Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1150 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Virabhai Dadubhai Likheda

2014-12-08

Z.K.SAIYED

body2014
JUDGMENT : The present appeal, under Section 378 (1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.5.2003 passed by the learned Special Fast Track Judge, Amreli, in Special Case No.47 of 1996, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are such that the complainant Mr. J.G. Chavda, P.I., ACB office, Amreli, received authentic information that the police and RTO staff are collecting entry fees from the vehicles like truck, loading rickshaw, luxury bus, shuttle rickshaw and heavy trucks passing on the road between Khambha, Chalala, Amreli, Lathi and Chanvad. Therefore, the complainant arranged decoy trap and on success of trap, the complaint was filed against the accused and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. As such the accused as a public servant demanded and accepted illegal gratification and thereby committed offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(gh) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Thereafter, charge was framed and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.1 To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined, in witnesses viz. (1) Harunbhai Sultanbhai Agvan Exhibit 9, (2) Raysinh Gangasinh Gohil Exhibit 12, (3) Ramnikbhai Manjibhai Bakraniya, Exhibit 15 (4) Jagmalbhai Govind-bhai Chavda, Exhibit 19(5) Jaswantrav Marutirav Dhone Exhibit 21 (6) Dineshkumar Bhimjibhai Barvaliya Exhibit 24. The prosecution also produced several documentary evidence on record. 2.2 At the end of trial, while recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., it was stated that they had not committed alleged offence and they were totally innocent persons and they had been wrongly implicated in the offence. After hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges levelled against him by judgment and order dated 27.3.2003. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal. 4. After hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges levelled against him by judgment and order dated 27.3.2003. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal. 4. It is submitted by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. Therefore, as per his submission, the case of the prosecution was required to be believed by the learned Special Judge and other witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution. He therefore, submitted that impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be quashed and set aside and the accused is required to be punished as per the provisions of the alleged offence. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya for the respondent accused supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the learned Special Judge has rightly observed that the accused was acquitted for the charges levelled against him. He also submitted that three ingredients of alleged offence are not proved i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery and therefore, appeal is required to be dismissed. He also submitted that the demand was not made by the accused at the time of incident and therefore, demand itself is not proved, then question of alleged offence does not arise. He submitted that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be confirmed. 6. I have perused the record and considered the submissions made by the parties. Herein this case, to prove the case against the accused, six witnesses were examined and several documentary evidence were produced by the prosecution. The police complainant received information that the policemen, RTO policemen were preventing the vehicle and collecting entry fees illegally from the driver of the passing vehicles from the road. Herein this case, to prove the case against the accused, six witnesses were examined and several documentary evidence were produced by the prosecution. The police complainant received information that the policemen, RTO policemen were preventing the vehicle and collecting entry fees illegally from the driver of the passing vehicles from the road. Therefore, one decoy trap was arranged by engaging one truck driver namely Harunbhai Sultanbhai, who was truck driver of the truck No.GJ-1T-5574 and he was explained about the procedure of trap and also about the anthracene powder, which smeared with the currency notes, which were used during the course of trap. Thereafter, first part of panchnama was prepared. Thereafter, after giving all the instruction by the members of raiding party, the said truck driver Harunbhai went with this truck at Jivapara road near Rupam Police Chawky, where the accused stopped the truck by giving signal and the accused collected Rs.20/- from the said decoyer towards illegal gratification. At that time, the members of raiding party rushed to the spot and at that time, the accused kept the amount of bribe in his mouth, which was pulled out by panch No.2 from the mouth of the accused. As per evidence of Panch No.1, he admitted that the said policeman accused was saying ' entry entry' on the road where the vehicles were passed from the road and therefore, panch No.1 gave Rs.20/- to the accused and the accused kept the said amount in his mouth. That facts were narrated in the panchnama at Exhibit 13. The accused stated about acceptance of said amount and he made his signature. Panch No.2 Ramnikbhai Manjibhai Bakraniya stated in his evidence that the stains of anthracene powder were found on the hands, mouth and lips of the accused during the experiment of ultraviolet lamp. From the evidence of complainant, it appears that the accused had taken out the bribe amount from his mouth. Therefore, there is contradictory version because as per the say of the panch No.2, he himself pulled out the currency note from the mouth of the accused. Looking to the overall evidence, the most important factor like demand is not proved by the prosecution by any of the proof. Even the intention of demanding the money is not proved, as the said amount was of bribe or for entry. Looking to the overall evidence, the most important factor like demand is not proved by the prosecution by any of the proof. Even the intention of demanding the money is not proved, as the said amount was of bribe or for entry. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused as the main factors of corruption case i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery, all are not proved by the prosecution and the evidence are not corroborated with each other. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to allow the appeal of the State and therefore, same is dismissed. 7. Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 8. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary. 9. I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellant-State. Thus, from the evidence itself, it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 10. Learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record. 11. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges levelled against him. 12. I find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. 13. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.5.2003 passed by the learned Special Fast Track Judge, Amreli, in Special Case No.47 of 1996 is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the concerned trial court forthwith. Appeal dismissed.