Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 800 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Manukumar Premjibhai Vara

2024-04-08

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 dated 28.03.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Jamnagar (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 16 of 1993, whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (herein after referred to as ‘the 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 the accused was working as Grade-II, Unarmed Police Head Constable in the traffic branch of Jamnagar City and was a Public Servant that the complainant i.e. Mr. V.K.Mavani Police Inspector, ACB Police Station had received a secret information on 06.04.1993 that the traffic Police personnel were halting trucks going from Jamnagar Gulabnagar Petrol Pump towards Bedibandar and were threatening to file cases against the truck drivers demanding amount of Rs.100/- to Rs.200/- as illegal gratification to be paid as entry fee and a discreet inquiry about the secret information was made by Mr. V.K.Mavani, Police Inspector, ACB Police Inspector and the information was found to be true. That a running decoy trap was arranged on 07.04.1993 and two panch witnesses were called and Shri Hiralal, Saini resident of Alwar, the driver of Truck No. RJ-02-G-1409 was explained about the running decoy trap and he consented to the trap. That the experiment of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp was explained and carried out in the presence of the panch witnesses and the decoy punter Hiralal Tulsiram Saini. 2.2. That the tap was arranged and the panch witness, the punter truckdriver and member of the raiding part went for the trap and on 07.04.1993, at around 15:00 hrs, the accused demanded for the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.200/- and accepted the same and was caught red handed. That the complaint was filed by the complainant Mr. V.K.Mavani, Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, which was registered at C.R.No. 5 of 1993 on 07.04.1993 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. That the complaint was filed by the complainant Mr. V.K.Mavani, Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, which was registered at C.R.No. 5 of 1993 on 07.04.1993 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. That the complainant Mr.V.K.Mavani, Police Inspector, ACB Police Station has conducted the entire investigation and recorded the statements of the connected witnesses, drew the necessary panchnamas and after receipt of sanction from the competent authority filed the chargesheet before the learned Sessions Court, Jamnagar, which was registered as Special ACB Case No. 16 of 1993. 2.2 That the accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned trial Court and after the due procedure of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was followed, a charge at Exh: 5 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh: 6. The accused denied all contents of the charge and the evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.3 The prosecution has filed 5 oral evidences and 13 documentary evidence in support of their case respectively, which are as under: ORAL EVIDENCE Sr. No. Name Exh 1 Sureshbhai Bachubhai Barad 11 2 Bhikhusha Alisa Shahamdar 13 3 Kanjibhai Bhagwanbhai Panara 22 4 Mansukhlal Arjanbhai Viradiya 25 5 Pramodkumar Jaybir Jha 33 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES Sr. No. Particular Exh 1 Complaint 14 2 Statement of Hirala 15 3 Panchnama 16 4 Xerox copy 17 5 Pass of Shakti Clearing Agency 18 6 Driving License of Hiralal Saini 19 7 Bilti No.69900 20 8 Chalan No. 1209 21 9 Letter for record of service of accused 23 10 Yadi of petrol pump 24 11 Appointment of accused 25 12 Appointment order of the accused 27 13 Sanction for prosecution 34 2.4 After the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh; 35, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded and after the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 28.03.2005 was pleased to acquit the accused under Section 248 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 from all the charges leveled against him. 3. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant-State has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the accused is contrary to the evidence on record and has been passed without considering the evidence in true perspective and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. That the panch witness has clearly supported the case of the prosecution but the learned trial Court has cast a shadow of doubt on the evidence of panch witness merely on the ground that as the evidence was given after a period of 11 years, it would not be proper for any person to remember the entire evidence in detail. That the complainant Mr. V.K.Mavani and the truck driver Hiralal Saini have both expired and the prosecution could not examine and bring their evidence on record but the other witnesses PW No.: 2 Bhikhusha Alisa Shahamdar, who was the member of the raiding party has supported the case of the prosecution and the learned trial Court has committed a grave error by not believing the evidence of PW No.: 2 Bhikhusha Alisa Shahamdar. That the prosecution has also proved that the order of sanction for prosecution was given by the competent authority i.e. PW No. 5 Mr. Pramodkumar Jaybir Jha and the sanction was given after proper application of mind and there was no illegality or irregularity in granting the sanction for prosecution. That there was no reason to discard the evidence of the panch witness and the trial Court inspite of there being sufficient evidence to convict the accused, has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, which is bad in law, illegal and hence the same is required to be quashed and set aside and the accused must be found guilty for the said offences. 4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellate-State and learned advocate Mr. Premal Rachh for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and re-appreciated the entire evidence on record of the case. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. 4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellate-State and learned advocate Mr. Premal Rachh for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and re-appreciated the entire evidence on record of the case. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution and has submitted that it is settled proposition of law that when the evidence of the complainant is not available and if the complainant has expired, the prosecution can produce the evidence of the other witnesses and the learned trial Court can convict the accused and the same does not result in acquittal. That the prosecution has examined PW No: 2 Bhikhusha Alisa Shahamdar, who was a member of the raiding party and was well aware of all the procedure that had taken place. That the witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution and the learned trial Court has not considered his evidence in true perspective. Moreover, the evidence of the PW No. 1; the panch witness Sureshbhai Bachubhai Barad has also fully supported the case of the prosecution and inspite of there being enough evidence to convict the accused, the learned trial Court has not relied upon the evidence of the panch witness or the witness Bhikhusha Alisa Shahamdar who was a member of the rading party. That even the competent authority, who has granted the order of sanction for prosecution of the accused has been examined and the witness has fully deposed and fully supported the case of the prosecution, but the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that the sanction for prosecution was not given and after proper application of mind, which is not proper. That the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused and hence the impugned judgment and order must be set aside and the accused must be convicted for the said offence. 5.1. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Rachh for the respondent has submitted that the learned trial Court has appreciated all the evidences of the prosecution in proper perspective and by a well reasoned judgment has discussed the entire evidence of the prosecution in detail. 5.1. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Rachh for the respondent has submitted that the learned trial Court has appreciated all the evidences of the prosecution in proper perspective and by a well reasoned judgment has discussed the entire evidence of the prosecution in detail. The learned trial Court has found that the Panch witness was not reliable and the panch witness has deposed after a gap of 11 years but has fully supported the case of the prosecution in the examination of Chief and during the cross examination, the infirmities have come on record, which has cast a shadow of doubt on the evidence of the Panch witness. The learned trial Court has given proper reason for doubting the evidence of the Panch witness and has also discussed about the competent authority, who has given the order of sanction for prosecution. That, it is also on record that the Punchnama was not written by the panch witness and in fact, the member of the raiding party, who has been examined at Exh: 13 has stated that the Panchnama was not written by the Panch witness. That it is settled law that when the learned trial Court has given ample reasons for acquitting the accused and the acquittal is possible, the appellate Court should not interfere in the order of acquittal unless the view taken by the learned Court is perverse and miscarriage of justice would occur by acquitting the accused. That the learned trial Court has considered all the aspects of the evidence produced by the prosecution in detail and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and order and no interference whatsoever is required in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and hence the appeal of the appellant must be rejected. 6. Before adverting to the facts of the case on hand, it would be apt to refer to the scope of the learned trial Court in acquittal appeals and the Honourable Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1167 of 2018 in the case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh in para Nos. 8 and 9 has observed thus:- 8. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. 8 and 9 has observed thus:- 8. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 9. Apart from that, it is to be noted that the present case is a case of reversal of acquittal. 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. 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 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." 6.1 The Honourable 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 as under: “68. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248, has observed in Para No. 68 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 7. In view of the above settled principles of law in acquittal appeals under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, the evidence adduced on record before the learned trial Court is examined and the prosecution has examined PW No.1 Suresh Bachubhai Barad at Exh. 11, who was a shadow witness and had accompanied the complainant and the decoy punter in the truck at the time of the trap. The witness has narrated in detail all the events that had taken place after he was called as a panch to the ACB office. The witness has stated that they had gone in a rickshaw from Kalavad gate to Gulab Nagar Petrol Pump and they had reached there at around 1:00 o’clock and at that time truck No. RJ – 02– G –1409 was coming from Rajkot, which was halted by the ACB personnel. That the truck driver was Hiralal Saini and the experiment of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was done in the cabin of the truck and two currency notes of denomination of Rs.50/- each and one currency note of denomination of Rs.100/- was laced with anthracene powder and placed in the left side shirt pocket of the driver of the truck and they all sat in the cabin of the truck. That the Pachnama was written by Police Inspector Mr.V.K.Mavani and they had affixed their signatures on the Panchnama. That when they reached Victoria pool, the traffic police halted them and the truck driver took the truck to the side of the road and got down along with the witness and at that time, the traffic police made a prior demand of Rs.200/- from the truck driver. That the truck driver gave the currency notes laced with anthracene powder to the traffic police and the traffic police accepted the currency notes and placed it in his left side pant pocket. That the truck driver gave the currency notes laced with anthracene powder to the traffic police and the traffic police accepted the currency notes and placed it in his left side pant pocket. The predetermined signal was given and the officer of the raiding party came and caught the accused red handed. That they all sat in the truck and went to the ACB office and at that time traces of anthracene powder was found on the right hand of the accused. During the cross examination, the witness has stated that he has not read the Panchnama before his deposition and has given his evidence on the basis of his memory. The witness does not remember, who was the port officer at Bedi Port and also does not remember as to how many employees were working with him and also their names and who had gone the ACB office for the first time when he was called for the trap. That he had not refused to go as a panch as he could not say “NO” to his superior officer. That the other Panch was also called with him and he had stated that he was a panch in a trap in the year 1987 and he does not know the name or the designation and the place where that person was working. He does not know who was the constable in the ACB office and one another person came, who was the other panch witness and he was introduced to the other Panch by Mr. V.K.Mavani. 7.1. The prosecution has examined PW No.3 Bhikhusa Aalisa Shahamdar, at Exh:13 and this witness was working as a Head Constable in the ACB office in the Jamnagar ACB Office and at that time, the Police Inspector Mr. V.K.Mavani was his superior and he has expired. This witness was a member of the raiding party and has deposed about all the evidence in detail that had taken place right from the time when Police Inspector Mr.V.K.Mavani had got the secret information and the panch witnesses were called and the procedure of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp that was undertaken. The witness has also stated that the truck was halted and the driver Hiralal Saini had spoken that the Police Inspector Mr. V.K.Mavani and the witness has deposed in detail of the procedure that was undertaken. The witness has also stated that the truck was halted and the driver Hiralal Saini had spoken that the Police Inspector Mr. V.K.Mavani and the witness has deposed in detail of the procedure that was undertaken. The witness was also in the cabin of the truck with Police Inspector Mr. V.K.Mavani and the panch witnesses and he has stated that when the accused had halted the truck, the truck driver and the panch witness No. 1 had gone down and after the truck driver gave the predetermined signal, they had rushed and caught the accused red handed. The witness has stated that the entire panchnama was written by Mr. V.K.Mavani, Police Inspector in his hand writing and the witness has identified the complaint and the signature of Mr. V.K.Mavani and the panchnama has produced at Exh; 16. The witness has also identified the signature of Mr. V.K.Mavani on the charge sheet and has stated that Mr. V.K.Mavani, Police Inspector has conducted the entire investigation and had thereafter filed the charge sheet on 19.10.1993 for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused. During the cross examination, this witness has stated that he was instructed by Mr. V.K.Mavani to call the panch witness and he had telephoned for the panch witness but he does not know as to who had received telephone call. That he was earlier working in the DSP Office as Police Constable and the accused was also working with him and had knew the accused as they were working together. 7.2. The prosecution has examined the PW No. 3 Kanjibhai Bhagwanji Panara at Exh: 22 and the witness was working as a Police Constable in the traffic branch and the witness has produced the service record of the accused at Exh: 24. 7.3. The prosecution has examined PW No. 4 Mansukhlal Arjanbhai Viradiya at Exh: 25 and the witness was working as a Senior Clerk in the DSP Office at Jamnagar. The witness has produced the appointment order of the accused and the original orders at Exh; 27. 7.4. 7.3. The prosecution has examined PW No. 4 Mansukhlal Arjanbhai Viradiya at Exh: 25 and the witness was working as a Senior Clerk in the DSP Office at Jamnagar. The witness has produced the appointment order of the accused and the original orders at Exh; 27. 7.4. The prosecution has examined the PW No. 4 Pramodkumar Jaybir Jha at Exh: 33 and the witness has stated that in the year 1993, he was working as DSP at Jamnagar and at that time, the accused was working as a 2nd Grade Unarmed Police Head Constable in the traffic branch at Jamnagar. That he had given the order of sanction for prosecution and before the order, he had verified the panchnama, the statement of the witness, draft charge sheet and other documents and had thereafter given the order of sanction for prosecution, which is produced at Exh; 34. During the cross examination, the witness has stated that he does not remember that when the papers were received from the ACB office along with the panchnama and statement of witnesses whether the currency notes were also sent in a sealed cover. He also does not remember when he had studied the papers and as per the procedure, the papers would first go to the branch but he does not remember who had accepted the documents in the branch. That the Junior Clerk would put his notes and the Senior Clerk would also put his notes and thereafter the O.S. would put his notes. That the Junior Clerk prepares the draft, which is verified by the Senior Clerk and makes necessary correction and thereafter the O.S. verifies the draft and placed it before the DSP. That after the draft is approved, if necessary corrections are made and thereafter, the final order is typed. That he does not know as to who had prepared the draft and whether any changes were made in the draft. 8. On appreciating the entire evidence, it is the case of the prosecution that the complaint was filed by Mr. V.K.Mavani, the Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, who had received the secret information that the traffic police personnel halted the trucks going from Gulabnagar Petrol Pump to Bedi Port and were taking illegal gratification of the amounts of Rs.100/- to Rs.200/- from different trucks. V.K.Mavani, the Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, who had received the secret information that the traffic police personnel halted the trucks going from Gulabnagar Petrol Pump to Bedi Port and were taking illegal gratification of the amounts of Rs.100/- to Rs.200/- from different trucks. That on the basis of this secret information, a discret inquiry was carried out and thereafter Police Inspector Mr. V.K.Mavani had filed the complaint and had himself arranged for the decoy trap. That he had called the panch witnesses and himself written the panchanama and had halted the truck No. RJ-02-G-1409 and had told the driver Hiralal Saini that the trap was to be organized. That all the officer including the panch witness had gone in the truck to the place and when the truck was halted by the accused, the driver and the witness went down and spoke to the accused and at that time the accused had demanded for the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.200/-, which was given by the truck driver. 9. To prove this facts, the prosecution has examined the shadow witness and PW No. 2 Bhikhusha Alisa Shahamdar, who was the member of the raiding party and the entire case of the prosecution rests in the deposition of the witness, who has been examined as PW No.1. The shadow witness has supported the case of the prosecution but it appears that the complainant- Police Inspector Mr. V.K.Mavani was the complainant, the officer , who had arranged for the trap and the officer who had conducted the entire investigation and had filed the charge sheet against the accused. The learned trial Court had disbelieved the deposition of the panch witness and has observed that the deposition of the panch witness was recorded after a period of more than 11 years and the panch witness has denied that he had read the panchnama before his deposition before the learned trial Court but he has narrated the regitration number of the truck and all the details correctly but during the during cross examination he has stated that he does not remember the name of his superior officer or the colleagues, who were working with him. The witness has also not stated the registration number of rickshaw in which he had gone to the ACB office and from there to Gulabnagar Petrol Pump and if these aspects are considered, the learned trial Court has rightly considered that the evidence of panch witness is not of sterling quality and his deposition does not seem to be normal and reliable. The witness, during the cross examination, has admitted that the employees were working with him for 16 years but he does not remember their names and hence the trial Court had discussed all this aspects in detail and has disbelieved the deposition of the witness, the trial Court has also discussed the aspect of sanction in detail and during the cross examination of PW No. 5 Pramodkumar Zha at Exh: 33, it has come on record that the order of sanction for prosecution was not given after proper application of mind and the witness has stated that the muddamal were sent along with the papers by the ACB Officer for sanction which cannot be believed. Moreover, it has clearly come on record in the deposition of PW No.: 2 Bhikhusha Alisa Shahamdar that the entire panchnama was written by the complainant i.e. Mr. V.K.Mavani, Police Inspector, who was the complainant and the panchanama was not dictated by the panch witness. The trial Court has observed that when the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the deposition of only one witness, who is the panch witness, the deposition must be of sterling quality but the deposition of the panch witness is not of sterling quality and there are contradictions in the deposition of the panch witness and the deposition of PW No. 2 as to who had instructed and called the other panch witness. Moreover, there is no narration about the experiment of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp in the cabin of the truck and it is not stated that the hands of the PW No. 2 was washed with soap and water. Even PW No. 2 Bhikhusha Alisa Shahamdar does not state that he had washed his hands with soap and water after the experiment of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was conducted and the learned trial Court has discussed all these aspects in detail. Even PW No. 2 Bhikhusha Alisa Shahamdar does not state that he had washed his hands with soap and water after the experiment of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was conducted and the learned trial Court has discussed all these aspects in detail. So far as panchnama produced at Exh; 16, learned trial Court has observed the infirmity in the panchnama and the corrections made in pages Nos.2, 3, 6 and 10 of the panchanama where only the signature of the panch witness no. 1 has taken and the signature of other panch witness is not taken. 10. In view of the settled position of law in decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases Balram (supra) and Neeraj Datta (supra), the learned trial Court has appreciated all evidences produced by the prosecution in proper perspective and has given proper reason for acquittal of the accused and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court is fully justified in acquitting the accused from all charges levelled against him. That there is no illegality, perversity and infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded 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 dated 28.03.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Jamnagar in Special (ACB) Case No. 16 of 1993 is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds stand canceled. 12. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.