Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Ramniklal Pranlal Trivedi on 6 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2298 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? Yes
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 interpretation of the Constitution No
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMNIKLAL PRANLAL TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DP JOSHI(1163) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
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 judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 12, Rajkot
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in
Special Case No. 18 of 1994 on 09.10.2006, whereby, the
learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the
offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) 1, 2, 3 and
Section 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 The accused - Ramniklal Pranlal Trivedi was the In-
charge Taluka Development Officer, Paddhari, District
Rajkot in the year 1994 and was a public servant. That the
complainant - Ghelabhai Mombhai Bharwad was a
contractor and was doing construction work on contract,
repairing pipelines and other miscellaneous works of
Paddhari Gram Panchayat and the complainant had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
undertaken the contract at Vachli Ghodi Pati Rampar -1,
Khajuri and Vyara in the year 1993 for laying of pipelines of
water supply at Nanavada Gram Panchayat. That the cost of
the work was Rs. 70,700/- and the amounts were paid as
the work was being done. That some portion of the work
was remaining and out of the total amount, an amount of
Rs. 59,000/- was paid by the Nanavada Gram Panchayat
and an amount of Rs. 11,700/- was pending and was not
paid for a long time. That the complainant had written a
letter to the Finance Minister, Gujarat State on 01.06.1994
and met the accused who was the In-charge Taluka
Development Officer and that time, the accused demanded
for an amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 2000/- and as
the complainant - Ghelabhai Mombhai Bharwad had an
amount of Rs. 1000/- with him, he gave the amount of Rs.
1000/- to the accused in his office and did not pay the other
amount of Rs. 1000/-. That on 09.08.1994, the complainant
- Ghelabhai Mombhai Bharwad went to the Paddhari
Taluka Panchayat Office and met the accused and the
accused told him that out of Rs. 2,000/- as decided earlier,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
an amount of Rs. 1000/- was remaining and demanded for
the said amount of Rs. 1000/- and stated that he would
sanction the bill after the amount was paid. That the
complainant - Ghelabhai Mombhai Bharwad did not have
the amount with him and hence, it was decided that the
amount would be paid on the next day. The complainant did
not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.
1000/- and hence, went to the ACB Police Station, Rajkot
and filed a complaint under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 1, 2, 3 and
13(2) of the PC Act which was registered at C.R. No.
18/1994 on 10.08.1994. That the Trap Laying Officer called
the panch witnesses and the demonstration of anthracene
powder and ultraviolet lamp was carried out and the
characteristics of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp
were explained to the complainant and the panch witnesses.
That the complainant gave nine currency notes of the
denomination of Rs. 100/- each and two currency notes of
the denomination of Rs. 50/- each and anthracene powder
was smeared on the currency notes and the currency notes
were placed in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant -
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
Ghelabhai Mombhai Bharwad. That the necessary
instructions were given and the trap was arranged and the
complainant and the shadow witness went to the office of
the accused on 10.08.1994 and at about 17.30 hours, the
accused demanded for the amount of illegal gratification,
accepted the same and after the complainant gave the
predetermined signal, the members of the raiding party
came and the accused was caught red handed. That after
the panchnama was drawn, the Investigating Officer
recorded the statements 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,
Rajkot which was registered as Special (ACB) Case No.
18/1994.
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. 6 was
framed against the accused and the statement of the
accused was recorded at Exh. 7, wherein, the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence
of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.3 The prosecution has examined 6 witnesses and has
produced 29 documentary evidences on record in support of
their case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
filed the closing pursis at Exh. 88, the further statement of
the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 was recorded and after the arguments of
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned
advocate for the accused were heard the learned trial Court
by the impugned judgment and order dated 09.10.2006 was
pleased to acquit the accused from all the offences.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has
filed the present appeal mainly contending that the
prosecution has successfully established the offence against
the accused but the learned Trial Court has not properly
appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution and has
committed an error in passing the order of acquittal. That
merely because the complainant has turned hostile and has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
not supported the case of prosecution, the learned Trial
Court has acquitted the accused but the learned Trial Court
ought to have appreciated the other evidence led by the
prosecution. That the learned Trial Court has not
appreciated the deposition of the panch witness and has not
considered the evidence of the Investigating Officer and
hence, the impugned judgement and order of acquittal is
erroneous, unjust and improper. That the impugned
judgement and order of acquittal must be quashed and set
aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant -
State and learned advocate Mr. D.P. Joshi for the
respondent. Perused the impugned judgement and order
and have appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution
on record.
5. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court
through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution
and has submitted that the prosecution has produced the
complaint at Exh. 73 and the complainant has narrated all
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
the details in his complaint and after the complaint was
registered the panchnama part - 1 was drawn and the trap
was arranged which was successful. The prosecution has
led the evidence of the complainant, panch witness and the
Trap Laying Officer to prove the case against the accused
and by the oral and documentary evidence, all the
ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery have been
successfully proved by the prosecution but the learned Trial
Court has by the impugned judgement and order wrongly
acquitted the accused. The learned APP has urged this
Court to set aside the impugned judgement and order of
acquittal and find the accused guilty of the said offences.
6. Learned advocate Mr. D.P. Joshi for the respondent
has submitted that the complainant has turned hostile and
has not stated any fact about any demand of illegal
gratification made by the respondent. That the complainant
has categorically stated that no amount was accepted by the
accused and there is no explanation as to how the currency
notes came into the drawer of the table of the respondent.
That from the evidence of the prosecution, it is on record
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
that there were no bills pending on the date when the
alleged demand is said to have been made by the accused
and in fact, the respondent did not have the power to
sanction any bills. That no amount was to be taken by the
complainant from the Taluka Development Office and as per
the case of prosecution, the work was of Nanavada Gram
Panchayat and the payment was to be made by the Gram
Panchayat. Moreover, in the entire evidence, the presence of
Mr. Vyas is mentioned but there is no evidence as to who
was this Mr. Vyas. That the prosecution has not proved the
ingredients of demand of illegal gratification and acceptance
of the tainted currency notes and the learned Trial Court in
the impugned judgement and order has discussed all the
evidence of the prosecution and has rightly acquitted the
respondent. That the learned Trial Court has in a well
reasoned judgement passed the impugned judgement and
order and has acquitted the accused and no interference is
required and the learned advocate for the respondent has
urged this Court to reject the appeal of the appellant and
confirm the impugned judgement and order of acquittal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
6.1 Learned advocate for the respondent has relied upon
the judgement in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of
N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248, and
the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 68 has observed 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
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
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, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
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.
(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.
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
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."
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ballu @ Balram @
Balmukund & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal
Appeal No. 1167 of 2018, in para 9, has observed 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
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 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."
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
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 above settled position of law in acquittal
appeals and the settled position of law in cases filed under
the PC Act in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Neeraj Dutta (supra), the evidence produced by the
prosecution before the learned Trial Court must be minutely
dissected and to bring home the charge against the accused,
the prosecution has examined PW1 - Ghelabhai Mombhai
Bharwar at Exh. 19. The witness is the complainant who
has stated that in the year 1994, he was doing labour work
and was a Sub-Contractor but he has never done any work
for the Nanavada Gram Panchayat. That he had seen the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
accused once in Paddhari Market but has denied that the
accused had ever demanded for any amount of illegal
gratification from him. The witness has not supported the
case of prosecution and has been declared hostile. In the
lengthy cross-examination by the learned APP, the witness
has completely resiled from the facts of the complaint and
has not uttered a word about the allegations made in the
complaint. The witness has not been cross-examined by the
learned advocate for the accused.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Ramjibhai
Meghjibhai at Exh. 21 and this witness is the panch witness
who has supported the case of prosecution and has stated
that he had gone to the ACB Office on 10.08.1994 at 12.40
hours with the other panch - Mr. R.P. Vekariya. That the
ACB Officer had told them that they were to be the panch
witnesses but the complainant did not tell them anything
and the complaint of the complainant was recorded by
Yadav Saheb. The witness has thereafter stated that the
complainant gave nine currency notes of the denomination
of Rs. 100/- each and two currency notes of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
denomination of Rs. 50/- each and the demonstration of
anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was done by Police
Sub-Inspector - Mr. Tank and the currency notes were
smeared with anthracene powder and placed in the left side
shirt pocket of the complainant. That the witness and the
complainant had gone to the office of the Taluka
Development Officer and they went into the chamber of the
Taluka Development Officer. That on seeking his permission
to enter the chamber, they were told to sit in his chamber so
the complainant and the panch witness went and sat in the
chamber of the accused and after ten minutes the accused
came. That the complainant told the accused that the
money was arranged and the accused told the complainant
to give the money to Mr. Vyas. The complainant told him
that he could not give Mr. Vyas the amount and he should
take it and the accused told him to put it under the file
which was lying on his table. That the complainant took the
tainted currency notes from his left side shirt pocket with
his left hand, and with his right hand lifted the file and put
the tainted currency notes on the table. That the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
thereafter, went into the chamber of the Taluka
Development Officer and returned after ten minutes and
took a file from the cupboard and after five minutes
returned the file to the cupboard. That the accused
thereafter, told the complainant that his bill would be
passed and they left the office. That the complainant gave
the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding
party came. That the accused was not present and the
currency notes and the file were not found on the table and
they went into the chamber of the Taluka Development
Officer where the accused was seated. That he was brought
to his own chamber and the test of ultraviolet lamp was
done and traces of anthracene powder were found on the
fingers and right hand and palm of the accused and also on
the table. That the currency notes were found in the right
side drawer of the table of the accused. During the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that the accused had told them to give
the amount to Vyas Saheb but the complainant refused to
give the amount to Vyas Saheb and there was no
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
conversation about any pipeline between the complainant
and the accused. The witness has stated that he has to
depose as per the panchnama or the departmental inquiry
would be initiated against him and the accused has not
accepted the amount from the complainant. That the
accused did not touch the currency notes in his presence
and when they returned, the accused was not in his
chamber. The witness has stated that during the fifteen
minutes that the accused entered and exited the chamber,
he did not touch the currency notes and the witness did not
tell the Police Inspector that the amount was to be paid to
Vyas Saheb. That the file that was seized, was seized from
the chamber of the Taluka Development Officer.
8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Mithubharti
Laxmanbharthi Goswami at Exh. 38 and this witness has
stated that he was working as the Talati Cum Mantri in
Nanavada village in the year 1994. That the complainant -
Ghelabhai Mombhai Bharwad was given the work of pipeline
and the witness has produced an agreement of the
complainant and the Gram Panchayat at Exh. 39. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
witness has also produced the letter of the Taluka
Development Officer, Paddhari at Exh. 40, resolution at
Exh. 41, receipts and vouchers at Exhs. 42 and 43 and
letter to the Taluka Development Officer at Exh. 44,
resolution of the Gram Panchayat at Exh. 45. During the
cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused,
the witness has stated that on 15.06.1994, the amount for
the work done was paid and the measurements were taken
and the contractor was paid the entire amount. That no new
work was done from 15.06.1994 to 10.08.1994 and there
was no question of placing any bill or payment of any bill.
That the Panchayat was not making any payment to the
Sub-Contractor.
8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Jitendrabhai
Bhanubhai Vyas at Exh. 50 and this witness has stated that
he was working as an Additional Engineer in the Paddhari
Taluka Panchayat in the year 1994. The witness has
produced documents at Exhs. 51 to 68 regarding the
administrative approval, description of job, running bills,
vouchers, etc. and has stated that the complainant had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
taken the work of the Nanavada Gram Panchayat for laying
pipelines and all the bills were accordingly paid. During the
cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused,
the witness has stated that the bill was cleared on
15.06.1994 and the amount was paid from the account of
the Gram Panchayat. That the entire amount of work done
was paid and till 20.12.1994, no other work besides the
work of Rs. 60,000/- was done and there was no bill
pending to be paid on 20.12.1994. That after the second
running bill was paid, no bill was submitted, no bill was
pending, no measurement was taken and no work was
done.
8.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 - Govindbhai
Jethalal Yadav at Exh. 72 and this witness is the Trap
Laying Officer who has deposed in detail about the entire
events that had taken place on 10.08.1994 from the time
that the complainant - Ghelabhai Mombhai came to the
ACB Office and filed the complaint. The witness has
described the demonstration of anthracene powder and
ultraviolet lamp and about the necessary instructions given
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
to the complainant and the panch witnesses and the trap
was arranged and thereafter, the trap was successful. The
witness has thereafter, stated that after the panchnama, he
had undertaken the investigation, recorded the statements
of the connected witnesses and had sought for the sanction
for prosecution and after the order of sanction for
prosecution was received, the charge-sheet was filed by
Police Inspector - Mr. C.N. Zala who has expired. During the
cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused,
the witness has stated that if the tainted currency notes
were placed between the two files, the traces of anthracene
powder would be found on the top of one file and bottom
part of the other file. That as per the panchnama, the
anthracene powder was found on the top of the green file
and behind portion of the brown file and there was no traces
of anthracene powder between both the files. That after the
amount was placed, the position of the files had changed
and he cannot say as to how the currency notes were found
in the drawer of the table of the accused. That the currency
notes were recovered by the panch no. 1 and the panch no.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
1 had counted the currency notes with both his hands and
at that time, both the hands of the panch witness had
anthracene powder on them. That the muddamaal file was
picked up by the panch no. 1 and if the panch witness had
picked up the muddamaal laced with anthracene powder,
he should not have been asked to pick any other item. That
after the last bill of the complainant was passed, there was
no other bill to be paid and no measurement of any work
was taken thereafter. That he had not investigated as to
whether any person by the name of Mr. Vyas was working in
the office of the accused and the contract was given by the
Taluka Panchayat to the Gram Panchayat and the payment
of the bills was done by the Taluka Panchayat to the Gram
Panchayat. That the complainant did not have to take any
direct payment from the Taluka Panchayat. The witness has
admitted that he had investigated the entire offence and the
Panchayat had to pay only an amount of Rs. 60,000/-
which was paid vide first bill of Rs. 29,382/- and second bill
of Rs. 30,618/-. That there was no amount to be paid from
the Rs. 60,000/-.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
8.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 - Bharatbhai
Liladharbhai Gotecha at Exh. 85 and the witness has stated
that in the year 1984, he was working as a Junior Clerk in
the District Panchayat, Rajkot and he has produced the
order of sanction for prosecution at Exh. 86. During the
cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused,
the witness has stated that he was not present when the file
for sanction for prosecution was received and he cannot say
in what circumstances, the sanction for prosecution was
given. That besides the signatures of the Sanctioning
Authority, he cannot given other information.
9. On meticulous dissection of the entire oral and
documentary evidence of the prosecution on record of
Special ACB Case No. 18/1994, it is on record that the
complainant has turned hostile and there is no iota of any
prior demand made by the accused. That the evidence that
emerges on record is that on the date of the trap, the
complainant and the panch witness went to meet the
accused and the accused was not in his chamber but he
was in the chamber of the Taluka Development Officer and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
the complainant and the panch witness were alone in the
chamber of the accused. That even after the accused came
into his chamber, he had told the complainant to give the
amount to Mr. Vyas directly but the complainant asked the
accused to take the amount and accordingly the
complainant had placed the amount below the file.
Admittedly, the recovery of the tainted currency notes is
from the drawer of the table of the accused and there is
evidence to the effect that the accused was leaving his
chamber and at that time, the complainant and the panch
witness were sitting alone in the chamber of the accused.
There is no iota of evidence as to how the tainted currency
notes came into the drawer of the table of the accused and
as per the case of prosecution, the accused had asked the
complainant to place the tainted currency notes below the
file. There is evidence on record that the panch no. 1 had
recovered the tainted currency notes from the drawer of the
table of the accused and had thereafter, counted the
currency notes with both his hands and the panch no. 1
was asked to lift the file that was seized and hence, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
natural that the traces of anthracene powder would be
found on the file as the file was touched the panch no. 1
who had counted the tainted currency notes with both his
hands and his hands would have the traces of anthracene
powder.
9.1 From the evidence of the prosecution, more
particularly, the evidence of PW3 - Talati Cum Mantri,
Nanavada Gram Panchayat and evidence of PW4 - the
Additional Engineer and the documents that have been
produced on record and in the evidence of both these
witnesses, it is proved that on the date of filing of the
complaint, there was no bill pending to be paid to the
complainant. The documents show that the agreement was
entered into between the complainant and Nanavada Gram
Panchayat for laying pipelines but there is no evidence that
any bill was pending on the date of the complaint. Moreover,
it is also on record that no amount was to be taken from the
office of the Taluka Development Officer and the amount
was paid by the Taluka Development Office to the Gram
Panchayat Office and the bills were to be submitted by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
complainant to the Gram Panchayat Office and the payment
was to be made by the Gram Panchayat Office and the past
payments were made by cheques from the Gram Panchayat.
9.2 The Trap Laying Officer - PW5 - Govindbhai Jethalal
Yadav has not investigated about who was Mr. Vyas and as
to whether any Mr. Vyas was in fact working in the office of
the Taluka Development Officer at that point of time.
Admittedly, Mr. Govindbhai Jethalal Yadav has conducted
most of the investigation and only the charge-sheet was filed
by the subsequent Investigating Officer. The Trap Laying
Officer - Mr. Govindbhai Jethalal Yadav has recorded the
complaint of the complainant, called for the panch
witnesses, arranged for the trap and has also investigated
the entire offence and this goes against the basic tenets of
Criminal Jurisprudence and fair investigation. The
credibility of the evidence of the Trap Laying Officer
becomes suspicious on this count and the person who has
recorded the complaint cannot be the sole agency of
investigation. Moreover, when there is no iota of evidence of
demand of any illegal gratification by the accused and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
merely the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the
drawer of the table of the accused does not prove the charge
against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. As there is
no clear evidence regarding demand of illegal gratification
made by the accused either prior to the day of trap or on the
day of the trap, mere recovery of the tainted currency notes
will not help the case of prosecution and a presumption
under Section 20 of the PC Act cannot be made in light of
the judgement of the Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta (supra).
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 convict the 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 findings of acquittal is limited and unless
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
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 the evidence and has in
a well reasoned judgment and 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 judgement and order and the present appeal is
devoid of merits and resultantly the same is dismissed. The
impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2298/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2024
undefined
learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 12, Rajkot in
Special Case No. 18 of 1994 on 09.10.2006 is hereby
confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be
sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
