Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1093 (GUJ)

State Of Gujarat v. Ashwinkumar Uttamchand Shah

2024-05-02

S.V.PINTO

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and the order of acquittal in Special (ACB) Case No.13 of 1995 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.3, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) on 16.04.2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.C.Act’). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: 2.1. That the accused was a Professor and Head of the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine at the Medical College, Vadodara and was a public servant. That Tejas Vasantbhai Patel, son of the complainant Dr. Vasantbhai Muljibhai Patel, was a student of the final year of M.B.B.S. in the Medical College at Vadodara. Though Tejas Vasantbhai Patel was a studious student, he was getting less marks in the subject of Preventive and Social Medicine and Tejas Vasantbhai Patel, son of the complainant Vasantbhai Patel, met the accused and the accused told him to send his father to meet him. That accordingly, the complainant went on 05.12.1994 and met the accused and at that time, the accused told him that his son was very weak in the subject of Preventive and Social Medicine and could fail and if he wanted to get him passed, he would have to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as illegal gratification. The complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification to the accused and hence, went to the ACB Police Station, Vadodara and filed a complaint under Sections 7, 13(2)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C.Act, which was registered at C.R.No. 23 of 1994 on 10.12.1994. 2.2. That the panch witnesses were called by the Trap Laying Officer and the use of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp were explained and the demonstration was carried out in the presence of the panch witnesses and the complainant and the trap was arranged. 2.2. That the panch witnesses were called by the Trap Laying Officer and the use of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp were explained and the demonstration was carried out in the presence of the panch witnesses and the complainant and the trap was arranged. On 10.12.1994, the complainant and the shadow witness went to quarter No. M/8, Jail Road, Vadodara, where the accused was residing and at that time, the accused demanded for the amount of Rs.25,000/- as illegal gratification and accepted the same and the complainant gave the pre-determined signal and the members of the raiding party came and the accused was caught red handed. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and drew the necessary panchnama and after the order of sanction for prosecution was received, a charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Sessions Court, which was registered as Special Case No. 13 of 1995. 2.3. The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared in person before the learned Trial Court and after the due procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was completed, a charge was framed against the accused at Exh.4 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.5, wherein, the accused denied the allegations made in the charge and the evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4. The prosecution has filed the following oral as well as documentary evidence to prove the charges against the accused. Oral evidence : 1. Vasantbhai Muljibhai Patel Exh.14 2. Santoshbhai Shantaram Chandivarkar Exh.48 3. Rajendrabhai Gulabrai Bhatt Exh.69 4. Dr.Kishorbhai Pramodrai Desai Exh.02 5. Atmaram Pandurang Pawar Exh.75 6. Laxmanbhai Muljibhai Vaghela Exh.78 7. Kishorbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel Exh.85 Documentary evidence : 1. Complaint Exh.38 2. Panchnama Exh.49 3. Seizure Memo Exh.50 4. Register of Internal Marks Exh.13 5. Service book of the accused No.1 Exh.56 6. Salary certificate of the accused No.1 Exh.57 7. Sanction order Exh.79 2.5. That after the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record, the learned APP filed a closing pursis at Exh. 81 and the further statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence against him. Salary certificate of the accused No.1 Exh.57 7. Sanction order Exh.79 2.5. That after the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record, the learned APP filed a closing pursis at Exh. 81 and the further statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence against him. The accused refused to step into the witness box but he has stated that he wanted to examine witnesses on his behalf and has stated that a false case has been filed against him and the alleged tainted currency notes were recovered from the cupboard and he has not accepted any amount. The accused has examined the following witnesses in support of his case: Defence Witnesses: 1. Kishorbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel Exh.85 2. Dr.Anjanaben S. Pandya Exh.86 3. Narendrabhai Ambalal Shah Exh.87 4. Dr.Ramkrushnadas Baburam Goyal Exh.88 2.6 After the arguments of the learned APP and the accused, who appeared in-person, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused from all the offences by the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal dated 16.04.2008. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court in Special Case No. 13 of 1995, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal is contrary to law and the evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution has not proved their case beyond reasonable doubts. The prosecution has examined witnesses and has also produced the documentary evidences but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and has erred in acquitting the accused from the offences charged against him. That the accused was a public servant and he has committed the offence of criminal misconduct and the accused had in fact accepted the amount of illegal gratification but the learned Trial Court has not considered that the prosecution has produced the evidence of the independent panch witnesses, in whose presence, the amount of illegal gratification has been accepted by the accused. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of complainant Dr. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of complainant Dr. Vasantbhai Muljibhai Patel and the Trap Laying Officer, who has fully supported the case of the prosecution and it is proved that the amount Rs.25,000/- as illegal gratification has been recovered from the house of the accused. That the entire case has been proved by the evidence of the panch witnesses and the Trap Laying Officer but the learned Trial Court has erred in discarding the positive evidences, which were available on record. That the tainted currency notes were recovered from the house of the accused, coupled with other circumstances, the same leads to the conclusion that the accused had accepted the illegal gratification from the complainant and in view of the provision of Section 20 of the P.C.Act, the learned Trial Court ought to have convicted the accused. That the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal is not proper and is contrary to the evidence on record and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused must be found guilty for the offences. 4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant – State and the accused Ashwinkumar Uttamchand Shah, who has appeared in person. Perused the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal and re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court through the entire evidence and has submitted that the complainant has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has deposed that that he had met the accused on 05.12.1994 and at that time, the accused had demanded the amount of illegal gratification to pass his son in the examination. That on the day of the trap i.e. 10.12.1994, the complainant along with the shadow witness had gone to the residence of the accused where he was called and in the presence of the panch witness, the accused had demanded the amount of illegal gratification and had accepted same from the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant went out and immediately, the accused closed the door and it is on record that when the members of the raiding party knocked the door, the accused did not open the door and the door was broken down by the members of the raiding party. Thereafter, the complainant went out and immediately, the accused closed the door and it is on record that when the members of the raiding party knocked the door, the accused did not open the door and the door was broken down by the members of the raiding party. Thereafter, the tainted currency notes were recovered from the custody of the accused and the tainted currency notes were placed in the right side pant pocket from where PW-2 had recovered the same. That the traces of anthracene powder were also found on the right hand fingers, thumb and palm of the accused and the prosecution has fully proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The prosecution has also examined the competent authority, who had given the order of sanction for prosecution and there is no evidence produced on record to show that the accused did not demand or accept the amount of illegal gratification. The prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the appeal must be allowed and the accused must be convicted for the offences. 6. Ashwinkumar Uttamchand Shah, the respondent – original accused, who has appeared in-person, has taken this Court through the entire evidence and particularly the deposition of the defence witnesses Kishorbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, Dr. Anjanben S. Pandya, Narendrabhai Ambalal Shah and Dr. Ramkrishnadas Baburam Goyel and has argued that from the evidence, it is proved that on 05.04.1994, he was busy in a meeting in his office and the complainant did not come to meet him at all. That particularly, at the time when the complainant has stated that he had gone to meet the accused in the office, a meeting was going on and from the deposition of the witnesses, he has proved that the complainant did not meet him. That even on the date of the trap, witness Narendrabhai Ambabal Shah had come to meet him and at that time, the complainant came and shook his hand with him and spoke about some medical books. The witness has described the dress that was worn by him and when he entered in the room to get the books, the witness left the place. The witness has described the dress that was worn by him and when he entered in the room to get the books, the witness left the place. That at that time, there was only one person waiting and from the deposition, it is proved that the shadow witness was not with the complainant on the date of the trap. The respondent has vehemently argued that in the entire evidence of the prosecution, there is nothing on record to show that he himself was the examiner for the final examination and had the powers to pass the son of the complainant. That, in fact, he being the Professor and Head of the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine at the Medical College, Vadodara had no authority to pass any students as the final examination of M.B.B.S. students was taken by the M.S.University and he was not the the examiner but there is evidence on record to show that the complainant had an axe to grind with him and had filed a false complaint. The learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and has rightly acquitted him and hence, the appeal of the appellant – State must be rejected and the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court must be confirmed. 6.1. In support of his case, the accused has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.1167 of 2018 and has stated that the Apex Court has observed in Para-9, as under: “9. ... ... ....The law with regard to interference by the Appellate Court is very well crystallized. Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with the same would not be warranted. Though, there are a catena of judgments on the issue, we will only refer to two judgments which the High Court itself has reproduced in the impugned judgment, which are as reproduced below: “13. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P. (2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court has held that:- "In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and !aw. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P. (2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court has held that:- "In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and !aw. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. Appellate Court, while 9 enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded." 14. Similar, In case of Harljan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat (2016) 12 SCC 665 , the Supreme Court has held that:- "No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the same. However, this does not mean that in all the cases where the trial court has recorded acquittal, the same should not be interfered with, even if the view is perverse. Where the view taken by the trial court is against the weight of evidence on record, or perverse, it is always open far the appellate court to express the right conclusion after reappreciating the evidence If the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt on record, and convict the accused." 7. In view of the settled principles of law in the acquittal appeals, it is essential to re-appreciate the evidence produced by the prosecution on record before the learned Trial Court and to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Dr.Vasantbhai Muljibhai Patel at Exh.14, The witness is the complainant and he has stated that he is a Medical Officer and has his own nursing home at Vadodara. He has stated that his son Tejas Patel was studying in the final year of M.B.B.S. in the Medical College, Vadodara and he had a bright career. He has stated that his son Tejas Patel was studying in the final year of M.B.B.S. in the Medical College, Vadodara and he had a bright career. He has stated that his son had obtained good marks but did not score good marks in Preventive and Social Medicine and he had asked his son to meet the head of the department of Preventive and Social Medicine at Vadodara. That his son had met the accused who had told him to meet the accused and on 05.12.1994 at about 11:00am, he went to meet the accused at his residence at M/8, Doctor Quarters, Jail Road, Vadodara. That he had gone alone to meet the accused and the accused had told him that he would have to pay him an amount of Rs.25,000/-, if he wanted his son to pass and get 55% in the subject of Preventive and Social Medicine. That on 09.12.1994, he telephoned the accused on his telephone No.424848 Extension No. 512 and at that time, the accused told him to come to his residence on 10.12.1994 at about 12:30pm. That he had gone to the ACB Office and had filed a complaint and the trap was arranged and the complaint has been produced at Exh.32. That the Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and the complainant had given 50 currency notes, which were the denomination of Rs.500/- each to the Trap Laying Officer and the demonstration of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was done in the presence of the complainant and the panch witnesses and all the currency notes were smeared with the anthracene powder. That he and the shadow witness went to the house of the accused at about 13.10 hours and he rang the door bell and the accused opened the door and called them inside. That once again, the accused demanded an amount of Rs.25,000/- as illegal gratification to pass his son Tejas Patel in the subject of Preventive and Social Medicine and to give him 55% marks. That the complainant took the tainted currency notes, which were in the left side shirt pocket, with his right hand and gave it to the accused and the accused accepted the same with his right hand and counted the same with both the hands and placed the currency notes in his right side pant pocket. That the complainant took the tainted currency notes, which were in the left side shirt pocket, with his right hand and gave it to the accused and the accused accepted the same with his right hand and counted the same with both the hands and placed the currency notes in his right side pant pocket. That the accused thereafter told the complainant that the work would be done and the complainant and the shadow witness went out of the house of the accused and the accused closed the door of the house and at that time, the time was 1:25pm. That the complainant gave the pre-determined signal and the members of the raiding party came and rang the door bell for 7-8 times but the accused did not open the door and the members of the raiding party used force and kicked the door and the door was broken down. That they all went into the house of the accused and the accused was trying to escape but he was caught by the members of the raiding party and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the right side pant pocket of the accused. That the test of ultraviolet lamp was done and there were light blue colour shining marks on the hands, tips of the fingers and the palm of the accused. That the panchnama was drawn and they all had affixed their signatures on the panchnama. During the cross-examination by the accused himself, the witness has stated that no marks were made on the pant that was seized by the ACB Officer and no signatures were taken by any one. That if PW-2 Santoshbhai Shantaram Chandivakar had taken the tainted currency notes from the table, the traces of the anthracene powder would be found from the hands of PW-2 Santoshbhai Shantaram Chandivakar also. That when the members of the raiding party were ringing the door bell of the house of the accused, there was a loud noise but no neighbours or the passers-by came on hearing the sound. That when he went to the house of the accused on the day of the raid, he sat for about 15 minutes and the conversation as narrated by him had taken place for 1-2 minutes. That besides the conversations, no other conversations had taken place with the accused. That when he went to the house of the accused on the day of the raid, he sat for about 15 minutes and the conversation as narrated by him had taken place for 1-2 minutes. That besides the conversations, no other conversations had taken place with the accused. That the pant that was seized was of the ownership of the accused but the pant was not tested for traces of the anthracene powder. Tejas Patel, the son of the complainant, was getting 58-60 marks in all the subject and 50% marks were required for passing. Tejas Patel stood 15th rank in the 1st M.B.B.S. examination and the M.B.B.S. course was conducted by the M.S. University and the result that the students had passed or not is declared by the M.S.University. Tejas Patel had obtained 50-52% marks in the internal examination. Tejas Patel had met the accused on 25.11.1994 and on 05.12.1994, the complainant had met the accused at his house and he does not know as to whether the accused was on duty or not. The witness had admitted that he had a copy of the charge sheet and all the police papers and he had deposed as per the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer. The accused had placed the tainted currency notes in the cupboard in his house. 7.1. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Santoshbhai Shantaram Chandivakar at Exh.48 and the witness is the panch witness who had accompanied the complainant as a shadow witness. This witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has narrated the entire events that had taken place right from the time that he and other panch witness Ishwarbhai had gone to the office of the ACB at Vadodara and they were explained about the complaint and the demonstration of the anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp was done in their presence. The witness has stated that the primary panchnama was drawn and they had affixed their signatures and had gone from the ACB Office in the Government vehicle to the place of the trap. The witness has further stated that the complainant went to the house of the accused and at that time, the accused opened the door and asked about the person who had accompanied the complainant and the complainant told that he was his driver. The witness has further stated that the complainant went to the house of the accused and at that time, the accused opened the door and asked about the person who had accompanied the complainant and the complainant told that he was his driver. That both of them went into the house of the accused and sat in the drawing room and the complainant had stated that as per the conversation that had taken place between the accused and the complainant, he had brought the money and the complainant took the money from his pant pocket and gave the amount to the accused and the accused took the same and put in his pant pocket and thereafter, both of them came out and the complainant gave the pre-determined signal. That when the members of the raiding party came, the door of the house of the accused was closed and in spite of ringing the door-bell, the accused did not open the door and the door was broken down by the members of the raiding party. That the accused was caught red handed and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the right side pant pocket of the accused and the witness had taken the amount and give it to the ACB Officer. That when the accused was questioned, the accused had stated that he was doing the work as an L.I.C. agent and the traces of anthracene powder were found on both the hands and the pant of the accused also. That one light blue colour handkerchief was also found from the pant pocket of the accused and light blue marks were also found on the handkerchief and the said handkerchief was also seized by the ACB Officer. The witness has identified his signature on the panchnama, which is produced at Exh.49. The witness did not fully support the case of the prosecution and permission was granted to refresh the memory of the witness and the panchnama was shown to the witness and thereafter, the witness has stated that the tainted currency notes were placed in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant. During cross-examination by the accused, the witness has stated that there were no marks on the pant and no signature of any person on the pant pocket. During cross-examination by the accused, the witness has stated that there were no marks on the pant and no signature of any person on the pant pocket. That his father had suffered from paralysis and he was treated by the complainant but he did not remember as to how many days, his father had remained as an indoor patient. That the panchnama was dictated by Vaghela Sir and the writer was writing the panchnama and the panchnama was written at the house of the accused and was dictated by one of the officer and written by the writer but he does not remember as to who was writing or dictating the same. That the members of the raiding party had lunch at the house of the accused but he does not remember as to whether the complainant had paid the amount of the bill of Rs.475/-. That he had seen the ultraviolet lamp for the first time and he does not remember what was written on the bottle in which the anthracene powder was kept. That he had gone as a panch as a part of his duty and the complainant had not made any offer of the bribe amount to the accused. That no test of the powder was done at the house of the accused. 7.2. The prosecution has examined PW-3 Rajendrabhai Gulabrai Bhatt at Exh.69 and the witness is the competent authority who had given the order of sanction for prosecution, which is produced at Exh.70. During cross- examination by the accused, the witness has stated that along with the draft, he had studied all the papers and there were no documents showing that Tejas Patel had less marks in the subject of Preventive and Social Medicine. That the duty list of the accused was not sent to him along with the papers. 7.3. The prosecution has examined PW-4 Kishorbhai Promodrai Desai at Exh.72 and this witness was the tutor of Medico Legal at Sayaji Hospital and the witness has produced the internal marks of the students of Preventive and Social Medicine at Exh.73. This witness has stated that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd year examinations are taken by the University and the examiners are appointed by the Chancellor of the University and the results are declared by the University. 7.4. This witness has stated that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd year examinations are taken by the University and the examiners are appointed by the Chancellor of the University and the results are declared by the University. 7.4. The prosecution has examined PW-5 Atmaram Pandurang Pawar at Exh.75 and this witness was a member of the raiding party on the date of the trap. This witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that he was called by police inspector Mr. Vaghela when the complainant had gone to file the complaint and he was present and had helped in the entire procedure and had thereafter taken over the investigation and after receiving the order of sanction for prosecution, he had filed the charge sheet. During cross-examination by the accused himself, this witness has stated that he has not seen the duty list of the accused before filing the charge sheet and he was a member of the raiding party. That when the accused gave the pre-determined signal, the members of the raiding party and the panch witnesses went into the house of the accused and the door of the house of the accused was closed. That the accused did not open the door but he could not say as to whether the door was not opened because the accused had found out when the ACB trap has been laid. That the test of ultraviolet lamp on the tainted currency notes was done in the veranda. 7.5. The prosecution has examined PW-6 Laxmanbhai Muljibhai Vaghela at Exh.78. This witness is the Trap Laying Officer and has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has narrated all the events that had unfolded right from the time that the complainant came to the ACB office to file the complaint and the procedure undertaken to call the panch witness and demonstration of the anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp and thereafter, the trap that was arranged and the entire procedure till the trap was successful. The witness has also stated that after the trap, he had recorded the statement of the accused and had also undertaken the correspondence for sanction of the prosecution and as he was transferred, the further investigation was handed over to Police Inspector Mr.Desai. During the cross-examination by the accused himself, this witness has stated that he had recorded the complaint of the complainant. During the cross-examination by the accused himself, this witness has stated that he had recorded the complaint of the complainant. He has stated that he was present at the time of raid and had investigated the entire offence. The witness has further admitted that when they rang the door bell, the accused did not open the door and the accused was checked in the front room. That he does not know the location of the other rooms in the house of the accused and the block where the quarter of the accused was of 6 floors and was known as Medical College Staff Quarters. When they broke down the door, there was a loud noise but no person had come on hearing the sound. That no passer by had also come while they were breaking the door and he had not collected the duty list of the accused during investigation. That the duty list of the accused was not sent along with the papers for the order of sanction for the prosecution and the complainant had not given any mark sheet of his son Tejas Patel. The complainant has stated that his son, Tejas Patel, had received less marks in the last six months in the subject of Prevention and Social Medicine but he had not given any details about when the examination was taken. In his statement, Tejas Patel has not stated that he had received less marks and he cannot say as to when the examination of Tejas Patel was taken. In his statement, Tejas Patel has stated that he had met the accused one month before the incident had taken place but has not stated the time and the date, on which, he had met the accused. That he had not collected any information as to whether the accused was the Head of the Department and in the complaint, he has stated that he had met the accused on 05.12.1994 at about 11:30am. That he does not know as to whether the accused was on duty on that day and has not investigated as to whether the accused was engaged in a meeting on 05.12.1994. That he has not recorded the statement of any staff of the college and has not recorded the statement of the staff members living in the quarters. That he does not know as to whether the accused was on duty on that day and has not investigated as to whether the accused was engaged in a meeting on 05.12.1994. That he has not recorded the statement of any staff of the college and has not recorded the statement of the staff members living in the quarters. That the University gives dummy numbers to the papers but he has not investigated as to who had given the dummy numbers. That he has not recorded the statement of any students and he has not inquired as to whether the accused was available on extension number 512 and has not investigated on which number the complainant had called Sayaji Hospital. That the complainant has not stated that light blue florescent marks were found on the currency notes and has merely stated that traces of anthracene powder was found on the currency notes. The witness has categorically stated that besides filing of the charge sheet, he has done the entire Investigation. 8. After closing the evidence of the prosecution, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded and the accused had also given a written statement denying all the allegations made against him and has further stated that the complainant had not met him on 05.12.1994 as he was on duty for whole day. That on 05.12.1994, from morning 11:00am till 1:00pm, he had a meeting with Dr.R.K.D.Goyal with regard to AIDS and Mr.C.P.Suthar and Mr.Rambhai Patel were also present in the meeting. That at that time Mr.R.N.Pai, P.A. of the Dean had also come to meet him and Mr. Kishorbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel had also come at 11:50am to give invitation of his daughter’s wedding. That his daughter Prital had come at 12:30pm and there was an inspection by the Medical Council of India on 03.12.1994 and the compliance was of 05.12.1994. That as the Dean had gone to Ahmedabad, he had to remain present to do the necessary duty and was in college upto 5:30pm. That he had not gone home and he had taken lunch from the canteen. Moreover, on 09.12.1994, the wedding of his friend’s daughter was arranged at ‘Kadva Patel Vadi’ at Shiyabaug and he was present for the wedding celebration from 8:00am to 9:00pm. That he had not gone home and he had taken lunch from the canteen. Moreover, on 09.12.1994, the wedding of his friend’s daughter was arranged at ‘Kadva Patel Vadi’ at Shiyabaug and he was present for the wedding celebration from 8:00am to 9:00pm. Telephone No.424848 and Extension No.512 does not belong to him and the complainant has filed a false case against him. The accused has stated that on 10.12.1994, the complainant came alone to his residence and shook hands with him and at that time, Mr. Narendrakumar Shah was present in his house and the complainant had shown remorse about his son’s behaviour and had also asked for three books for his son and thereafter, the accused had gone to the next room for getting the books and after sometimes, his friend Mr.Narendrakumar Shah went out of his house. That after sometime, the complainant were to his room and told him that he would come back after meeting Dr.P.M.Trivedi and shook hands and went out. That he took the books and kept it on the table and went to the wash room and when he came out of the wash room, the door of his house was open and the ACB Officers were present in his house. That the complainant showed the currency notes, which were in the cupboard to the ACB Officer. The currency notes were on the pant in the cupboard and there was also a handkerchief, which was seized by the ACB Officer. That at the time of the incident, he had worn a white coloured pyjama and his hands or the pant were not examined and no traces of anthracene powder were found on him. That the Medical College is affiliated with M.S.University and the State Government does not taken any examination of M.B.B.S. and does not declare the result. The accused filed an application at Exh.84 stating that he wanted to examine (1) Kishorbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, (2) Narendrabhai Ambalal Shah, (3) Dr. Anjanaben S. Pandya, (4) Dr. R.K.D.Goyal, (5) R.N.Tai, (6) Ishwarbhai Parmar and (7) Chandramati Parsottam Suthar as witnesses. 8.1. The accused has examined defence witness Kishorbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel at Exh.85 and this witness has stated that on 05.12.1994, he had gone to give the invitation of his daughter’s marriage to the accused in his office and at that time, a meeting was going on. R.K.D.Goyal, (5) R.N.Tai, (6) Ishwarbhai Parmar and (7) Chandramati Parsottam Suthar as witnesses. 8.1. The accused has examined defence witness Kishorbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel at Exh.85 and this witness has stated that on 05.12.1994, he had gone to give the invitation of his daughter’s marriage to the accused in his office and at that time, a meeting was going on. That he had gone around 11:30am and his daughter had come around 12:30pm and he was sitting at one side as the meeting was going on and there were other persons in the meeting. On 09.12.1994, it was a Friday and his daughter’s wedding and the accused had come at 8:00am and was present at the wedding till 9:00pm. That the wedding was scheduled at ‘Kadva Patel Vadi’ at Shiyabaug, Vadodara and he knows the accused since long as they were studying together. During cross-examination by the learned APP, there is no evidence to dispute the facts stated on oath by the witness. 8.2. The accused has examined witness Dr. Anjanaben S. Pandya at Exh.86 and this witness is the Medical Officer, who has stated that on 10.12.1994, she was waiting for a relative to come and at that time, the complainant Dr.Vasantbhai Muljibhai Patel had come in his Maruti car with some other person. That other person were sitting in the car and the complainant went to meet the accused. That after some time, one person came out from the house of the accused and went away on his scooter and after some time, Dr. Vasantbhai Muljibhai Patel had returned and as her guest had arrived, she spoke to the complainant and went to her house in the next block. During cross- examination by the learned APP, the witness has stated that she was practicing as a Medical Practitioner for last 30 years and she knows the complainant as Medical Officer. That she was residing in the Government Quarter and her husband and the accused were working in the S.S.G. together and the accused was a Professor in the college. That on 10.12.1994, when the complainant came with other person she heard the complainant telling the other person that he was going to meet ‘Shah Saheb’ and at that time she was waiting for her friend Hajraben till the complainant Dr. Vasantbhai Muljibhai Patel came back. 8.3. That on 10.12.1994, when the complainant came with other person she heard the complainant telling the other person that he was going to meet ‘Shah Saheb’ and at that time she was waiting for her friend Hajraben till the complainant Dr. Vasantbhai Muljibhai Patel came back. 8.3. The accused has examined defence witness Narendrabhai Ambalal Shah at Exh.87 and this witness has stated that on 10.12.1994 at about 12:30pm, he had gone to meet the accused and was sitting in the room next to the gallery. That at about 1:00pm, the door bell rang and the accused opened the door and at that time, Dr. Vasantbhai Muljibhai Patel came and shook hand with the accused and sat down. Dr.Vasantbhai Muljibhai Patel expressed the remorse for his son’s behaviour and asked for 2-3 medical books and told the accused that he would return the books after some time. That the accused had worn a white pyjama and shirt with blue lining and the accused went inside and at that time, the witness had left the house of the accused. That he saw a lady sitting and he took the scooter from the parking lot and went away and at that time, he saw one Maruti Car with one person sitting inside. That when he was starting the scooter, he saw Dr.Vasantbhai Muljibhai Patel coming down from the stairs and at that time, it was around 1:15pm. During the cross-examination by the learned APP, the witness has stated that he knows the accused as he was his relative. 8.4. The accused has examined Dr. Ramkrushnadas Baburam Goyel at Exh.88 and the witness has stated that on 05.12.1994, he was in the office of the accused from 11:00am till 1:00pm and they had to prepare slides regarding ‘AIDS’. That he had called some artists and had arranged a meeting and the artists Sutharbhai and Patelbhai was present. That at that time, one Kishorbhai Patel came to meet the accused to give the invitation of his daughter’s marriage and he sat in the room. That on 25.11.1994, Tejas Patel had misbehaved with the accused and he had told the accused that Tejas Patel was a notorious student and not to have an altercation with him. At that time, Dr. Dubey, Mr. Pai and four others were also gathered and he was working as an Associate Professor of Microbiology. That on 25.11.1994, Tejas Patel had misbehaved with the accused and he had told the accused that Tejas Patel was a notorious student and not to have an altercation with him. At that time, Dr. Dubey, Mr. Pai and four others were also gathered and he was working as an Associate Professor of Microbiology. During cross-examination by the learned APP, the witness has stated that on 05.12.1994, it was a Monday and was a working day and he did not have any lecture on that day. That he had not gone to the laboratory on 05.12.1994 and he does not know Dr.Vasantbhai Muljibhai Patel. 9. On re-appreciating the entire evidence of the prosecution, there are major contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution and as per the complainant, he had met the accused for the first time on 05.12.1994 at the residence of the accused. The accused has stated that on 05.12.1994, it was a Monday and he was working for the whole day as he was in-charge of the college and had to remain present in the college as the Dean had gone to Ahmedabad for compliance of the Medical College Inspection that had taken place on 03.12.1994. The accused had categorically stated that he was present in his office and was busy with a meeting regarding ‘AIDS’ and the accused has examined witness Dr.Ramkrushnadas Baburam Goyel, who was present in the meeting. Laxmanbhai Muljibhai Vaghela, the Investigating Officer, has not investigated about this aspect as to whether the college was working on 05.12.1994 and as to whether the meeting had in fact taken place but in the evidence of defence witness No.4 Dr. Ramkurshdas Baburam Goyel, it has come on record that there was a meeting and there were other persons, who were present in the meeting. The specifics of the meeting have also been mentioned by the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code and defence witness No.4 Dr. Ramkurshdas Baburam Goyel had stated that there was a meeting regarding ‘AIDS’ and slides had to be prepared and hence, the prior demand of illegal gratification on 05.12.1994 is not proved beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution. Ramkurshdas Baburam Goyel had stated that there was a meeting regarding ‘AIDS’ and slides had to be prepared and hence, the prior demand of illegal gratification on 05.12.1994 is not proved beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution. That as per the case of the prosecution, the complainant had called the accused on telephone No.424848 Extension No.512 on 09.12.1994 but there is no iota of evidence as to whether this telephone number and extension number in fact belonged to the accused. The witness has admitted that telephone No.424848 is of Sayaji Hospital but there is no investigation as to whether the Extension No.512 is in fact of the accused. Hence, the say of the complainant that he had spoken to the accused on 09.12.1994 is not proved beyond reasonable doubts. Moreover, the accused has examined defence witness No.1 Kishorbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, who has categorically stated on oath that on 09.12.1994, it was his daughter’s wedding and the accused was present at the wedding from 8:00am to 9:00pm and this aspect has also not been investigated by the Investigating Officer and if the Investigating Officer had investigated about this aspect, the fact as to whether the telephone call on Telephone No.424848 and Extension No.512 was in fact by the complainant would have surfaced on record and the fact of the marriage of the daughter of Kishorbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel would have come on record. As far as the events of 10.12.1994 are concerned, it is the defence of the accused that one Narendrabhai Ambabal Shah was sitting in his house and at that time, the complainant Dr. Vasantbhai Muljibhai Patel came alone to his house and had expressed remorse for the behaviour of his son Tejas Patel. The witness has been examined as defence witness No.3 at Exh.87 and the witness has stated that at that time, he was present and had heard the conversation and the complainant Dr. Vasantbhai Muljibhai Patel had asked for 2-3 medical books for his son and the accused had gone to the next room to get the books and at that time, he left the house of the accused. That when he was taking his scooter from the parking, he saw Dr.Vasantbhai Muljibhai Patel coming down from the stairs and defence witness No.2 Dr. That when he was taking his scooter from the parking, he saw Dr.Vasantbhai Muljibhai Patel coming down from the stairs and defence witness No.2 Dr. Anjanaben S. Pandya has also stated on oath about her seeing the complainant Dr.Vasantbhai Muljibhai Patel going up to the house of the accused alone while a person, who had accompanied him, was sitting in the Maruti Car. Defence Witness No.3 Narendrabhai Ambalal Shah has also stated on oath that he had also seen the persons sitting in the car and Defence Witness No.2 Dr. Anjanaben S. Pandya had in fact spoken to the complainant also and during the cross-examination of all the defence witnesses, nothing has come on record to prove the case of the prosecution and prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had in fact demanded and accepted the tainted currency notes or the amount of illegal gratification. 9.1. It has also come on record that the panch witness knew the complainant as the complainant Dr.Vasantbhai Muljibhai Patel has treated the father of the panch witness, who had suffered from paralysis and had taken treatment as an indoor patient from the complainant. That selection of the panch witness in a case under the P.C.Act is of utmost importance as the panch witness is the sole independent witness on whose deposition, the entire case of the prosecution rests. If the panch witness is an independent witness, who has no relation with the complainant, the conviction can be made on the sole testimony of the panch witness and hence, selection of the panch witness is of utmost importance in a case under the P.C.Act. If the panch witness was, in any way, connected with the complainant, the credibility of the panch witness is doubtful and in the instant case, it has surfaced that the panch witness knows the complainant. The accused has examined the defence witnesses and in view of the shaky evidence of the prosecution regarding the meeting of the complainant with the accused on 05.12.1994 and the telephone call made on Telephone No.424848 Extension No.512 on 09.12.1994 the same is highly doubtful and not proved beyond reasonable doubts. 9.2. The accused has examined the defence witnesses and in view of the shaky evidence of the prosecution regarding the meeting of the complainant with the accused on 05.12.1994 and the telephone call made on Telephone No.424848 Extension No.512 on 09.12.1994 the same is highly doubtful and not proved beyond reasonable doubts. 9.2. The learned Trial Court has also considered the evidence that PW-6 Laxmanbhai Muljibhai Vaghela, the Trap Laying Officer, who had recorded the complaint made by the complainant, had arranged for the trap and had investigated the entire offence and when the entire procedure is done by the same officer, the credibility of the case of the prosecution becomes suspicious and doubtful and the entire trial can be vitiated on this aspect alone. Moreover, the panchnama was not written by the panch witness and has been dictated by the officer and written by the writer and the same has also been considered by the learned Trial Court. The important aspect as to whether the accused was in fact the authority for examining the papers of the final year student and could give passing marks to Tejas Patel, the son of the complainant, has also not been investigated and it has surfaced on record that the examinations were conducted by the M.S.University and dummy numbers were given to the papers and there is no evidence as to how the necessary marks would be put on the mark sheet by the accused and passing marks could be give by the accused to Tejas Patel, the son of the complainant. Moreover, the defence put up by the accused is probable and properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court as there is nothing brought on record to shake the evidence of the defence put up by the accused. 10. The learned Trial Court has discussed all the aspects of the evidence of the prosecution and has concluded that there is no reliable evidence to support the conviction of the accused and the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the offence charged against the accused. It is settled law that unless the evidence is clear, cogent and reliable, no conviction can be recorded and on re-appreciating the entire evidence, the evidence is contrary and far from convincing. It is settled law that unless the evidence is clear, cogent and reliable, no conviction can be recorded and on re-appreciating the entire evidence, the evidence is contrary and far from convincing. As observed by the learned Apex Court in the case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund (Supra), the scope of the Appellate Court to interfere in the finding of acquittal is limited and unless and until some perversity and illegality is found in the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court, the Appellate Court will interfere only to ensure that no miscarriage of justice has occurred. In the present case, there is no iota of evidence that any demand for illegal gratification was made by the accused or that the accused had accepted any amount of illegal gratification and the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court are just and proper. This Court has perused the findings of the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence and has in a well reasoned judgment and order acquitted the accused and there is no perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court is in complete agreement with the findings, the reasons, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal by the learned Trial Court. 11. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal in Special (ACB) Case No.13 of 1995 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.3, Vadodara on 16.04.2008 is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds stand cancelled. 12. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.