Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1686 (GUJ)

Jayantilal Chunilal Patel v. State Of Gujarat

2022-12-02

SAMIR J.DAVE

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant- original accused has prayed to modify the judgment and order dated 30.06.2018 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Special (ACB) No.16 of 2011 by converting the acquittal granted to the applicant “by giving benefit of doubt” into an “acquittal simplicitor”. 2. The facts in brief, as emerging from the record, are as under; The applicant herein was serving as Deputy Engineer with the Gujarat State Electricity Corporation at Kutch Lignite Thermal Power Station, Panandhro, Kutch at the relevant time. It is alleged that on 15.03.2007, between 1300 hrs. – 1315 hrs., the applicant went to the Office of Vanrajbhai Maganbhai Chauhan, the original complainant, who was serving as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigiliance Department, Gujarat Vikas Nigam Ltd. at Vadodara at the relevant time. It is further alleged that the applicant, thereafter, informed the complainant that he had come to meet him in pursuance of the conversation which they had on the mobile phone of one Rajubhai Parmar. It is further alleged that the applicant thereafter took out of a white colored cover from his handpurse and kept it on the table in front of the complainant. On inquiry about the cover, the applicant informed him that the cover contained cash and it was meant for the purpose of expeditious closure of the inquiry against I. M. Patel, Superintendent Engineer so that the said Officer could get promotion to the next post. However, the complainant pushed the cover towards the applicant and reprimanded him for his act. He also informed his superior about the above act of the applicant. Thereafter, a primary inquiry was carried out and cash amount of Rs.4,000/- was recovered from the applicant in the presence of panchas. 2.1 It is further alleged that on 14.03.2008 the applicant made a call on the mobile phone of A.S.I. - Rajubhai Parmar and asked him to hand-over his phone to the complainant. The complainant again reprimanded the applicant and informed him that he would look into the cases on priority basis only. Pursuant thereto, a complaint under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed against the applicant and ultimately, trial was initiated. The complainant again reprimanded the applicant and informed him that he would look into the cases on priority basis only. Pursuant thereto, a complaint under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed against the applicant and ultimately, trial was initiated. 2.2 During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 25 witnesses and had also placed reliance upon several documentary evidence. At the end of trial, the Court below came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 12 of the Act against the applicant and consequently, acquitted the applicant of the charge levelled against him. However, in the operative portion of the impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2018, the Court below held that the applicant is acquitted of the charge under Section 12 of the Act by granting him the benefit of doubt. Being aggrieved by the observation made by the Court below in the impugned judgment and order whereby, the applicant has not been awarded “acquittal simplicitor” but has been “acquitted by granting benefit of doubt”, the applicant has preferred the present revision application. 3. Mr. N.D. Songara, learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that the applicant is a Government Servant and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal granted by giving “benefit of doubt” has affected his service career. He submitted that the Employer of the applicant has refused to grant him consequential benefits on acquittal for the reason that the applicant has been acquitted by the Court below by extending “benefit of doubt” and that the acquittal is not an “acquittal simplicitor”. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Songara for the applicant took the Court through the reasonings given by the Court below in the impugned judgment and order to submit that in this case, the Court below has come to the specific conclusion that there is no evidence against the applicant. It is a matter of fact that the complaint in this case was filed after a period of about 14 months. It was contended that when the Court below, after careful consideration of the oral as as well as documentary evidence adduced on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the applicant, then it ought to have passed an order of acquittal simplicitor and not an order of acquittal by granting benefit of doubt. He submitted that the term “acquittal” in its simple form is relevant under the service law jurisprudence. In a given case, the criminal Court may say that there is no evidence against the accused; but, even in such cases, the criminal Court should not employ the expression - “not proved beyond reasonable doubt” or “acquitted by giving benefit of doubt” as it may jeopardize the civil rights of the accused. It was, accordingly, urged to modify the impugned judgment and order by converting the acquittal granted to the applicant into acquittal simplicitor. 3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Songara submitted that the applicant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2022. However, on account of the observation made by the Court below that the applicant has been acquitted by granting him benefit of doubt, the Employer of the applicant has refused to grant him consequential benefits on his acquittal. It was, therefore, urged that the acquittal by granting benefit of doubt may be converted into acquittal simplicitor so that the applicant could get benefits under the service law jurisprudence. 4. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP, drew attention of the Court to the reasonings recorded by the Court below in the impugned judgment and order. She pointed out that the Court below acquitted the applicant of the charge for want of evidence and it was not that the applicant was totally innocent or that he was falsely implicated in the alleged crime. For lack of evidence against the applicant, the Court below has acquitted him of the charge and therefore, it was observed that the applicant is acquitted by granting him the benefit of doubt. In criminal law jurisprudence, an accused is convicted only if the charge levelled against him is established beyond reasonable doubt. In a given case, there may be evidence against the accused but such evidence might not be sufficient to hold him guilty for the charge and in such case, an order of acquittal simplicitor may not be passed against the accused and the criminal Court may acquit him by granting him the benefit of doubt, which has been done in the present case. It was, accordingly, urged that no illegality or impropriety has been committed by the Court below while passing the impugned judgment and order and has thereby, prayed to dismiss the present revision application. 5. Heard learned advocates on both the sides. It was, accordingly, urged that no illegality or impropriety has been committed by the Court below while passing the impugned judgment and order and has thereby, prayed to dismiss the present revision application. 5. Heard learned advocates on both the sides. It is a matter of fact that the original complainant was holding the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police at the relevant time and was, therefore, well aware about the legal procedures. He has been examined as PW-1 at Exhibit-21. However, from his evidence, it is established that he was not aware about the contents of the cover, which was allegedly placed by the applicant before him. No money was recovered from the applicant while the applicant was in the chamber of the complainant or when he was taken to the chamber of the superior officer - Vipulvijay Srilalit Vijoysingh (PW-10). In fact, the alleged money appears to be recovered by another police officer named Jagdishchandra Manilal Shrimali (PW-8) during which time the complainant does not appear to be present at the place. 6. It is pertinent to note that in his deposition before the Court below, the complainant has categorically admitted that he was aware of the fact that the offence alleged against the applicant was cognizable in nature. However, no complaint was filed in connection with the alleged offence said to have been committed on 15.03.2007. The complaint (Exhibit-22) came to be filed only on 01.05.2008, i.e. after a period of fourteen months. Further, there is also variance in the testimony of the complainant as regards the place where the panchnama regarding seizure of bribe money was prepared. 7. Having carefully gone through the material on record, it appears that none of the prosecution witnesses have led any evidence to show that the applicant herein was involved in the commission of the alleged crime. In fact, it appears from the record of the case that the alleged bribe had been paid for and on behalf of one I. M. Patel, Superintendent Engineer, for the purpose of getting the departmental inquiry initiated against the said person concluded on an expeditious basis. In fact, it appears from the record of the case that the alleged bribe had been paid for and on behalf of one I. M. Patel, Superintendent Engineer, for the purpose of getting the departmental inquiry initiated against the said person concluded on an expeditious basis. It also appears from the record that on inquiry made by the superior police officer – Vipulvijay Srilalit Vijoysingh, in the presence of the complainant, the applicant had informed that there was no request or recommendation from his side and that he had come for the purpose of inquiry only. Considering the entirety of facts and the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the Court below was justified in acquitting the applicant of the charge under Section 12 of the Act. 8. In the aforesaid background, this Court is required to consider the implication of the words “benefit of doubt” while passing a judgment and order of acquittal. There is no quarrel on the issue that under criminal law jurisprudence, the criminal Courts can add the words “benefit of doubt” or “beyond reasonable doubt” while acquitting an accused. However, the said words have to be used carefully in light of the facts and circumstances of each case. When the words “benefit of doubt” are used while acquitting an accused, it gives an impression that there was “some” evidence against the accused. There is a vast difference between an “acquittal” in simple terms and an acquittal by extending the “benefit of doubt”. One could get an idea about the difference between the two by referring to the provisions of Sections 232 and 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For ready reference, the said provisions are reproduced hereunder; “232. Acquittal-. If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal. 235. Judgment of acquittal or conviction-. (1) After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the Judge shall give a judgment in the case. 235. Judgment of acquittal or conviction-. (1) After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the Judge shall give a judgment in the case. (2) If the accused is convicted, the Judge shall, unless he proceeds in accordance with the provisions of section 360, hear the accused on the question of sentence, and then pass sentence on him according to law.” (Emphasis supplied) 8.1 According to Section 232 of Cr.P.C., if after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Court considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, then the Court shall record an order of acquittal. Whereas, according to Section 235 of Cr.P.C., after hearing the arguments, the Court may give a judgment of acquittal or a judgment of conviction; and in case of an accused against whom there is some evidence in support of the charge but such evidence is either not sufficient to hold him guilty or there is reasonable doubt about such evidence, then the Court may acquit the accused either by saying that the charge against the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt or by saying that the accused is acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. Thus, if an accused is acquitted under Section 235 of Cr.P.C., the inference is that there was evidence against him but he has been acquitted either because the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt or that he was extended the benefit of certain doubts in the case of the prosecution. Thus, in a case where there is no evidence at all against the accused and the Court, instead of acquitting him under Section 232 of Cr.P.C., acquits him under Section 235 of Cr.P.C., then though there is an acquittal favourable to him, the accused would still be aggrieved since the acquittal under Section 235 of Cr.P.C. would have different civil consequences for him. 9. Considering the facts of the case, it would be beneficial to refer to a judgment rendered by the Madras High Court in the case of E. Kalivarathan v. The State, Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police passed in Clr. R.C. No.684 of 2014 dated 23.12.2014, Paragraph-49 of the said judgment reads thus: “49. Now comes to the question as to whether the criminal Court can use the expression “honorable acquittal” while acquitting an accused. by the Sub-Inspector of Police passed in Clr. R.C. No.684 of 2014 dated 23.12.2014, Paragraph-49 of the said judgment reads thus: “49. Now comes to the question as to whether the criminal Court can use the expression “honorable acquittal” while acquitting an accused. This question is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541 wherein, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- “The expression “honorable acquittal” “acquitted of blame” “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression “honorably acquitted”. When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honorably acquitted.” 10. In this case, it is the say of the applicant that there was not an iota of evidence before the Court below to hold him guilty for the alleged offence and therefore, the Court below ought to have passed an order of “acquittal simplicitor” and not an order of “acquittal by extending benefit of doubt”. The non-passing of an order of acquittal simplicitor in the facts and circumstances of the case has jeopardized the civil rights of the applicant inasmuch as his Employer has refused to grant him consequential benefits under the service law in pursuance of his acquittal. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that the criminal Court has the freedom to use expressions like “benefit of doubt” or “beyond reasonable doubt” while passing an order of acquittal, but such expressions have to be used within the settled legal framework and cannot be used recklessly or carelessly. The Court below has examined the oral as well as documentary evidence on record in detail and has come to the conclusion that there is no evidence against the applicant to hold him guilty for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act. The Court below has examined the oral as well as documentary evidence on record in detail and has come to the conclusion that there is no evidence against the applicant to hold him guilty for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act. In the opinion of this Court, once the Court below had come to the conclusion that there is no evidence against the applicant to connect him with the alleged crime, then it ought to have passed an order of acquittal simplicitor and not an order of acquittal by granting benefit of doubt. Hence, the said observation made by the Court below deserves to be modified suitably. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the revision application is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2018 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Special (ACB) No.16 of 2011 by which the applicant came to be “acquitted by granting benefit of doubt” is converted into an order of “acquittal simplicitor”. Rest of the order remains unaltered. The application stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute.