1. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.4.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, in Special Case No.14 of 1996, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, the respondent – accused being pubic servant, was serving as Talati. In the year 1994, the complainant, whose land being Survey No.158/3 was running as new tenure land on Government record and said land was cultivated by the complainant. In the year 1995, the complainant took crops from the said land and at that time, he met the accused for getting transferred the said land on his name. It is alleged that the accused demanded Rs.1000/ from the complainant for doing such work and later on, the complainant gave Rs.500/ to the accused. On 16.9.1995, the complainant approached the ACB Office for lodging the complaint against the accused. Therefore, a trap was arranged by the ACB office with the help of two panchas. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused demanded and accepted the amount of Rs.500/ bribe from the complainant. Therefore, the complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) and Section 13(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 Kashirambhai Laljibhai Shrimali, at Exhibit 7, P.W.2 Khushalbhai Kalubhai at Exhibit 10, P.W 3 Ratilal Kantilal Solanki at Exhibit 11, P.W 4 Nadirkhan Jamalkhan Pathan at Exhibit 25.
4. At the end of trial, after recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur, acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 16.4.1999.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 16.4.1999 passed by the lower 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 submitted that there is direct evidence against the accused for the offence alleged. He further submitted that from the evidence of witnesses examined before the lower Court, the allegations levelled against the accused, with help of documentary evidence were proved. Even the during the course of experiment of ultraviolet lamp, the marks of anthracene powder were found. The muddamal notes were recovered from the possession of the accused and said muddamal notes were taken out by panch No.1. Therefore, as per his submission, lower court has not properly appreciated the evidence in true manner. He submitted that the Appeal is required to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the lower Court.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Shakeel Qureshi for the respondent, accused submitted that the lower Court has rightly passed the judgment and order of acquittal by appreciating the evidence in true manner and therefore, no interference is required to be called for, from this Court. He further submitted that looking to the evidence on record, the charge under the Act is not proved. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the Appeal.
8. 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. From the evidence of the complainant, it is not established that the amount, which was given by the complainant to the accused, was of illegal gratification or for any other, as from the evidence, it is transpired that the complainant was to pay the amount towards house tax to the office of Talati. Therefore, the aspect of demand on the part of the accused is not proved. From the evidence of Ratilal at Exhibit 11, it appears that the amount of Rs.452/ was due towards the house tax and same was required to be paid by the complainant. This witness also stated that it is duty of the Talati to say about the due amount towards the Government, to any person. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had demanded the money towards bribe. Herein this case, it is not at all established that the accused demanded the amount of Rs.500/ from the complainant for doing the work of the complainant. The accused had to recover the legal dues from the complainant. Looking to the other documentary as well as oral evidence, the case against the accused is not established. Therefore, I am of the view that the lower Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and the material aspect i.e. the demand which is not proved and the purpose of demand is also proved, therefore, the case is not established against the accused. Therefore, lower Court has rightly passed the judgment and order of acquittal.
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. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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