorded acquittal, the same should not be interfered with, even if the view is perverse. Where the view taken by the trial court is against the weight of evidence on record, or perverse, it is always open far the appellate court to express the right conclusion after reappreciating the evidence If the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt on record, and convict the accused."

8. In view of the settled principles of law in acquittal appeals,

and particularly, in cases filed under the P.C.Act in light of

the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Neeraj

Dutta (Supra), the evidence of the prosecution is required

to be minutely dissected and to bring home the charge

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW-1

Dineshbhai Maganbhai Patel at Exh.28. This witness is the

panch witness, who has stated that on 23.03.2004, he had

gone to the ACB Office along with the other panch witness

Govidbhai Tandel and they went by the Government

Vehicle No.GJ-1-G-3756 to Vapi cross-roads near Pappilon

Hotel, Vapi and they reached Vapi GIDC at about 2:40pm.

That they halted auto-rickshaw No.GJ-15-Y-4885 and the

auto-rickshaw was empty and the driver was Altafbhai

Dawoodbhai Shah. That he was explained about the decoy

trap and he agreed to cooperate and at that time, the Police

Inspector gave two currency notes of the denomination of

Rs.50/- each to the decoy. That the experiment of

phenolphthalein powder and solution of sodium carbonate

was explained in the presence of the panch witnesses and

phenolphthalein powder was applied on the currency

notes and placed in the left side shirt pocket of the driver

of the auto-rickshaw. That the panch witnesses and three

other members of the raiding party sat in the auto-

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

rickshaw, whereas, the witness sat in the front seat with

the driver of the auto-rickshaw and the Police Inspector

and panch witness No.2 and the other two police officials

sat behind. That they left to go towards Vapi GIDC and at

the cross-roads, the traffic police constable blew the

whistle and halted the auto-rickshaw and threatened to

give a traffic memo as there were excess passengers in the

auto-rickshaw. That the driver requested the traffic police

and at that time, the traffic police demanded the amount of

Rs.100/- and the decoy took the tainted currency notes to

give the traffic police but the traffic police told the decoy to

give the money to the ice-cream stall. That the decoy went

and gave the amount to the accused No.2, who accepted

the tainted currency notes and the decoy gave the pre-

determined signal to the members of the raiding party and

the member of the raiding party came and caught both the

accused red handed. That the test was done and the

panchnama was drawn and the seizure memo was

prepared. During the cross-examination by the learned

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that when

they reached Vapi, 2-3 auto-rickshaw were going with full

passengers but the same is not mentioned in the

panchnama. That five persons were seated in the auto-

rickshaw, which had capacity for three passenges and in

the panchnama, it is not mentioned whether the accused

No.1 was on the East side or on the West side of the cross-

road. That the location of the accused No.2 is also not

mentioned in the panchnama and no map of the place of

incident has been prepared. That when the Police

Inspector went to the Traffic Police Constable, he caught

the shirt's collar of the Traffic Police Constable and

brought him to the ice-cream stall and thereafter,

introduced himself. That he does not know that what type

of ice-cream the accused No.2 was selling. That there were

illegal passengers in the auto-rickshaw and if there are

more passengers found in the auto-rickshaw and the said

auto-rickshaw is halted by the traffic police, such act

would not be an illegal act. That during the panchnama,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

the solution of the hand-wash of the traffic constable, ice-

cream sellor or the punter driver have not been seized.

That on the date of the trap at 5:30pm, Police Inspector

Mr.N.B.Koralwala had told both the witnesses to affix their

signatures on the seizure memo and to go home. That they

have not affixed their signatures on the muddmal currency

notes. That the panchnama was dictated by the Police

Inspector Mr.N.B.Koralwala and the other police

personnel was writing the same and as the panchnama

was dictated by the Police Inspector Mr.N.B.Koralwala,

they had affixed their signatures on the panchnama.

8.1. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Altafbhai

Dawoodbhai Shah at Exh.32 and the witness is the decoy,

who has stated that he was driving auto-rickshaw No.GJ-

15-Y-4885 on 23.03.2004 and was going from Pardi to Vapi

and at that time, Police Inspector Mr.N.B.Koralwala met

him near Pappilon Hotel and asked for cooperation and he

consented to cooperate. That Police Inspector

Mr.N.B.Koralwala gave two currency notes of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

denomination of Rs.50/- each and phenolphthalein

powder was applied on said currency notes and the

tainted currency notes were placed in the left side shirt

pocket of the said decoy. That Marathe Sir sat in the auto-

rickshaw and when they reached near Vapi cross-roads,

Samad Mahammad Noor Shaikh met him and demanded

the amount of Rs.100/- and showed the accused No.2 and

told the decoy to give to him the amount. That he gave the

tainted currency notes to the accused No.2 and the witness

gave the pre-determined signal and the officials came and

caught both the accused. That the hand wash of the

accused No.2 was taken and pink colour was shown on his

hands also when his hands were also checked. During the

cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused,

the witness has stated that he did not have a badge

number and without the badge number, he could not

driven the auto-rickshaw. That he had not drive the auto-

rickshaw on 21.03.2004 and 22.03.2004. That the Police

Inspector Mr.N.B.Koralwala was standing near the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

parking of the Pappilon Hotel and he had halted the auto-

rickshaw about 100 ft. away from Police Inspector

Koralwala Sir. That at that time, the traffic was moving on

both the sides of the road. That there were other auto-

rickshaw drivers also. That five persons sat in his auto-

rickshaw and the capacity of his Piaggo rickshaw was of

three passengers. That he did not fix any rent for the auto-

rickshaw and he did put the auto-rickshaw meter down.

That he had not taken any rent from Police Inspector

Koralwala Sir and no rent was given by the Police

Inspector Koralwala Sir. That he knew the accused No.1

for the past two months and he cannot say that where the

ice-cream stall of the accused No.2 was located. That after

the incident, he had stopped driving the auto-rickshaws.

That he does not know the colour of the powder that was

applied. That he does not know from where the powder

was taken from and what was done to the excess powder.

That he cannot say whether pink colour solution was taken

by the officials and after his hand wash, he had gone away

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

from there. That he had affixed his signature but did not

read the papers and the signatures of both the accused

were taken after they were caught. That both of them were

caught by the neck and made to sit in the vehicle. That

after the accused No.2 was caught, his cart was lying there

and he does not know what had happened to the cart or

money in the cart.

8.2. The prosecution has examined PW-3 Nareshbhai

Bhikhabhai Koralwala and the witness is the complainant

and the Trap Laying Officer, who has fully supported the

case and has narrated in detail all the events that had taken

place on 23.03.2004. The witness has stated that he had

received secret information about traffic police collecting

illegal gratification from the auto-rickshaw drivers and

had decided to arrange the decoy trap and has thereafter,

narrated in details all the events that had taken place on

that day till the trap was successful. That after the trap was

successful, he had filed the complaint at ACB Police

Station, Valsad and had handed over the muddamal to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

writer and further investigation to Police Inspector

Mr.R.D.Marathe. During the cross-examination by the

learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated

that the panchnama does not mention what action has to

be done for the pre-determinated signal and at the time of

the decoy trap, no test was done on the hands of the auto-

rickshaw driver. That the panchnama does not mention

what steps were taken for the cart of the accused No.2 and

no map of the place of trap was prepared. That no

independent witnesses were shown in this case and even

though, the independent witnesses besides the panch

witnesses were available their evidence have not been

taken.

8.3. The prosecution has examined PW-4 Rajdhar Dolatrao

Marathe at Exh.42 and this witness is the Investigating

Officer, who has stated that after the trap was successful,

he has taken over the investigation and had drawn the

necessary arrest panchnama and arrested both the

accused. That he had recorded the statements of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

connected witnesses, collected the necessary documents

and sent the papers to the Superintendent of Police, Valsad

for the order of sanction for prosecution. That after the

order of sanction for prosecution was received, a charge

sheet was filed before the Sessions Court, Valsad on

03.09.2004. During the cross-examination by the learned

advocate for the accused, the witnesses has stated that no

note was made prior to going for the decoy trap and no

note was made about the trap money being taken from the

Government expenses. That the order of sanction for

prosecution produced at Exh.45 states that it is a draft

order in the heading.

9. On minutely dissecting the entire evidence of the

prosecution, no clear demand of illegal gratification has

been established in the evidence of the prosecution. The

decoy PW-2 Altafbhai Dawoodbhai Shah has not stated

that the accused No.1 had demanded the amount of illegal

gratification from him and the PW-1 Dineshbhai

Maganbhai Patel has not stated that the demand of illegal

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

gratification was made. It is on record that there were five

passengers in the auto-rickshaw though its carrying

capacity is three passengers and it appears that the

accused No.1, who was the traffic constable, had halted the

auto-rickshaw and if the accused No.1 had demanded the

amount of illegal gratification, he would have immediately

taken the tainted currency notes and placed them in his

pocket. It is also on record that the punter driver alone

went to the ice-cream stall of the accused No.2, which was

at a distance of 100 ft. from the place where the auto-

rickshaw was parked. In the entire evidence produced by

the prosecution, there is no clear evidence whether the

demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and solution of

sodium carbonate was done and admittedly, the complaint

was filed after the trap was successful. It also appears that

the complaint and the panchnama do not bear the names

of the police officials who were seated in the auto-

rickshaw. The panchnama too merely states that Police

Inspector Mr. N.B.Koralwala, ACB Police Station, Valsad

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

and the other two police officers sat in the auto-rickshaw.

The Trap Laying Officer has admitted that the evidence of

the other independent witnesses were available but no

independent witnesses have been examined before the

learned Trial Court. Moreover, it is on record that the

panchnama was not dictated by the panch witnesses but

the panchnama was dictated by Police Inspector Mr.

N.B.Koralwala, ACB Police Station, Valsad and was

written by the police personnel and the panch witnesses

had affixed their signatures as the panchnama was

dictated by the Police Inspector Mr. N.B.Koralwala, ACB

Police Station Valsad. On perusal of the said order of

sanction for prosecution produced at Exh.45, the heading

mentioned that it is a draft sanction order and it appears

that the sanction has not been given after proper

application of mind.

10. The learned Trial Court has discussed all the aspects of the

evidence of the prosecution and has concluded that there

is no reliable evidence to support the conviction of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

accused and the prosecution has miserably failed to

establish the offence charged against the accused. It is

settled law that unless 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 learned Apex

Court in the case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund

(Supra), the scope of the Appellate Court to interfere in the

finding of acquittal is limited and unless and until some

perversity and illegality is found in the judgment and

order of the learned 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 any demand for illegal gratification was made by the

accused or that the accused had accepted any amount of

illegal gratification and the reasons assigned by the

learned Trial Court are just and proper. This Court has

perused the findings of the learned Trial Court and the

learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/791/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024

undefined

has, in a well reasoned judgment and the order, acquitted

the accused and there is no perversity or illegality in the

findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court is

in complete agreement with the findings, the reasons,

ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal by

the learned Trial Court.

11. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned

judgment and the order of acquittal and the present appeal

is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.

The impugned judgment and order of acquittal in Special

Corruption Case No.7 of 2004 passed by the learned

Special Judge, 2nd Fast Track Judge, Valsad on 31.08.2007

is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds stand cancelled.

12. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned

Trial Court forthwith.

(S. V. PINTO,J) F.S.KAZI.....