1. The present appeal, under Section 378(1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.6.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge (Corruption), Panchmahals at Godhra, in Special Case No.3 of 1989, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, the one Pahadsinh Virsing Baria purchased a land from Lemjibhai and sale deed was executed. The stamp duty was not properly paid and an amount of Rs.1005/ was ordered by Deputy Mamlatdar to pay to the office towards deficit stamp fees. On 27.2.1988, one Udesing Jokhanabhai and purchaser Pahadsing Virsing approached the accused, who was TalatiCumMantri and after some conversation, the accused told the complainant to pay Rs.600/ for making entry. The accused also told the complainant that first the complainant had to pay Rs.600/ then the entry would be mutated in the records. The complainant did not give such amount to the accused, therefore, he approached the ACB Office, Godhra. Thereafter, after completing necessary formalities, the trap was arranged and 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 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 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 Hirabhai Nanabhai Suthariya at Exhibit 8, P.W.2 Pahadsing Virsingh Bariya, Peon of RTO office at Exhibit 11, P.W 3 Udesingh Jakhnabhai, Panch, at Exhibit 12, P.W 4 Virsingbhia Vashnabhai Nalvalaya, at Exhibit 14, P.W.5 – Virsing Bhalabhai at Exhibit 16, P.W.6 – Ramsinh Balusinh Chauhan at Exhibit 17.
4. At the end of trial, after recording the statement 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 23.6.1993.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 23.6.1993 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 there is direct evidence against the accused for the offence alleged. She further submitted that the evidence of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses have corroborated with each other as well as with documents. From the evidence it comes out that the the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.600/ from the complainant. The accused being public servant, working as TalatiCumMantri, had no right to demand for money other than his legal renumeration. If the evidence of the complainant was scrutinized minutely, it clearly discloses that his evidence is trustworthy and reliable. It clearly shows that the accused demanded the amount of bribe from the complainant and same was accepted by him. She further submitted that the accused being pubic servant misused his power for doing the official work.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Parghi appearing for the accused, submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge is just and proper. He further submitted that after appreciating the evidence in true manner and spirit, the learned Special Judge held that the charge as alleged against the accused is not proved by the prosecution. He also submitted that the material aspects of demand, acceptance and recovery are not proved. It can be said that the complainant filed the complaint against the accused for some ulterior motive. He submitted that no interference is called for from this Court, when the learned Special Judge rightly acquitted the accused from the charges. He submitted that the Appeal is required to be dismissed.
8. I have perused the record and considered the submissions made by the parties. I have perused the oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the trial Court. The complainant lodged complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It appears that the panch has admitted that he has not heard any conversation took place between the complainant and accused at the time of trap. Therefore, it creates doubt that whether the accused had demanded any amount or not. I have perused the oral evidence of Hirabhai Nanabhai Suthariya P.W.1, and from his evidence it appears that the complainant was ordered by the Deputy Collector, Dahod to pay deficit stamp fees of Rs.1005/ and until, the same is not recovered, the entry would not be affected in the record. Therefore, it appears that the complaint had to pay said stamp fees to the Government office. From the evidence of P.W.3 Udesing Jokhnabhai, it appears that the amount of Rs.600/ was obtained from his brotherinlaw for paying the stamp duty of Rs.1005/. From the evidence of Pahadsing, P.W.2, the demand on the part of the accused is not proved. Looking to the other evidence produced before the trial Court, the offence as alleged against the accused is not proved. For proving the case under the Act, the three material aspects like demand, acceptance and recovery are required to be proved, but here in case, the panch, who was present, had no knowledge about the conversation took place between the complainant and accused. During the course of investigation, the mark of anthracene powder was not found on the body of the accused. Therefore, looking to the chronology of events, it appears that the accused had not made any demand, which can be said as demand towards illegal gratification covered under the provisions of Act and as there was no marks of anthracene powder were found on the body of the accused, it can be said that aspect of the acceptance of the bribe amount is not proved. Even the criminal misconduct is not proved on the part of the accused. Therefore, it appears that the prosecution has absolutely failed to prove the case against the accused. Therefore, learned Special Judge has rightly acquitted the accused from the charges by appreciating the evidence on record, in true manner.
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. 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. Thus, from the evidence itself, it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
11. Learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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