1. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.4.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bharuch in Special (ACB) Case No.9 of 1988, whereby the accused have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, the respondent – accused No.1 being pubic servant, was serving Head Constable at Kharchi Police Station. On 31.1.1987, the complainant along with witness went to the Criminal Court at Jhadiya and met the accused No.1 and told about proceedings lodged against the complainant and the witness. Therefore, the accused No.1 told to give Rs.300/ towards bribe from the complainant and if the complainant would not give such money, the accused send the complainant into the jail. The complainant did not want to give such amount to the accused, therefore, he approached the ACB Office, Bharuch. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused demanded and accepted the amount of bribe from the complainant and the accused No.1 gave the same to the accused No.2. Therefore, the complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused.
3. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has produced several documentary evidence and examined witnesses like P.W.1 Chhitubhai Dalpatbhia Parmar, complainant, at Exhibit 13, P.W.2 Chimanbhai Parbhubhai at Exhibit 15, P.W 3 Maganbhai Narottambhai at Exhibit 16, P.W 4 Bhupendra Kantilal Baroat at Exhibit 17, P.W.5 Bhimsinh Sursinh Vasava at Exhibit 22.
4. 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 12.4.1993.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 12.4.1993 passed by the Special Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.
6. 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 the evidence of complainant has proved the case against the accused and thereby the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount are proved. She further submitted that other evidence have supported the case of the prosecution but the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence in true manner and therefore, the judgment and order of acquittal is required to be quashed and set aside.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi for the respondents submitted that lower Court has rightly appreciated the evidence produced on record and after considering the evidence in true perspective, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the lower Court is just and proper and no interference is required to be called for from this Court. He further submitted that when the demand on the part of accused is not proved then the question of acceptance cannot arise for determination of accusation of the accused. He therefore, prays to dismiss the Appeal.
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 and learned advocate for the respondents accused. It appears from the record, on 31.8.1986, the complainant was consumed liquor at public place and therefore, summary case was filed and he was convicted. Thereafter on 3.2.1987 and 5.2.1987, the complainant was caught in drunken condition which is after 31.1.1987, on that day, it is alleged that the accused demanded money towards illegal gratification in the court compound. Therefore, it appears that the complainant is habitual offender for the offence under the Prohibition Act. From the perusal of evidence of P.W.1 Chhitubhai Dalpatbhai Parmar, it is not reflected that the accused made demand of Rs. 300/ and even from the other evidence of witnesses, the alleged demand was not proved. The case alleged against the complainant was not investigated by the accused persons. Therefore, it appears that as per complainant, on which right the accused told the complainant to send into jail if the alleged bribe amount would not give to him. Therefore, it appears that the story narrated by the complainant is concocted and fake. There is no any cogent evidence which link the accused with the alleged offence. Therefore, it appears that the prosecution has totally failed to prove the case against the accused persons especially, the main aspect like demand is not at all proved. Therefore, lower court has rightly appreciated the evidence and right held that the accused are acquitted of the charges as alleged against them.
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