Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 311 (GUJ)

State Of Gujarat v. Vitthalji Kanaji Makwana

2024-02-15

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 order of acquittal in Special Case No. 29 of 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) on 07.04.2004 (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after 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 brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under: 2.1. That FIR No.I-C.R.No.11 of 1996 was filed by the complainant Chamanji Kalaji Thakor on 23.08.1996 before the ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) against the accused mainly stating that the accused was working as an unarmed police constable in Sector-7 Police Station in August, 1996 and 15 days prior to 23.08.1996, the accused had stopped the complainant when he was going on his scooter and checked his scooter but no liquor was found in the scooter and hence he took the complainant to Indroda Circle and demanded Rs.5000/- from him and threatened to file a false case against him, if did not give the amount of Rs.5,000/-. That the complainant bargained and an amount of Rs.2,500/- was fixed, out of which, on the same day, the complainant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,700/- from his friend and gave it to the accused and promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs.800/- on 23.08.1996. That the complainant filed the complaint with the ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) on 23.08.1996 and the panch witness were called and after the due procedure a trap was laid at Indroda Circle and at around 17.45 hours, the illegal gratification of Rs.800/- was demanded and accepted by the accused and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused. That the Investigating Officer investigated the offence and a charge sheet was filed before the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Gandhinagar which came to be was registered as Special Case No. 29 of 1997. 2.2. That the Investigating Officer investigated the offence and a charge sheet was filed before the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Gandhinagar which came to be was registered as Special Case No. 29 of 1997. 2.2. That the accused was summoned and after following the procedure of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.7 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.8 wherein the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. That after the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and the arguments of both the parties were heard and the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 07.04.2004, gave benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him from all the offences. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 07.04.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), the State has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the prosecution has proved the demand of illegal gratification, acceptance and recovery of the tainted currency notes of Rs.800/- from the accused and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to the evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution. That the learned Trial Court has relied upon minor omissions and contradictions, which do not go to the root of the case and has discarded the evidence of the complainant and the Investigating Officer only on the ground that the panch witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. That the learned Trial Court has erred in concluding that the complainant had hatched the conspiracy against the accused. That the complainant has fully supported the complaint but the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the panch witness, who has partly supported the case of the prosecution. That the reasons given by the learned Trial Court are improper and perverse and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal may be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Ms. That the reasons given by the learned Trial Court are improper and perverse and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal may be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant – State and learned Senior Advocate Mr.K.B.Anandjiwala assisted by learned advocate Mr. Vishal Anandjiwala for the respondent – accused. 5. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court through the evidence and has vehemently argued that the complainant has fully supported the case of the prosecution and merely because the panch witness has turned hostile, it cannot be said that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. That PW-4 Shankarbhai Khatubhai Parmar is a witness of the incident and no material contradiction has been brought on record by the defense, which may go to the root of the case of the prosecution. That the learned Trial Court has not given the proper reasons and as the impugned judgment and order is perverse and bad in law, the same may be quashed and set aside and the accused must be convicted for the said offences. 6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.K.B.Anandjiwala assisted by learned advocate Mr. Vishal Anandjiwala for the accused has submitted that the main defense of the accused before the learned Trial Court was that the complainant himself was a bootlegger and as he wanted the accused to act according to his wish and whims, the complainant had tried to give the illegal gratification but the accused had not accepted the same and hence, he has filed a false case against the accused. That if the entire evidence of the complainant is perused, the evidence does not inspire confidence and there are material contradictions in the evidence. That the complainant is not sure as to where he had given the currency notes to the Trap Laying Officer for the trap and the say of the complainant is not supported by the evidence of any the independent witnesses. The panch witness has clearly deposed that he has not seen the accused accepting the amount at the spot and admittedly, there was no recovery of any tainted currency notes at the spot i.e. at the tea stall at Indroda Circle. The panch witness has clearly deposed that he has not seen the accused accepting the amount at the spot and admittedly, there was no recovery of any tainted currency notes at the spot i.e. at the tea stall at Indroda Circle. That as per the case of the prosecution, they took the accused Pathik Ashram and after about an hour, the experiment of ultraviolet lamp test was done and the alleged currency notes was said to have been recovered from the accused. That even the sanction has not been given after proper application of mind and hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is passed after appreciating all the material on record and no interference is required in the appeal and the appeal may be dismissed. 7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka passed in Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011 on 12.02.2024, wherein, the Apex Court has observed in Para Nos. 24 to 26, as under: “24. We may firstly discuss the position of law regarding the scope of intervention in a criminal appeal. For, that is the foundation of this challenge. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, unless proven guilty. The presumption continues at all stages of the trial and finally culminates into a fact when the case ends in acquittal. The presumption of innocence gets concretized when the case ends in acquittal. It is so because once the Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, finds that the accused was not guilty, the presumption gets strengthened and a higher threshold is expected to rebut the same in appeal. 25. No doubt, an order of acquittal is open to appeal and there is no quarrel about that. It is also beyond doubt that in the exercise of appellate powers, there is no inhibition on the High Court to re-appreciate or re-visit the evidence on record. However, the power of the High Court to reappreciate the evidence is a qualified power, especially when the order under challenge is of acquittal. It is also beyond doubt that in the exercise of appellate powers, there is no inhibition on the High Court to re-appreciate or re-visit the evidence on record. However, the power of the High Court to reappreciate the evidence is a qualified power, especially when the order under challenge is of acquittal. The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the Trial Court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence. The second point for consideration is whether the finding of the Trial Court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact. If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a fairly possible view. A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion. What is required is an illegality or perversity. 26. It may be noted that the possibility of two views in a criminal case is not an extraordinary phenomenon. The ‘two-views theory’ has been judicially recognized by the Courts and it comes into play when the appreciation of evidence results into two equally plausible views. However, the controversy is to be resolved in favour of the accused. For, the very existence of an equally plausible view in favour of innocence of the accused is in itself a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it reinforces the presumption of innocence. And therefore, when two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action. Furthermore, it is also settled that if the view of the Trial Court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for the High Court to convict the accused by reappreciating the evidence. If such a course is permissible, it would make it practically impossible to settle the rights and liabilities in the eyes of law. In Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka, “13. Considering the reasons given by the trial court and on appraisal of the evidence, in our considered view, the view taken by the trial court was a possible one. Thus, the High Court should not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal. In Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka, “13. Considering the reasons given by the trial court and on appraisal of the evidence, in our considered view, the view taken by the trial court was a possible one. Thus, the High Court should not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal. This Court in Jagan M. Seshadri v. State of T.N. [ (2002) 9 SCC 639 ] has laid down that as the appreciation of evidence made by the trial court while recording the acquittal is a reasonable view, it is not permissible to interfere in appeal. The duty of the High Court while reversing the acquittal has been dealt with by this Court, thus: “9. …We are constrained to observe that the High Court was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. It was required to deal with various grounds on which acquittal had been based and to dispel those grounds. It has not done so. Salutary principles while dealing with appeal against acquittal have been overlooked by the High Court. If the appreciation of evidence by the trial court did not suffer from any flaw, as indeed none has been pointed out in the impugned judgment, the order of acquittal could not have been set aside. The view taken by the learned trial court was a reasonable view and even if by any stretch of imagination, it could be said that another view was possible, that was not a ground sound enough to set aside an order of acquittal.”” (emphasis supplied) In Sanjeev v. State of H.P., the Hon’ble Supreme Court analyzed the relevant decisions and summarized the approach of the appellate Court while deciding an appeal from the order of acquittal. It observed thus: “7. It is well settled that: 7.1. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the reasons which had weighed with the trial court in acquitting the accused must be dealt with, in case the appellate court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the trial court deserves to be upturned (see Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka, Anwar Ali v. State of H.P.) 7.2. With an order of acquittal by the trial court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced (see Atley v. State of U.P.) 7.3. With an order of acquittal by the trial court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced (see Atley v. State of U.P.) 7.3. If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal (see Sambasivan v. State of Kerala).” 7.1. In Para – 36, the Apex Court, in the case of Mallappa (Supra), has observed as under: “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as: (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive – inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court. 7.2. The Apex Court, in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248, has observed in Para No. 68, which reads as under: “68. 7.2. The Apex Court, in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248, has observed in Para No. 68, which reads as under: “68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under: (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind: (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1) (d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and inturn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. (f) In the event the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. (g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. (g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.” 8. In view of the above settled principles of law with regard to acquittal appeals under the P.C.Act, the evidence led by the prosecution is required to be dealt with and in the instant case, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Chamanji Kalaji Thakor - the complainant at Exh.10 and the complainant has mainly supported the case of the prosecution. The complainant has stated that the accused had met him and had demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/- and after bargaining, an amount of Rs.2,500/- was fixed and thereafter, he had paid the accused Rs.1,700/- and the remaining amount of Rs.800/- was to be paid on 23.06.1996. That he had gone to the ACB office and filed the complaint, which is produced at Exh.11 and had given the amount of Rs.800/- to Trap Laying Officer and in the presence of two panch witnesses, the experiment of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp was conducted and the tainted currency notes were placed in his pocket. That he and the panch witness went to the tea stall at Indroda Circle and waited for the accused for about 5.00 to 6.00 hours but the accused came sitting pillion rider on a scooter and seeing the panch witness, he went away. That the accused returned and after some time, demanded the amount of illegal gratification and accepted the tainted currency notes and placed it in his pocket. That the accused returned and after some time, demanded the amount of illegal gratification and accepted the tainted currency notes and placed it in his pocket. That the complainant gave necessary the sign and the raiding party came and took the accused to Pathik Ashram for the experiment of the ultraviolet lamp test and the said test was conducted at Pathik Ashram and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the accused. During the cross-examination, the complainant has stated that he had not given the currency notes to the Trap Laying Officer at the ACB office but he had given them at the Pathik Ashram. Moreover, no experiment of ultraviolet lamp test was done at the tea stall at Indroda Circle and nobody was searched at Indroda Circle. That at Indroda Circle, there was an altercation between the accused and the complainant about who would pay the money for the tea and at that time, the accused had taken out a note of 50/- to pay for the tea. The complainant has categorically stated that the money for the teat that they had at Indroda Circle was given by the accused. That as the illegal gratification has been taken by the accused, the panch witness gave the necessary signal to the raiding party and the raiding party came. During the cross-examination, it has also come on record that 23 cases under the Prohibition Act were filed against complainant and in few cases, Baladevji Maganji Hala were the panch witnesses. 8.1. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Pravinbhai Somabhai Solanki at Exh.42 and this witness is the shadow witness, who went with the complainant to Indroda Circle at the time of trap. The witness has stated that he was given necessary instructions by the Trap Laying Officer to accompany the complainant and he went to Indroda Circle at the tea stall with the complainant. That at that time, the accused came and he heard the accused and the complainant having an altercation about the amount to be paid for the tea. That he had seen the money in the hand of the accused and saw that the accused putting the money in his pocket and hence, he gave the sign but he does not know as to how the money came into the hands of the accused. That he had seen the money in the hand of the accused and saw that the accused putting the money in his pocket and hence, he gave the sign but he does not know as to how the money came into the hands of the accused. That he has not seen the complainant giving the tainted currency notes to the accused or the accused accepting the tainted currency notes and he has not heard the accused making any demand of any amount from the complainant. That the money that he saw in the hands of the accused was the money to be paid for the tea and they were currency notes of Rs.50/- and Rs.10/-. That this shadow witness has been declared hostile as he did not support the case of the prosecution and he has categorically stated that no experiment of ultraviolet lamp test was conducted on the hands of the complainant or the accused at Indroda Circle and no recovery was made at Indroda Circle. 8.2. The prosecution has examined PW-3 Pravinbhai Mafatbhai Gandhi at Exh.44. This witness is the panch witness and was with the raiding party at the time of trap. This witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. This witness has stated that after the raid, they had gone to the office and not to Pathik Ashram and the witness has denied the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the accused. 8.3. The prosecution has examined PW-4 Shankarbhai Khatubhai Parmar at Exh.46, who is the Trapping Laying Officer and has done a major part of the investigation. The witness has narrated all the procedure that was undertaken and has stated that the further investigation was done by one Mr. Dodiya, who had sought for the sanction for the prosecution which is produced the same at Exh.49 and thereafter, Mr. Dodiya has filed the chargesheet against the accused. That during the cross-examination, the witness has stated that after the trap, the investigation was not handed over to any other officers but he had kept it with him and no experiment of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was conducted at Indroda Circle. Moreover, the witness has categorically stated that no search of the accused was made at Indroda Circle. That during the cross-examination, the witness has stated that after the trap, the investigation was not handed over to any other officers but he had kept it with him and no experiment of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was conducted at Indroda Circle. Moreover, the witness has categorically stated that no search of the accused was made at Indroda Circle. This witness has admitted that in cases under the P.C.Act the search must be conducted at the same place where the trap has been successful but they had gone to Pathik Ashram, which was 2–3kms away and the recovery of the tainted currency notes and the experiment of the anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp was done at Pathik Ashram. That the description of the pant of the accused is not made in the seizure memo and the accused was not made aware about the contents of the panchnama. That witness has also stated that as the members of the raiding party and the panch witness No.2 were standing at the distance away from the complainant and the accused, they could not hear the conversation and no efforts were made at Indroda Circle to check the hands of the accused. That the accused was caught at the arms by one Mr.C.B.Soni and Shankarbhai Jamadar and they took the accused to Pathik Ashram in the vehicle. That at the time of the trap, a currency note of Rs.50/- was found in the hand of the accused but no traces of anthracene powder was found on the currency note of Rs.50/-. 9. During the trial, the main defense of the accused was that he had not made any demand from the complainant. That the complainant was a bootlegger and having more than 20 cases under the Prohibition Act filed against him and he wanted to pressurize the accused along with Baldevji Maganiji for winding up these cases and also pressurize the accused not to conduct any further raid at his place but as the accused did not succumb to his pressure, he filed the false case against the accused. That on the date of the incident, the accused was going with his colleague Maljibhai Dayashankar Upadhyay to village Hadmatiya for executing a warrant in Criminal Case No. 903 of 1992 against Govindbhai Bhikhabhai and at that time, the complainant called him at Indroda Circle so he came to Indroda Circle at the tea stall and had gave order for three cupes of tea and after having the tea, he took out a currency note of Rs.50/- from his pocket for paying the bill and the complainant had taken out a currency note of Rs.10/- from his pockest and was forcefully trying to pay the tea bill. That while they were having the verbal altercation for paying the bill of the cups of tea, the raiding party came and caught them. That they were taken to Pathik Ashram and no tainted currency notes were found from the accused and also no traces of anthracene powder was found on his hands. 10. From the entire evidence produced by the prosecution on record, it has emerged from the record that 23 cases under the Prohibition Act were filed against complainant Chamanji Kalaji Thakor. That the complainant had stated that the accused had demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/- and after bargaining an amount of Rs.2,500/- was fixed and out of which, an amount of Rs.1,700/- was paid after mortgaging the ornaments of his wife with his friend, but no evidence of any jewelry or any mortgage of the jewelry has been produced by the prosecution. That if the deposition of the complainant is perused, the complainant has stated that he given an amount of Rs.800/- to the Trap Laying Officer at the ACB office and at the same time, he also says that he gave the amount at Indroda Circle and thereafter, at Pathik Ashram. This contradiction in the deposition of the complainant is not explained and in the deposition, he has stated that he waited for 5.00 to 6.00 hours but, later on, he has stated that the accused returned to Indroda Circle after 1.00 hour. This contradiction in the deposition of the complainant is not explained and in the deposition, he has stated that he waited for 5.00 to 6.00 hours but, later on, he has stated that the accused returned to Indroda Circle after 1.00 hour. The prosecution has not led any evidence to prove the demand of illegal gratification made by the accused at the tea stall at Indroda Circle and the panch witness, who was the shadow witness with the complainant, did not depose to the effect that the accused had made any demand of illegal gratification of any amount at Indroda Circle. In fact, it emerges from the record that the accused had taken out a currency note of Rs.50/- for paying the tea bill for the cups of tea but the tea had not been consumed by the accused, the complainant and the panch witness and there is no evidence regarding acceptance or recovery of the tainted currency notes. That the panch witness has categorically stated that he has not heard the accused making any demand for any illegal gratification and has not seen the accused accepting the tainted currency notes from the complainant. Admittedly, as per the case of the prosecution, the recovery of the tainted currency notes was not at the spot of the trap i.e. the tea stall at Indroda Circle and no experiment of the anthracene powder and ultraviolet violet lamp was done at Indroda Circle. In the evidence, it has emerged that Pathik Ashram was 2-3kms was away and after the trap, they had gone to Pathik Ashram and after about an hour, the recovery was made from the accused. It has also emerged from the record that the Trap Laying Officer has done a major portion of the investigation and he had recorded the statements of a number of the witnesses and thereafter, the charge sheet has been filed by one Mr.Dodiya, who has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. That even if the sanction is perused, it appears that the papers were sent to the Sanction Officer and the sanction was given and there is no evidence as to whether the sanction was given after an in depth perusal of the necessary papers and after necessary application of the mind. That even if the sanction is perused, it appears that the papers were sent to the Sanction Officer and the sanction was given and there is no evidence as to whether the sanction was given after an in depth perusal of the necessary papers and after necessary application of the mind. That both the panch witnesses, who are independent witnesses, have been examined by the prosecution, but have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and there is no iota of evidence regarding the demand of illegal gratification, acceptance or recovery of the tainted currency notes from the accused. 11. That the learned Trial Court has thoroughly appreciated all the evidence on record and has given due consideration to all the material pieces of evidence. The findings that the learned Trial Court has arrived at is legal and proper and there is no error of law or fact. Moreover, the view taken by the learned Trial Court of acquitting both the accused is a fairly possible view and there is no legality or perversity in the impugned judgment and order. 12. In view of the above discussion and in light of the settled position of law, the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order in Special Case No. 29 of 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) on 07.04.2004 is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds stand cancelled. 13. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.