Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 270 (GUJ)

Poonambhai Vashrambhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat

2017-02-02

R.P.DHOLARIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 27.01.2000, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Court No. 17, City Session Court, Ahmedabad in Special Case No. 61 of 1996 (ACB), wherein the appellant No. 1 was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) - (i) & (ii) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Whereas, the appellant No. 2 was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) - (i) & (ii) read with section 12 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that the complainant through reliable sources received an information to the effect that the police employees, traffic police, employees of the traffic mobile court etc., in the City of Ahmedabad are demanding and receiving illegal gratification from persons who are plying their vehicles on road with the motive of not instituting any case against them and on obtaining such information, to verify the same, a trap was arranged to ascertain whether really any of such persons were indulging in such demands and receiving the illegal gratification. Thereafter, the panchas were called. Thereafter, after drawing the preliminary panchnama and completion of other formalities, the complainant with other members of the raiding staff came near Shahibaug in search of the decoy witness. One matador bearing registration No. GJ.7U.3179 was passing by and was asked to stop. The complainant inquired about the driver and cleaner of the matador. The matador was being driven by one Christian a resident of Nadiad. One matador bearing registration No. GJ.7U.3179 was passing by and was asked to stop. The complainant inquired about the driver and cleaner of the matador. The matador was being driven by one Christian a resident of Nadiad. Alfred Christian was requested to co-operate in the trap which the complainant and the raiding party were planning to lay and Alfred Christian was assigned the role of a decoy witness. The complainant and other members of raiding party started in search of such mobile courts stationed at particular places in Ahmedabad City. The matador was being driven by Alfred Christian and in the Matador, the panch No. 1 and some 6 other persons were sitting. On the other hand, the complainant and the second panch and some other police personnel were traveling in their own jeep. When the Matador was passing through Anupam Talkies, near Rohit Mill Circle, the accused No. 1 is said to have told Alfred Christian - the driver of the Matador that a mobile Court is very closed and that he should understand something. The Accused No. 2 is said to have called another police Head Constable i.e., the accused No. 1 giving him a signal. On the back side of the Matador, the driver of the vehicle was called and the accused No. 1 in presence of the panch No. 1 demanded Rs. 50/- from driver Alfred Christian i.e. decoy witness on the ground that a traffic mobile Court is stationed at a very nearby place. The accused No. 1 is said to have asked the driver to place the currency notes of Rs. 50/- in a complaint book on a Napkin. No sooner the currency note of Rs. 50/- which was smeared with anthracene powder, was placed on the napkin lying in the complaint book, the driver gave signal to the complainant and accordingly, the raiding party cornered the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The complainant inquired the names of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and panch No. 1 was asked to take possession of the complaint book where currency notes of Rs. 50/- was placed and thereafter, necessary experiment of ultra violet lamp was carried out, panchnama was drawn and the complainant lodged a complaint at ACB, Ahmedabad City. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons. 50/- was placed and thereafter, necessary experiment of ultra violet lamp was carried out, panchnama was drawn and the complainant lodged a complaint at ACB, Ahmedabad City. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined five witnesses and also produced several documentary evidences. 3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellants have mainly contended that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of conviction. It is further contended that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is required to be reversed, as such. 6. Mr. Hemant B. Raval, learned advocate for the appellant - accused No. 1 has taken this Court through the entire judgment and record and argued that the decoy who was requisitioned by the trapping party had not supported the case and the panch No. 1 supported the prosecution case to some extent. However the material contradiction in respect of stopping the matador and raising the demand by one of the accused is not getting proved as the defence has brought on record the material contradiction in the evidence of the p.w.no.4 who is the investigating officer. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to establish the vital ingredients as regards the demand, acceptance and recovery thereof. He has further argued that as the trap was arranged, the names of the accused came to be disclosed during the course of trap. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to establish the vital ingredients as regards the demand, acceptance and recovery thereof. He has further argued that as the trap was arranged, the names of the accused came to be disclosed during the course of trap. Therefore, the role of each one of the accused along with his identity was required to be proved in the evidence of the decoy witness as well as the panch No. 1 who accompanied at the time of trap. However, on going through the evidence of the decoy as well as the panch No. 1, the identity as well as the role of the accused are not proved. Therefore, the accused cannot be linked with crime in question. He has further argued that though the crime in question came to be investigated by the complainant - Police Inspector, ACB as well as the panch No. 4 Mr. R.B. Chauhan and P.W. No. 5 - Mr. B.V. Puvar, the prosecution failed to establish the identity as well as the role of each one of the accused in the crime in question conclusively and therefore, for want of establishment of vital ingredients as regards demand, acceptance and recovery, the judgment of conviction is required to be reverse. 7. Mr. K.B. Aanandjiwala, learned Senior advocate assisted by Mr. Vishal Anandjiwala, learned advocate for the original accused No. 2 has argued that the accused No. 2 has been charged for aiding in the crime in question to the original accused No. 1 by way of stopping the car which was driven by the decoy Alfred Christian. The prosecution has attributed the role of accused No. 2 to the aforesaid extent only. However, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 20, the learned Sessions Judge raised presumption and wrongfully convicted the accused though the role of the accused No. 2 was not being established during the course of trial from the evidences of neither PW No. 1 nor PW No. 2. P.W. No. 2. However, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 20, the learned Sessions Judge raised presumption and wrongfully convicted the accused though the role of the accused No. 2 was not being established during the course of trial from the evidences of neither PW No. 1 nor PW No. 2. P.W. No. 2. The decoy himself has not supported the case of the prosecution and the P.W. No. 1 - panch who accompanied the decoy had supported to some extent but his version is proved to be contradictory as per his previous version before the police and therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to establish the involvement, identity as well as any sort of role so far as the original accused No. 2 is concerned and therefore, the conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 8. On the other-hand, Mr. K.P. Raval, learned APP has supported the judgment rendered by learned trial Court. He submitted that this is a fit case wherein, the learned trial Court has considered voluminous evidence in its proper perspective and rightly convicted the accused which calls for no interference. He further submitted that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is based upon the concrete and clinching evidence and, therefore, punishment inflicted upon the accused does not call for any interference. He submitted that the learned trial Court has recorded ample reasons based on the evidence on record for convicting the appellant and ingredients as regards to demand, acceptance and recovery are proved in accordance with law. He further submitted that during the course of seizure, the number of tainted currency note was also tallied with the number of currency note written down in the preliminary panchnama. He submitted that seizure memo is not only signed by the Investigating Officer, but the signature of the accused was also obtained and therefore, the presumption raised by the learned trial Court by invoking the provisions of section 20 of the Act is in accordance with law and this Court may not interfere with the judgment and order of conviction, as such. 9. This Court has heard Mr. Hemant B. Raval, learned advocate for the appellant No. 1, Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala, learned senior advocate for the appellant No. 2 and Mr. K.P. Raval, learned APP for the respondent - State. 10. 9. This Court has heard Mr. Hemant B. Raval, learned advocate for the appellant No. 1, Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala, learned senior advocate for the appellant No. 2 and Mr. K.P. Raval, learned APP for the respondent - State. 10. This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment rendered by the learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper book. 11. As per the prosecution version, more particularly, as per the charge, both the appellants were serving as Traffic Police Constables. The original accused No. 1 who was on duty as a Traffic Constable was required to check vehicles passing within vicinity of the area assigned to him. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant Mr. Rathod has received information that the traffic constables were demanding and accepting money from the drivers of the vehicles and they were harassing them and, therefore, running trap was arranged and PW 2 who was driver of matador No. GJ 7 U 3179 readily agreed to act as a decoy and hence, he was made to understand as to how the trap was to arrange. It is the case of the prosecution that during the course of trap on 10.04.1996 at about 17:30 pm, while the matador in question was passing within vicinity of Anupam Cinema, Khokhara Road, Ahmedabad, one constable of traffic police stopped his matador by raising hand and inquired as regards papers of the matador and license and then accused No. 1 by way of gesture by hand demanded Rs. 50/- which came to be delivered to accused No. 1. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused were caught red handed in trap and, thus, they have committed the offence, as alleged. 12. P.W. No. 1 - Jitendrabhai Ganeshbhai Patel has been examined vide Exh. 15. The witness has deposed that on 10.04.1996, he was serving as Junior Clerk in the office of Sales Tax Department. He as well as one another Panch were requisitioned by Police Inspector Mr. Rathod and they were made to understand as to how the decoy trap was to be carried out and also they were made to understand as to how currency note was tainted with anthracene powder and to view the same in ultra-violate lamp and thereafter, trap was arranged. Rathod and they were made to understand as to how the decoy trap was to be carried out and also they were made to understand as to how currency note was tainted with anthracene powder and to view the same in ultra-violate lamp and thereafter, trap was arranged. The witness has deposed that he was made to understand to see and hear the conversation which may take place between the complainant and the accused and thereafter, they were traveling upon the matador which was brought by the complainant and while the truck was passing within vicinity of Anupam Cinema, Khokhara, Ahmedabad, one person in traffic police dress who was also accompanied by other police constables blown whistle and stopped the matador and hence, the driver stopped the matador. The witness has deposed that the driver Mr. Alfred got down from his matador, at that time, one person standing nearby his matador told him that the mobile Court is standing nearby and also to understand something in terms of money. Thereafter, Alfred - driver of the truck took out the amount of Rs. 50/- from his pocket and placed in the complaint book lying there. The witness has deposed that the person who has stopped the vehicle was namely Babuji Thavraji and the person who demanded bribe was Poonam Vashrambhai Parmar. He has also deposed that during the course of ultraviolet test, test was found negative so far as the person of the accused is concerned. Thereafter, the tainted currency notes and other articles were seized and the seizure memo was issued. He has admitted in his cross examination that the name of a person who stopped the matador is not narrated in the panchnama. He has also admitted that the name of the accused who demanded papers is also not mentioned. He has also admitted that he cannot explain the meaning of the word 'to understand something', which the accused stated. 13. P.W. No. 2 - Alfred John Christian has been examined at Exh. 24. The witness has deposed that he resides at Santaram Society, Gujarat Housing Board, Jawaharnagar, Nadiad. He is driving the vehicle and he was driving vehicle of Rashmikant Ishwarbhai Patel. He was driving the matador No. GJ-7U-3179. When he was requisitioned as a decoy, the police officials told him to handover money if anybody ask. 24. The witness has deposed that he resides at Santaram Society, Gujarat Housing Board, Jawaharnagar, Nadiad. He is driving the vehicle and he was driving vehicle of Rashmikant Ishwarbhai Patel. He was driving the matador No. GJ-7U-3179. When he was requisitioned as a decoy, the police officials told him to handover money if anybody ask. While his matador was passing within vicinity of Anupam Cinema, Khokhara, Ahmedabad, there were seven - eight police persons who stopped his matador. One of them stopped his vehicle and asked for license and the papers of the vehicle. Thereafter, he was asked to understand something and one police official told him to place money in the book lying on scooter. Thereafter, he placed money accordingly. As he was not supporting the prosecution case, he was declared hostile. After declaring him hostile, he supported the prosecution case so far as the preliminary panchnama is concerned, but he did not support the prosecution case so far as the actual running trap is concerned. He has admitted in the cross examination that one Bhanubhai Budhabhai Solanki of Petlad accompanied him as a cleaner at the time of trap. He has also admitted that tainted currency notes were given by the police official to him. He has also admitted that his further statement was recorded on 29.06.1996 by Police Inspector Mr. D.B. Puvar. 14. P.W. No. 3 - Kirankumar Manubhai Rathod has been examined at Exh. 26. The witness has deposed that he was serving as a Police Inspector, ACB, Ahmedabad City Police Station from March - 1993 to November - 1997 and he received secret information from his own sources that the traffic police officials are harassing the drivers of the vehicles which are passing within vicinity of Ahmedabad City by demanding and accepting money as an illegal gratification for not taking any action against them for violation of the rules. The witness has deposed that therefore, he thought it fit to carry out running trap and hence, he has searched out Alfred Christian who was driving the matador No. GJ-7U-3179 and readily agreed to act as a decoy. The witness has deposed that the trap was arranged and when the decoy witness was driving his matador within the vicinity of Anupam Cinema, Khokhara, Ahmedabad, the traffic personnel stopped the vehicle. The witness has deposed that the trap was arranged and when the decoy witness was driving his matador within the vicinity of Anupam Cinema, Khokhara, Ahmedabad, the traffic personnel stopped the vehicle. At about 17:40 o'clock in the noon on 10.04.1996, Alfred - driver of the vehicle gave suggested signal by blowing horn. Therefore, he, the members of raiding party and panchas got down from the said vehicle. He reached near matador along with the panch No. 2. Thereafter, he introduced himself as a Police Inspector Mr. K.M. Rathod to the accused as well to the decoy and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the complaint book through the panch No. 2. The test of ultraviolet was also found to be positive so far as the person of the decoy as well as the complaint book are concerned. However, he has admitted in the cross examination that the cleaner also accompanied him in the said matador and there was no passenger in his vehicle. He has also admitted that the name of the person who stopped the matador, is not stated in the panchnama, however the same is stated in the complaint. He has also admitted that, the name of traffic official who told that the mobile Court is standing there and to understand something, is not mentioned in the panchnama. However, the same is mentioned in the complaint. He has also admitted that the accused who stopped the matador and thereafter the accused who demanded Rs. 50/- were not named, however the same were named in the complaint. He has also admitted that the name of the traffic police constable is not mentioned in the panchnama who told the decoy witness to place currency note in napkin lying in his hand. 15. P.W. No. 4 - Ramsinh Balusinh Chauhan has been examined at Exh. 36. The witness has deposed that he was performing duty as a Police Inspector, ACB, Ahmedabad during the course of April - 1996. On 13.04.1996, he took over the charge of the investigation from Mr. K.M. Rathod - Police Inspector. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of the panch Nos. 1 and 2 and collected the service records of the accused. He has admitted in his cross examination that he recorded the statement of panch No. 1 - Jitendra Patel. On 13.04.1996, he took over the charge of the investigation from Mr. K.M. Rathod - Police Inspector. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of the panch Nos. 1 and 2 and collected the service records of the accused. He has admitted in his cross examination that he recorded the statement of panch No. 1 - Jitendra Patel. He has merely stated in his statement that one police official wearing uniform stopped his matador. The name of person who asked for the papers of the matador, is not mentioned in the statement. Further, he has also admitted that the said panch has not stated before him that Babuji i.e. the accused No. 2 told him to get down from his car. He has also admitted that the said panch had not stated before him that one of the traffic officials told him to understand something as the Mobile Court is standing nearby and 'Babuji' is not named anywhere therein. He has also admitted that the panch No. 1 has not stated before him as to which police personnel demanded Rs. 50/- and directed him to place the same amount in the complaint book after opening the napkin. He has also admitted that he did not mention anybody's name but he mentioned merely traffic official only in his statement. 16. At this stage, it would be fruitful to make reference to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in A. Subair v. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587 : 2009 AIR SCW 3994, while dwelling on the purport of the statutory prescription of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act ruled that the prosecution has to prove the charge thereunder beyond reasonable doubt like any other criminal offence and that the accused should be considered to be innocent till it is established otherwise by proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are vital ingredients necessary to be proved to record a conviction. 17. In State of Kerala and another v. C.P. Rao, (2011) 6 SCC 450 : AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 393, the Honourable Apex Court reiterating its earlier dictum, vis-à-vis the same offences, held that mere recovery by itself, would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained. 18. In a recent enunciation by the Honourable Apex Court to discern the imperative prerequisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined in B. Jayraj AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 1837) (supra) in unequivocal terms, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It has been propounded that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Qua Section 20 of the Act, which permits 20. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 19.02.2002, rendered by learned Special Judge, Court No. 2, Ahmedabad, in Special Case No. 08 of 1997 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges leveled against him. Bail bond, if any, stands canceled. R & P be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith. a presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that while it is extendable only to an offence under Section 7 and not to those under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, it is contingent as well on the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, it was emphasized, could follow only if there was proof of demand. Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act would also not arise. 19. In the present case, this Court is required to scrutinize the evidence to ascertain whether there is proper, reliable and cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt to confirm the judgment and sentence awarded by learned trial Court. If there is no such evidence on record, in that event, the conviction cannot be sustained as the onus lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 20. If there is no such evidence on record, in that event, the conviction cannot be sustained as the onus lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 20. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual position, this Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment and order as well as the depositions of the witnesses in light of the rival submissions made by learned advocates for both the sides. 21. In corruption cases, as laid down in the series of judgments by the Honourable Apex Court as well as by this Court, three vital ingredients are required to be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in order to prove the offence as alleged. Recently, the Honourable Apex Court has made it clear that the proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. Precisely, failure of the prosecution to prove demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of amount from the person of the accused of the offence under sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. In view of the aforesaid principle laid down by the Honourable Apex Court, so far as the proof of demand is concerned, upon examination of the evidence on record as regards to the demand in the present case, as per the charge framed against the accused and as per the prosecution case, the accused No. 2 raised demand by making gesture by hand to deliver Rs. 100/- and hence, the decoy handed over Rs. 100/- to accused No. 1 and that is the precise case of the prosecution. So far as the demand is concerned, the same is revealing from the complaint which has been lodged by Police Inspector Mr. 100/- and hence, the decoy handed over Rs. 100/- to accused No. 1 and that is the precise case of the prosecution. So far as the demand is concerned, the same is revealing from the complaint which has been lodged by Police Inspector Mr. Raval and the same is also revealing from the panchnama of trap arranged as well as from the police statement of decoy and panch who have narrated in the recital of the panchnama that the demand was raised by way of making gesture by raising hand and to deliver Rs. 100/- as illegal gratification to the accused. However, during the course of leading the evidence before learned trial Court, decoy i.e. P.W. No. 2 as well as panch P.W. No. 1 who were witnesses and in whose presence, the transaction as regards demand and acceptance of illegal gratification took place, have tried to develop the case by way of making improvements in their examination-in-chief as if accused No. 2 demanded by making oral request to deliver Rs. 100/- to accused No. 1 as illegal gratification. However, in their cross examination, both the witnesses have admitted that there was no conversation between decoy Yusufbhai Sulemanbhai P.W. No. 2 and accused No. 2 and, therefore, entire factum as regards demand itself falls on the ground. Under the circumstances, even though tainted currency note of Rs. 100/- which was indisputably was not seized or recovered from the person of accused No. 1, but the same has been recovered from the ground which was lying near the scooter at the place of incident may be believed to be true, then also mere recovery of tainted currency note, which was used in trap would not prove the vital ingredients as regards demand and acceptance. 22. This Court has minutely gone through the evidence of the aforesaid two crucial witnesses and on examination of their evidence, it appears that they have tried to improve upon their version as if accused No. 2 demanded the amount of Rs. 100/- by making oral request and thereafter in the cross examination, both the witnesses have admitted that there was no conversation between the decoy and accused No. 1. In this view of the matter, the very factum as to demand and acceptance is not proved. 100/- by making oral request and thereafter in the cross examination, both the witnesses have admitted that there was no conversation between the decoy and accused No. 1. In this view of the matter, the very factum as to demand and acceptance is not proved. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, though learned trial Court has recorded the finding that when tainted currency note was found and test of ultra-violate lamp was found to be positive in the evidence as well as in muddamal pant which was wore by accused No. 1 and therefore, by invoking the provisions of section 20 of the Act, the offence as regards demand and acceptance is held to be proved, is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the series of decisions. The factum of demand can only be established in the oral evidence of demander as well as giver of illegal gratification and in order to corroborate the said transaction, the evidence of panch is also essential as corroborative evidence but the evidence of demander as well as giver is direct evidence. If the said evidence is not available, in that case, even though recovery of tainted currency note which came to be recovered from the person of the accused, the case of the prosecution would fall to the ground. 23. This Court has minutely gone through the crucial evidences of P.W. Nos. 1 and 2. He stated as a decoy witness as well as the P.W. No. 1 who was alleged to have eye witnessed the conversation. So far as the P.W. No. 2 who was requisitioned as a decoy had not supported the prosecution case, however the P.W. No. 1 who was accompanied with the P.W. No. 2 at the time of trap has supported the prosecution case but on the overall evaluation of his evidence, the defence has brought on record the material contradiction as regards naming as well as respective role played by the appellants during the course of trap. Indisputably otherwise a running trap, prior to trap, the names of the accused were not disclosed as their names were disclosed during the course of trap. Indisputably otherwise a running trap, prior to trap, the names of the accused were not disclosed as their names were disclosed during the course of trap. At the time of effecting recovery thereof, the same had not mentioned in the contemporaneous record in the nature of panchnama which came to be prepared after the trap and thereafter, it is alleged that while recording of the statement of panchas as well as the decoy, the role of each accused as well the decoy, the respective role of each accused is mentioned therein in order to establish their identity. However, so far as the decoy is concerned, he has not supported the prosecution case. The P.W. No. 1 whose evidence as narrated above in conjoint reading with the evidence of P.W. Nos. 3 and 4, he has made certain material contradiction in his deposition. During the course of recording of his statement, he had not stated as regard to the respective role played by the accused during the course of trap, not only that, but as regards their identity, as admitted by the P.W. No. 4, the said witness stated before the police officials as the traffic constables only and none of the witnesses has stated before the police while recording of their statements that as regards their identity as well as their respective role revealed during the course of trap. In absence thereof, it reveals from the Records and Proceedings that the entire trap is the brain child of Mr. Rathod - Police Inspector, A.C.B., who received the secret information and arranged the said trap. After requisition of panchas and service of decoy, he arranged the trap and after laying the trap, he also carried out the crucial investigation and for about a week, he handed over the said investigation to P.W. No. 4 who also recorded the statements of panchas. It is also very surprising that after the successful trap alleged to have been carried out by Mr. K.M. Rathod, he himself has lodged the complaint before himself in a plain paper which is at Exhibit 27. Indisputably, the said complaint was lodged by him after the entire procedure of trap was carried out. It is also very surprising that after the successful trap alleged to have been carried out by Mr. K.M. Rathod, he himself has lodged the complaint before himself in a plain paper which is at Exhibit 27. Indisputably, the said complaint was lodged by him after the entire procedure of trap was carried out. Thereafter, he himself lodged the complaint before himself wherein he stated all the details as regard to the trap as well as description involving both the appellant accused as well as their respective role alleged to have been revealed during the course of the trap. 24. In view of the aforesaid factual position, when the P.W. No. 3 who himself assumed all the roles commencing from the receipt of the secret information to completion of the entire investigation of the trap. However, the statements of panch as well as the decoy were recorded subsequently by the another police official. Therefore, whatever the facts came to be stated in the complaint, were not reflecting in the police statements. During the course of trial, the P.W. No. 1 stated the said facts in his examination-in-chief, but the same facts were came to be proved by invoking the provisions of 145 of the Evidence Act as the contradiction is brought by the defence during the course of examination of P.W. Nos. 3 and 4. 25. In view of the aforesaid evidence on the record, when the defence has brought on record the contradiction as regards the material particulars involving the present appellants-accused so far as the crime in question is concerned and therefore, the entire evidence becomes meaningless on the record. 26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, neither the decoy nor the evidence of P.W. No. 1 lead the prosecution case in further linking the appellants - accused in the crime in question. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is rested upon the sole testimony of Mr. Rathod - Police Inspector as narrated above who has assumed all roles as the police official in his own manner. Therefore, conviction recorded by learned Judge is not in accordance with the evidence on record. 27. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 27.01.2000, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Court No. 17, City Session Court, Ahmedabad in Special Case No. 61 of 1996 (ACB) is quashed and set aside. Therefore, conviction recorded by learned Judge is not in accordance with the evidence on record. 27. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 27.01.2000, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Court No. 17, City Session Court, Ahmedabad in Special Case No. 61 of 1996 (ACB) is quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. Bail bond, if any, stands canceled. Fine, if any, paid by them be refunded to them. R & P be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.