1. Though served nobody is appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.1.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Surat, in Special Case No.2 of 1994, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
3. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant being pubic servant, was serving as Gram Sevak at Uchchhal. The complainant approached the accused for getting loan of Rs.5000/ under the scheme of Adimjuth Tribal. As per the said scheme, 50% subsidy was available and therefore, the complainant had prepared papers under the said scheme and he requested the accused to grant subsidy. As per the case of the prosecution, for the said work of the complainant, the accused demanded Rs.300/ towards illegal gratification. Therefore, the complainant lodged complaint before the ACB Office, Surat, and 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 Rs.300/ from the complainant. Therefore, the complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) d and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused.
4. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined, in all 5 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence.
5. 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 29.1.1998.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 29.1.1998 passed by the Sessions 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 further submitted that in the case, the most material aspects like demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe amount of Rs.300/ are proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and in the presence of panch witness the accused made demand and accepted the amount towards illegal gratification. The oral evidence of complainant is supported to the case of the prosecution and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. She submitted that there are minor contradictions, but there is no material omission in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, but the learned trial Judge has believed the case of defence by ignoring the evidence and say of the prosecution. The accused being public servant, if he makes demand other than legal remuneration, he would be liable for the conviction prescribed under the Prevention of Corruption Act. She further submitted that the investigating officer and Lamp Operator had supported the case of the prosecution and they explained the process of experiment of ultraviolet lamp, but these material evidence was ignored by the learned trial Judge.
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. I have perused the oral evidence of the complainant P.W.1 and looking to the contents of his evidence, it appears that he has not supported his version mentioned in the complaint by himself. Even it appears that there are so many contradictions in the evidence the complainant, panchas and investigating officer. What was the instruction given by the trapping officer to the complainant as well as the panchas, is not reflected from the evidence of the complainant and what was the prearranged signal is not come out from the evidence on record. Even from the evidence of the complainant, the place where the amount of bribe was to be given to the accused, is not stated by the complainant. From the evidence on record, the demand is not proved and therefore, the question of acceptance or recovery cannot arise. From the evidence, it appears that the accused, being public servant, was caught red handed by the trapping officers, when he accepted the amount towards illegal gratification. It is also reflected from the record that the complainant was declared hostile and other witnesses have not properly explained the charges levelled against the accused. Therefore, I am of the view that the allegations levelled against the accused for the charges under the Act, are not proved by the prosecution.
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.
13. 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