1. Though served, but nobody is appearing on behalf of the respondent. Hence, the Appeal is taken up for hearing today.
2. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 14.8.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Mehsana, in Special (ACB) Case No.4 of 1994, whereby the accused have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them.
3. As per the case of the prosecution, the respondent – accused No.1 being pubic servant, was serving at Kadi Police Station in traffic branch and he had to perform his duty as traffic police. On 17.7.1994. A trap was arranged by the ACB office on 17.7.1994 with the help of two panchas. At about 2:05 p.m. at noon, the accused No.1 intercepted the matador in which ACB persons were arranged and the accused No.1 told the driver of the said vehicle to give him Rs.50/ towards illegal gratification under the pretext of entry fee. After accepting the amount of Rs.50/ towards bribe, the accused No.1 gave the said amount to the accused No.2, who was in jeep as driver. The complainant did not want to give such amount to the accused, therefore, he approached the ACB Office, Mehsana. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused demanded and accepted the amount of bribe from the complainant. Therefore, the complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused.
4. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has produced several documentary evidence and examined witnesses like P.W.1 Chaudhary Mukeshbhai Haribhai, at Exhibit 36, P.W.2 Vinodkumar Sankalchand Makwana at Exhibit 38, P.W 3 Naginbhai Bhagvanji Nayak at Exhibit 43, P.W 4 Thakur Tukaram Johruram at Exhibit 44.
5. At the end of trial, after recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 14.8.1997.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 14.8.1997 passed by the Special Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.
7. It is submitted by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondents. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. She submitted that there is direct evidence against the accused for the offence alleged. She stated that the marks of anthracene powder were found on the finger tips of the accused No.1 as well as on the pocket of shirt of accused No.2. From the accused No.2, currency notes of Rs.50/ was recovered. As per her submission, the respondent No.1 demanded Rs.50/ from the complainant and after accepting the said amount, it was given to respondent – accused No.2 and he had accepted the said amount and therefore, it can be said that the accused No.2 assisted the accused No.1 and therefore, both the accused committed offence as alleged.
8. I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellantState. Looking to the record, it appears that once the trap was failed and at the time of trap, the accused No.1 asked the driver of the matador abut the persons in the matador and there were 8 to 10 persons. In crossexamination, P.W.1 admitted that due to rain, there was darkness and therefore, he could not see properly the person, who demanded the money. P.W.2 was declared hostile and as per his evidence, he could not hear anything about conversation took place between the accused and complainant. The another witness P.W.3 has not properly supported the version of the complainant and from the evidence of P.W.4 Tukaram, it appears that he had not heard anything regarding the conversation took place between the accused and the complainant and therefore, he has also not supported the case of the prosecution. From the preliminary panchnama, there was mention about Rs.350/ and after giving Rs.150/ to the complainant, what about for Rs.200/ is not explained. The contention of the complainant that he had given the bribe amount to the accused, but it is not clearly reflected that the accused No.1 had given the said amount to the accused No.2. Therefore, looking to the overall record, the offence as alleged against the accused, is not proved. Therefore, I am of the view that the lower court has rightly appreciated the evidence in passing the order of acquittal.
9. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper.
10. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against her.
11. I find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.
12. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record and proceedings to be sent back to trial Court, forthwith.
(Z.K. SAIYED, J.) ynvyas