Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 549 (GUJ)

STATE OF GUJARAT v. NATVARSINH MADARSINH SOLANKI

2018-02-20

R.P.DHOLARIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant–State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.03.2004 rendered by learned Special Judge (ACB), Fast Track Court, Mehsana in Special ACB Case No.13 of 2000. 2. As per the prosecution version, the complainant is the resident of Village Dingucha, Taluka Kalol, District Mehsana and having his own agricultural land in the name of his father, he had applied for seeking loan for the purpose of purchasing the tractor and trailer with the Land Development Bank at Kalol where the accused was serving as the Supervisor who was to process the said application for sanctioning the loan. At that time, the accused initially demanded Rs.4500/- as fees towards sanction of the loan which was scaled down to Rs.3500/-. As the complainant was not ready to pay the aforesaid amount, he lodged the complaint before the Anti Corruption Bureau. During the course of trap, the accused was caught raid-handed with the tainted current notes and thereby, he committed the offence punishable under section 7 and section 13(1) (d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the respondent accused. 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 seven documentary evidences. 3.2 At the end of 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. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. 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 acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 5.1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili Mehta has taken this Court through the entire record & proceedings and read over the evidence of material witnesses i.e. complainant, shadow panch and Investigating Officer. She pointed out that in the complaint itself, the amount of illegal gratification was narrated as fees for sanctioning the loan in favour of the complainant and consequently therefore, the same evidence the complainant has deposed before the learned Trial Court and during the course of hearing, he came to be declared as hostile to the case of the prosecution, in that view of the matter, since the complainant has stated in the complaint that he understood the amount of fees towards illegal gratification, that could have been accepted by the learned Trial Court for convicting the respondent accused. 5.2 Learned APP further submitted that the evidence of shadow panch as well as other witnesses is consistent to the case of the complainant and there is total uniformity in their evidence and the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, however learned Trial Court did not believe the case of the prosecution and wrongly acquitted the respondent accused which requires to be reversed as such. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Yogendra Thakore for the respondent has argued that the complaint itself is very vague and the complaint is not making out in clear and in unequivocal terms that the amount alleged to have been asked for by the respondent Bank Official was towards the amount of illegal gratification, but the narration is clearly indicating that the respondent demanded the said amount towards the fees for processing the application for sanctioning the loan. He has further argued that the complainant himself has not supported the case of the prosecution and even the evidence of shadow panch is not taking the case of the prosecution any further so as to establish the instant demand and acceptance thereof. The deposition of shadow panch clearly reveals that he was at a distant place and at that time, there were other persons in the room and due to huge amount of noise there, he could not hear the conversation between the complainant and the respondent as such. Consequently therefore, no corroboration is coming from the mouth of the shadow panch. He has further argued that the learned Trial Court has rightly dealt with the evidence on record and the finding recorded on each point of determination is based upon the evidence available on record. Therefore, this Court may not interfere with the judgment of acquittal as such. 7. This Court has heard Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Yogendra Thakore, learned advocate for the respondent accused. 8. Prosecution Witness No.1-Ishwarbhai Amthabhai Prajapati-the complainant deposed that he is resident of Village Dingucha, Taluka Kalol, District Mehsana and having 10 Vigha agricultural land in the name of his father, for the purpose of cultivating the said land, he applied for loan with the Bank for purchasing the tractor and tailor. At that time, he visited the Bank along with one Mr. Bharat Sendhidas Patel. The respondent accused who was serving as Supervisor in the said Bank, initially demanded Rs.4500/- towards fees for sanction of the loan which came to be scaled down to Rs.3500/-. As he was not ready and willing to pay the said amount, he lodged the complaint. The trap was arranged on 14.12.1999. At that time, he accompanied the shadow panch at the office of the respondent and other members of the raiding party stood elsewhere nearby the office of the respondent. At that time, when the he asked as regards the sanction of the loan, the respondent accused told him that his work would be done on the following days. Thereafter, the complainant voluntarily stated that he had brought the amount as agreed and handed over the said amount to the accused and thereafter, gave signal, due to which, other members of the raising party arrived there. Thereafter, the complainant voluntarily stated that he had brought the amount as agreed and handed over the said amount to the accused and thereafter, gave signal, due to which, other members of the raising party arrived there. He was declared hostile as he is not supporting the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination undertaken by the accused, he admitted that the loan sanctioning authority is the office situated at Mehsana. He also admitted that the money was required to be paid to the respondent towards fees for processing the application. He also admitted that the accused had no authority to sanction the loan. He also admitted that when the accused was moved for issuance for receipt for such amount, the members of the raiding party arrived there. 9. Prosecution Witness No.2-Devubhai Vanabhai Gadhvi who was serving at the relevant time as lineman with the Gujarat Electricity Board and was requisitioned as panch by the Anti Corruption Bureau, deposed that he accompanied the complainant at the time of trap. He deposed that when he reached the office of the respondent, there were other persons and at that time, the complainant asked for the loan and straightway handed over the amount to the accused and gave signal. In the cross-examination, he admitted that as there were several persons present in the office room of the accused, due to huge amount of noise, he could not hear the conversation between the accused and the complainant. He further admitted that the accused told to the complainant that if he would supply the necessary papers and pay the requisite fees, then the loan would be sanctioned. 10. The above is the precise evidence came on record during the course of the trial. 11. On overall evaluation of the aforesaid evidence on record and going through the complaint at Exh.10, there appears no clarity as regards the amount of Rs.3500/- which was required to be handed over to the accused. The complaint narrates that the amount was asked for by the accused towards the fees for processing the application. Regarding the same, in the cross-examination, the complainant himself has admitted that he understood that the aforesaid amount of Rs.3500/- was required to be paid towards the amount of illegal gratification and not towards the fees for processing the application. The complainant further admitted that due to misunderstanding, he lodged the complaint against the accused. 12. Regarding the same, in the cross-examination, the complainant himself has admitted that he understood that the aforesaid amount of Rs.3500/- was required to be paid towards the amount of illegal gratification and not towards the fees for processing the application. The complainant further admitted that due to misunderstanding, he lodged the complaint against the accused. 12. The evidence of the complainant is not making it clear as to whether the aforesaid amount of Rs.3500/- was required to be paid to the respondent accused towards the fees for processing the application for sanction of the loan or towards the amount of illegal gratification. Similarly, the evidence of Prosecution Witness No.2-shadow panch clearly indicates that he could not hear any conversation between the complainant and the accused, but only he could hear that the respondent accused demanded the amount towards fees and necessary documents for processing the application of the complainant for loan. Consequently therefore, the evidence of the shadow panch is not at all getting any corroboration so as to link the accused with the crime in question. 13. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned Trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent accused of the charges leveled against him. This Court finds that the findings recorded by learned Trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by learned court below and hence, finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 14. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P be sent back to the Trial Court, forthwith.