[1] The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the Judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.07.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mehsana, in Special (A.C.B.) Case No.8 of 1990, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent - accused from the charges levelled against him.
[2] The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that in the year 1987, when the accused was serving as Veterinary Officer at Veterinary Dispensary, Unja, he demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10/- from the complainant Maganbhai Shankarbhai Patel for giving the powder to be given to buffalo in the diet. On 19.06.1987, the accused told the complainant to give Rs.10/- to compounder Shri Bachubhai Ambalal Dave and the accused accepted the said amount through the said compounder and thereby accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the complainant lodged complaint against the accused - respondent for the offences punishable under Section 161 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
[3] To prove the case against the present respondent - accused, the prosecution has examined in all Nine witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
[4] Necessary investigation was carried out, statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the respondent - accused. The respondents - accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
[5] To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and relied upon certain documents. At the end of trial, after recording the statements of the respondents - accused, under Section 313 Cr. P.C., and after hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned Special Judge, vide the impugned Judgment and order, has acquitted the respondent - accused from the charges levelled against him.
[6] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal.
[7] Heard learned A.P.P. Ms.Hansa Punani, appearing on behalf of the appellant
- State of Gujarat. I have gone through the Judgment and order passed by the Special Court and also considered the documents produced on the record of the case.
[8] I have heard learned A.P.P. Mr. Pandya on behalf of the appellant - State. I have also gone through the papers and also the Judgment and order of the Special Court. It has been contended by the learned APP that the judgment and order of the Special Court is against the provisions of law; the Special Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law, it is established that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the evidence against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. She has contended that the charge is framed against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. She has contended that the accused has demanded Rs.10/- as illegal gratification from the complainant and that fact is proved by the prosecution. She has contended that looking to the misconduct of the respondent is concerned, the demand of illegal gratification is proved by the prosecution, but the learned Special Judge has not considered the said material facts. She has argued that the recovery which is made by the trapping officer is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but the same is not considered by the learned Special Judge. She has contended that the learned Special Judge has wrongly acquitted the accused for the aforesaid offences. She has, therefore, urged that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
[9] The otherside is served but not present. At the outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the Special Court have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr, reported in (2006)6 SCC, 39, the Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under:
"54.
In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgement of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the court below."
[10] Further, in the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007)4 SCC 415 the Apex Court laid down the following principles:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
[1] An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
[2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
[3] Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
[4] An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
[5] If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
[11] Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Special court.
[12] Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:
"16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with."
[13] Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.
[14] It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:
"...
This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
[15] Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary.
[16] I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the Special Court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the Special Court and also considered the submissions made by learned Advocate for the appellant.
[17] The Special Court has, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, has found that the witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. The Special Court has also found that there are serious lacunae in the evidence of the witnesses. Nothing is produced on record to rebut the concrete findings of the Special Court. The Special Court has also observed that on 18.06.1987, the injection was given to the buffalo of the complainant. This fact is stated by the complainant in the complaint and in the statement of the police and that fact is proved. The injection is given to the buffalo of the complainant is proved from the case papers. From the evidence, it prima facie establishes that when the complainant visited the veterinary dispensary, at that time, he has narrated the problem of his buffalo and in that connection, necessary medicine was not available and, therefore, injection was given to the buffalo, which is available with the accused. There is contradiction between the evidence of the witnesses as well as documentary evidence. It also appears that nothing is recovered from the accused person by the trapping officer. It also appears from the judgment and order that the learned Special Judge has considered all three aspects; demand, acceptance and recovery. It is prima facie established that the learned Special Judge has found that neither any demand nor acceptance of the illegal gratification by the accused is proved by the prosecution. Therefore, the learned Special Judge has rightly acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him.
[18] Thus, the appellant could not bring home the charge against the respondent
- accused in the present Appeal. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the respondent - accused. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case as alleged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
[19] Learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Special court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the special court has ignored the material evidence on record.
[20] In above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the special court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against him. I find that the findings recorded by the special court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.
[21] 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.
[22] In view of above the Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 23.07.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mehsana, in Special (A.C.B.) Case No.8 of 1990 is confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record & Proceeding may be sent back to the Special Court.
( Z. K. SAIYED, J. ) (vijay) Top