Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 929 (GUJ)

Jagdishkumar Prabhudas Madhu v. State of Gujarat

2017-05-01

R.P.DHOLARIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by appellant - Jagdishkumar Prabhudas Madhu - original accused against the judgment and order dated 29.8.2003 passed by learned Special Judge, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad City in Special Case No. 60 of 1997 whereby the original accused - appellant herein was convicted for the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 and 1/2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 and 1/2 months and also convicted him for the offence under section 13(1)(d) and section 13(2) of the said Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 and 1/2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant accused was serving as Estate Officer with Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, whereas the complainant was managing the affairs of M/s. Gandhi Non-trading Owners Association who had submitted plans on 7.4.1993 for construction at City Survey No. 1787 situated at Khadia Ward No. 3 forming part of Central Zone area ward No. 10 and the same was investigated by Mayank Shah at the site for which a report was submitted. It is alleged that in the said property, the construction was carried out wherein the municipal corporation found violation of building norms and therefore notices were issued and hence the complainant met the accused and he requested the appellant accused to lift the security. It is alleged that for which, the accused demanded Rs. 60,000/- as an amount of illegal gratification and it was agreed to hand over the first installment of Rs. 10,000/- on 28.8.1997. As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he lodged the complaint, trap was arranged wherein the appellant accused was caught red handed along with tainted currency notes of Rs. 10,000/-. Therefore, the offence was registered against the appellant accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the original accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 4. 10,000/-. Therefore, the offence was registered against the appellant accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the original accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 4.1 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant - original accused has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 6. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant - original accused has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of conviction. It is further contended that 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. 7. Mr. A.D. Shah, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Ekant Ahuja, learned advocate appearing for the appellant - original accused has taken this Court through the evidence on record and argued that the complaint lodged by the complainant on 28.8.1997 is fake and if the words narrated in the complaint "that the accused told that he would have to hand over the amount from the bottom to top as well as the complainant shown willingness to tender the amount for the purpose of illegal gratification before the ACB" are taken out, then from the entire complaint, nothing is revealing to constitute any offence as alleged. He submitted that precisely, from the complaint itself, nothing concretely is revealing as regards to demand of illegal gratification. He submitted that precisely, from the complaint itself, nothing concretely is revealing as regards to demand of illegal gratification. He submitted that on conjoint reading of the evidence of the complainant and the shadow witness along with contemporaneous panchnama which came to be prepared by the Investigating Officer at page 597 of the paper book wherein in the panchnama, it has been mentioned that the accused after arriving from the office of his superior told the complainant that he had talked with the superior officer and in all, the case of the complainant would be finished for Rs. 65,000/- though the same was told to the complainant for Rs. 60,000/- wherein demand for illegal gratification is clearly emerging out but the same had not been deposed by the complainant as well as the panch in their depositions. He submitted that on the contrary, the shadow panch in his examination-in-chief as well as in the cross examination has admitted that at the time of conversation between the complainant and the accused, there was conversation as regards to the amount for security deposit for which the complainant has handed over Rs. 10,000/- and except the amount of security, he has not heard anything else. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid nature of evidence of the complainant as well as the shadow witness, nothing concretely has been brought on record so as to establish demand and acceptance by the prosecution. He further submitted that there appears lots of contradictions in the deposition of the complainant and even there is no uniformity in the evidence of the shadow witness and the complainant. He submitted that the amount of security was given by the complainant to the accused for lifting the security placed by the municipal corporation at the place of the complainant. He submitted that if the contents of the affidavit at Exh. 70 which came to be seized at the time of trap may be taken into consideration, it is clearly emerging out that the complainant has undertaken to maintain status quo of the property as well as he had undertaken to pay the entire expenses of the security to the municipal corporation and the said document was executed on 21.8.1997. Lastly, Mr. Shah submitted that the impugned judgment and order of conviction is required to be quashed and set aside. 8. On the other-hand, Ms. Lastly, Mr. Shah submitted that the impugned judgment and order of conviction is required to be quashed and set aside. 8. On the other-hand, Ms. Chandarana, learned APP has supported the judgment rendered by learned trial Court. She submitted that this is a fit case wherein learned trial Court has considered voluminous evidence in its proper perspective and rightly convicted the accused which calls for no interference. She further submitted that finding recorded by learned trial Court is based upon the concrete and clinching evidence. She submitted that learned trial Court has recorded ample reasons based on the evidence on record for convicting the appellant accused and ingredients as regards to demand, acceptance and recovery are proved in accordance with law and, therefore, this Court may dismiss the appeal filed by the original accused. She submitted that explanation rendered by the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is not at all acceptable in view of the evidence on record and the evidence of the complainant as well as shadow panch is sufficient to constitute vital ingredients of demand and acceptance. She submitted that there appears no reason to take a different view than the view taken by learned trial Judge as the evidence on record is consistent on material aspect. She, therefore, submitted that taking into consideration the oral evidence as well as aforesaid documentary evidence, the prosecution has successfully established that the appellant accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification. She, therefore, submitted that this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction. 9. This Court has heard Mr. A.D. Shah, learned senior advocate for the appellant -original accused and Ms. Chandarana, learned APP for the State. 10. This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment rendered by learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper book. 11. As per the prosecution version, the appellant accused was serving as Estate Officer with Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, whereas the complainant was managing the affairs of M/s. Gandhi Non-trading Owners Association who had submitted plans on 7.4.1993 for construction at City Survey No. 1787 situated at Khadia Ward No. 3 forming part of Central Zone area ward No. 10 and the same was investigated by Mayank Shah at the site for which a report was submitted. It is alleged that in the said property, the construction was carried out wherein the municipal corporation found violation of building norms and therefore notices were issued and hence the complainant met the accused and he requested the appellant accused to lift the security. It is alleged that for which, the accused demanded Rs. 60,000/- as an amount of illegal gratification and it was agreed to hand over the first installment of Rs. 10,000/- on 28.8.1997. As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he lodged the complaint, trap was arranged wherein the appellant accused was caught red handed along with tainted currency notes of Rs. 10,000/- and thereby the accused committed the offence as alleged against him. 12. PW 1 - Sanjay Natwarlal Adesara - complainant has been examined at Exh. 23. The witness has deposed that he is doing the business as jewellers and that he was owner of the land bearing Survey No. 1787 which has been acquired by Gandhi Non-trading Owners Association. The witness has deposed that plans for construction in the said land was sanctioned in the year 1996 and the construction was also over and thereafter the municipal corporation served the notice under section 260 of the BPMC Act. Thereafter, the corporation deployed the security for stoppage of further construction over the said property. The witness has deposed that thereafter the complainant met the accused in the year 1997, at that time, the accused told him that if he would pay the money, then his work may proceed further. The witness has deposed that the accused demanded Rs. 60,000/- from him three days prior to lodging the complaint. At that time, the witness also met to Mr. Keshav Varma, Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation wherein he appraised the Commissioner as regards to demand raised by the accused. The witness has deposed that at that time, Mr. Varma told him to catch the accused if he is demanding illegal gratification. The witness has deposed that when he met the accused, the accused told him to execute affidavit for lifting the security, but he lodged the complaint. In pursuance of the complaint, the trap was arranged; on the day of trap, he was accompanied along with panch No. 1 and they reached to the office of the accused. The witness has deposed that when he met the accused, the accused told him to execute affidavit for lifting the security, but he lodged the complaint. In pursuance of the complaint, the trap was arranged; on the day of trap, he was accompanied along with panch No. 1 and they reached to the office of the accused. At that time, the accused was found on his chair where the accused asked the complainant as to whether he has brought affidavit and thereafter he placed affidavit before the accused. The witness has deposed that thereafter by way of making gesture, the accused asked the complainant whether he has brought that and thereafter he was directed to sit in the chair. In turn, the complainant replied that he has brought Rs. 10,000/- and thereafter he handed over the said amount to the accused which was placed into the drawer and then the accused put the said amount into his pocket. The witness has deposed that thereafter he raised prearranged signal and hence, other members of the raiding party arrived there, seized tainted currency notes along with the papers and also carried out detailed seizure panchnama. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that he met to one Mr. P.S. Patel, superior officer of the accused and he has not made any demand of illegal gratification. The witness has admitted that similarly, he also met to Commissioner Mr. Keshav Varma and he detailed with regard to the alleged demand and in turn, Mr. Varma directed him to lodge the complaint. The witness has admitted that the accused raised the demand a day prior to lodging the complaint first in point of time. The witness has admitted that the accused told him to deposit security expenses for which he was required to pay Rs. 10,000/- and that the security would be lifted as and when he would give the bond as well as deposit the security amount. The witness has admitted that when he told the accused that he had brought that, at that time, the accused did not ask him as to whether he had brought money or not. The witness has admitted that at the time of trap, he entered into the conversation with the accused with regard to security deposit in the presence of panch, but it was not specified by the accused that the security would be lifted. The witness has admitted that at the time of trap, he entered into the conversation with the accused with regard to security deposit in the presence of panch, but it was not specified by the accused that the security would be lifted. The witness has admitted that he neither inquired from the accused nor from Mr. P.S. Patel as regards as to how much amount to be paid towards security expenses. 13. PW 2 - Babulal Somabhai Prajapati has been examined at Exh. 65. The witness has deposed that at the relevant time, he was serving as Senior Clerk in the office of RTO Ahmedabad and he was requisitioned as shadow panch on 28.7.1997. The witness has deposed that he was appraised as regard to the contents of the complaint, as to how the trap is to be carried out as well as test of ultra violate lamp and he was directed to remain a throughout with the complainant as he was to hear and view to the incident of trap. The witness has deposed that on the day of trap, he proceeded along with the complainant and reached to the office of the accused, at that time, the accused was found on his chair and thereafter the complainant requested the accused to take up his file. The witness has deposed that in turn, the accused took up the file of the complainant and asked whether he has brought any affidavit or not. Thereafter, the complainant handed over the affidavit which was placed in the file. The witness has deposed that the accused was talking as regards to the amount of security deposit and after sometime, the complainant told that he has brought that amount, in turn, the accused asked how much. The complainant told that Rs. 10,000/- and thereafter the complainant was directed to place the said amount into the drawer which amount was taken out from the drawer by the accused and put into his pocket. Thereafter the complainant gave prearranged signal and hence, other members of the raiding party arrived there. The witness has deposed that search and seizure took place and that test of ultra violate lamp was found to be positive so far as the person of the accused is concerned. Thereafter the complainant gave prearranged signal and hence, other members of the raiding party arrived there. The witness has deposed that search and seizure took place and that test of ultra violate lamp was found to be positive so far as the person of the accused is concerned. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that the accused demanded affidavit from the complainant and he had not demanded any amount from him. The witness has admitted that the complainant and the accused have no conversation regarding any monetary transaction. The witness has admitted that in the affidavit at Exh. 70, the complainant stated that he is ready to deposit the security amount and ready to maintain status quo, but there was no conversation as regards to specific amount of security at that time, but the talk was going on regarding security amount. The witness has admitted that during the conversation between the complainant and the accused, the accused had not demanded any amount, while the complainant had told the accused that he had brought the money for the security. Till then, the accused had not demanded any amount from the complainant. The witness has admitted that at that time, the accused asked the complainant as to what was the amount with him, at that time, the complainant told him that he has brought Rs. 10,000/-. The witness has admitted that at the time of trap, in the office room of the accused, there were other six to seven employees and they were also present till 6.00 pm. 14. PW 3 - Laxmansinh Parvatsinh Solanki has been examined at Exh. 71. The witness has deposed that he was serving as Police Inspector, ACB, Gandhinagar at the relevant time. The witness has deposed that he recorded the complaint and thereafter he carried out necessary formalities for laying the trap. He requisitioned panchas, arranged the trap and he detailed as to how the trap was carried out. 15. PW 4 - Keshavlal Kodarlal Patel has been examined at Exh. 73. The witness has deposed that he was serving as Police Inspector, ACB at the relevant time. The witness has deposed that upon the sanction from the competent authority, he filed the chargesheet. 16. Over and above the aforesaid oral evidence on record, it is worth to note the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution. The FIR at Exh. 73. The witness has deposed that he was serving as Police Inspector, ACB at the relevant time. The witness has deposed that upon the sanction from the competent authority, he filed the chargesheet. 16. Over and above the aforesaid oral evidence on record, it is worth to note the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution. The FIR at Exh. 39 is required to be reproduced in translated version, as provided by learned advocate for the appellant - accused, as under. "My name is Sanjaybhai Natverlal Adeshra Soni, aged about 25, occupation business, Add : 41 Swati society, Ishwar Bhavan Hall Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Phone R - 6568489. I have personally come and declared the bait of my complaint that, I am residing at the above mentioned address and carrying on business. We had one open plot in khadiya ward No. 3 having survey No. 1787. For developing the plot we had placed a plan in the name of Gandhi non trader's owners association before the municipal corporation is the year 1993. The said name was approved in the first month in the year 1995. This we had immediately commenced construction and in the year end 1995 the profession was banded own to the party for commercial use. I started this construction and completed it and banded over possession to the parties till them the Municipality opponent had not issued any kind of notice or taken any action. But in the year 1996 August month Municipal Corporation, has placed security at our above construction premises without informing us. Therefore I had gone to make inquiry with the estate officer of our ward Estate Department, at that time the Estate officer Mr. Jagdishbhai Patel who is also known as Madhu. He had informed that you have made internal changes and parking is covered. Therefore security is placed. Thereafter we had received notice under Section 260(1) from the Municipal Corporation so I had personally gone and made personal representation before Mr. P.S Patel. Thereafter in this regard I had filed Civil Suit against Municipal Corporation before the Civil Court. After about eight to ten days I went to the office of Municipal Corporation and met Estate Officer Mr. Jagdishbhai Patel with regards to our building and requested him to find out way. Therefore Jagdishbhai Patel said if you are willing to incur expenses then a way can be found. After about eight to ten days I went to the office of Municipal Corporation and met Estate Officer Mr. Jagdishbhai Patel with regards to our building and requested him to find out way. Therefore Jagdishbhai Patel said if you are willing to incur expenses then a way can be found. Therefore I had enquired how much expenses have to be incurred, he replied give Rs. 60,000/- I will find out a way I said this is a very big amount so he said that "from this "I have to distribute from top to bottom therefore I had unwillingly agreed to give this amount. Therefore Jagdishbhai told me that that, " you withdraw the suit and make one affidavit on bond paper that, I will maintain the present condition of the building and will deposit security expenses, finish this much work and come to me." Thereafter yesterday in the evening at 5:30 pm I took the bond paper and met Mr. Jagdisbhai in his office so he said to me that, "Have you brought the money as agreed?" So I replied that, "at present I have not brought. It is not possible to arrange 60000/- at the same time." So Jagdishbhai informed me that, "tomorrow come in the evening same time with bond paper and rupees ten thousand only and I will start your file work. And as and how the file gets disposed off accordingly you will have to pay the balance amount. Therefore I agreed to do so. Therefore as agreed today evening I am going to go to office of Mr. Jagdishbhai to give rupees ten thousand. I do not have any personal hostility or financial transactions with Jagdishbhai I will produce Rs. Ten thousand for giving as bribe. In this manner the fact of my complainant are true and correct as narrated by me, I have put my signature below. Date: 28/8/97 Time: 13:00 Hours Place: ACB office Dafnala, Ahmedabad. SD/- illegible Date : 28/8/97 Before me SD/- illegible Police inspector ACB, At Police Station Ahmedabad" 17. Similarly, contemporaneous panchnama which came to be drawn after carrying out raid, more particularly, page 597 of the paper-book clearly mentions conversation between the complainant and the accused that the accused after arriving from the office of his superior told the complainant that he had talked with his superior for Rs. 50,000/- and he would satisfy him for Rs. Similarly, contemporaneous panchnama which came to be drawn after carrying out raid, more particularly, page 597 of the paper-book clearly mentions conversation between the complainant and the accused that the accused after arriving from the office of his superior told the complainant that he had talked with his superior for Rs. 50,000/- and he would satisfy him for Rs. 30,000/- and in all, the complainant would be required to pay Rs. 65,000/- though he previously said the complainant for Rs. 60,000/- as the amount of illegal gratification. 18. The undertaking at Exh. 70 alleged to have executed on 21.8.1997 on behalf of the complainant in favour of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation undertaking that status quo as regards to construction would be maintained by the undertaker and he would pay the entire amount of security expenses. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. In a recent enunciation by the Honourable Apex Court to discern the imperative pre-requisites 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 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. 22. 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. 23. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual as well as legal 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. 24. 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. In the present case, on evaluation of the evidence on record, more particularly, the complaint, translated version of which is reproduced hereinabove clearly indicates as submitted by Mr. In the present case, on evaluation of the evidence on record, more particularly, the complaint, translated version of which is reproduced hereinabove clearly indicates as submitted by Mr. A.D. Shah, learned senior advocate that keeping aside the aforesaid two sentences from the entire complaint, no averment is constituting any offence punishable under the provisions of the Act and the same is also getting support from other evidence on record as, as per the prosecution itself, at the time of laying the trap and after successful trap, contemporaneous panchnama was carried out by the trapping team which is at page 597 of the paper-book. The demand as regards to illegal gratification is emerging out in unequivocal terms from the mouth of the accused quantifying in all Rs. 65,000/- and out of which Rs. 30,000/- would have to be paid to Sir and rest would be appropriated amongst them and in all, demand was for the amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 65,000/-. However, as noted above, from the oral evidence of complainant - PW 1 as well as Panch No. 1 - PW 2, nothing sort of the aforesaid conversation is emerging out, on the contrary, the complainant deposed that by way of making gesture, he told to the accused that he had brought that and thereafter handed over the amount to the accused, but no sort of any conversation has taken placed between the complainant and the accused. Therefore, there appears material contradictions as regards to crucial conversation between the complainant and the accused at the time of trap, which has been mentioned in the contemporaneous panchnama at Exh. 66. In absence of crucial and material conversation as regards to the amount of illegal gratification and even reference was also made as regards to the previous demand specifically which is missing in the depositions of both the aforesaid witnesses. 25. 66. In absence of crucial and material conversation as regards to the amount of illegal gratification and even reference was also made as regards to the previous demand specifically which is missing in the depositions of both the aforesaid witnesses. 25. As stated above, this Court has minutely examined the evidence of the witnesses and the evidence of the witnesses has been read over in the presence of learned advocates for the parties and on overall analysis of their evidence as it is deposed by PW 1 and PW 2, it would become very difficult for a person having ordinary prudence to believe that reference as regards to demand for illegal gratification by way of gesture was made, on the contrary, nothing is emerging out from the evidence of the complainant that the accused demanded any amount of illegal gratification from the complainant. Further, there is clear admission made by the shadow witness - PW 2 that there was conversation between the complainant and the accused as regards to the amount of security expenses and there was no demand for any amount of illegal gratification. Even, the shadow witness has clearly and categorically admitted that Rs. 10,000/- which was handed over by the complainant to the accused was towards security expenses. 26. In view of the aforesaid factual position and evaluating the evidence in light of the documentary evidence available on record, oral evidence of the complainant as well as the shadow witness is not establishing demand and acceptance and therefore, in absence of establishment of vital ingredients like demand and acceptance, recovery effected from the accused becomes meaningless. 27. In this view of the matter, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove vital ingredients as regards to demand and acceptance and therefore, the judgment and order of conviction calls for interference by this Court. Therefore, as stated above, in absence of specific and clinching evidence to prove all such acts by the accused, conviction recorded by learned trial Judge is not sustainable. 28. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated 29.8.2003 passed by learned Special Judge, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad City in Special Case No. 60 of 1997 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Fine, if any, paid by the appellant accused be refunded. The impugned judgment and order dated 29.8.2003 passed by learned Special Judge, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad City in Special Case No. 60 of 1997 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Fine, if any, paid by the appellant accused be refunded. R & P be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.