1. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.11.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhavnagar, in Special Case No.11 of 1994, 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 unarmed Police Constable at Botad Police Station. On the basis of information received by the P.I. Shri Dodiya, working at ACB Office, the trap was arranged and near Keriyadhal situated on Bhavnagar to Ahmedabad high way, the accused was caught by taking bribe under the pretext of entry fees. Therefore, the complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the appellant along with other accused persons.
3. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has produced several documentary evidence and examined witnesses like P.W.1 Satarbhai Hasambhai Jethva at Exhibit 9, P.W.2 Rambhai Ukabhai Memriya at Exhibit 13, P.W 3 Dhirendrasinh Lakhaji Dodiya at Exhibit 40.
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 19.11.1997.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 19.11.1997 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. She submitted that the prosecution has proved the case from the evidence of P.W.1, against the accused and the evidence is corroborated with the contents of panchnama. She submitted that the material aspects of demand, accept and recovery of bribe of Rs.50/ are proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. She also submitted that there are contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. She submitted the deposition of Satarbhai Hasambhai Jethava at Exhibit 9 supported the evidence of Panch No.1 and Mr. Dodia. The evidence of witnesses led by the prosecution got corroboration with panchnama. Therefore, the prosecution proved the offence against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7,12, 13(i)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. 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. Joshi 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 the P.W.1 is decoy witness and the marks of anthracene powder were not found on the hands of the accused. 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. From the record, it appears that P.W.1 Satarbhai did not know the accused and even as per his evidence, he denied about the demand and acceptance on the part of the accused and he was declared as hostile witness. He was decoy witness and his evidence does not inspire the confidence. There was no any independent witness. The aspect of of the demand and acceptance was not proved. The evidence of Dodiya and P.W.1 are not reliable and trustworthy. It also appears that there was no demand on the part of the accused. The marks of anthracene powder were not found on the body of the accused. The witness P.W.1 who is decoy witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and the story narrated by the P.W.1 is not corroborated with the evidence of other witness as well as documentary evidence. In the corruption case, three aspects viz. (i) demand (ii) acceptance and (iii) recovery are required to be proved. The witness P.W.1 was declared hostile and he has not supported the version of the prosecution that the accused demanded amount towards the bribe and herein this case, the trap was arranged by the prosecution with the help of decoy witness, who turned hostile. Looking to the evidence of other witnesses, their evidence are not corroborate with the complaint and panchnama etc. 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