1. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.3.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Valsad, in Special Case No.4 of 1989, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant being pubic servant, was serving as Industrial Promotion Officer. The complainant with a view to obtain loan, approached the office of Development Commissioner and Small Scale Industries, where the accused was working and who had to make necessary recommendations to the bank for providing loan. After filling up the form of loan and after some time, on 28.10.1987, he met the accused and the accused for doing such work, demanded Rs.500/ towards illegal gratification from the complainant. The complainant did not give such amount to the accused, therefore, he approached the ACB Office, Valsad. 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.200/ from the complainant. Therefore, the complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 5(1) (d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 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 Nitinbhai Bavabhai at Exhibit 24, P.W.2 Ramubhai Narsinhbhai at Exhibit 27, P.W 3 Kalyanbhai Khushalbhai at Exhibit 40, P.W 4 Amarsinh Mohanlal Yadav at Exhibit 41.
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 15.3.1995.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 15.3.1995 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. He further submitted that in the case, the most material aspects like demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe amount 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. He 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. He further stated that there was no reason to disbelieve the case of the complainant for the learned Special Judge, even though by not considering that evidence in true manner, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused. He further stated that the complainant gave money to the accused in the presence of panch No.1 and said amount was accepted by the accused. Even from the evidence of P.W.1 Nitinbhai Bavabhai, the case against the accused is established on the ground that the amount of bribe was recovered from the accused. Therefore, it is established that in response to the demand on the part of the accused, the complainant gave the amount of illegal gratification other than legal remuneration. He further submitted that looking to even documentary evidence, the offence as alleged against the accused, is proved. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the prosecution and hence, the Appeal is required to be allowed by awarding sentence in favour of the accused and to quash and set aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Samir Khan 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. The evidence of the witnesses are contradictory, especially, the evidence of the complainant himself is not supported his say in the complaint and therefore, 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. He alleged that the accused demanded bribe amount of Rs.1000/ from the complainant and thereafter, the complainant denied about the same, the accused was ready to do the work and for such work of the complainant, the complainant was ready to give bribe amount to the accused. From the evidence, it appears that the accused was ready to work, but the demand of amount is not established. Even from the alleged cover, which was given by the complainant to the accused and the accused put the same in his pocket of pant and said cover was not produced before the trial Court. It appears from the recover that in the presence of witness Ramubhai Narsinhbhai, the demand was not made and amounts were not tendered. The Investigating Officer did not support the case of the prosecution. 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. It also appears from the record, the conversion between the complainant and accused is not clearly appears with regard to the demand. It appears that the amount was thrust into the pocket of the accused. 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