1. The appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under sec. 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.12.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge (A.C.B., Fast Track Court No.4), Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad, in Special Case No. 23 of 1997, whereby, the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent – accused for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”),
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that for getting the admission for the course of Wireman at I.T.I., Dholka, the complainant and his friend contacted the respondent – accused, who was at the relevant time the Supervisor in I.T.I., Dholka. Necessary forms were filled in and the amount of Rs.215/- towards prescribed fee was also paid. It is alleged that thereafter the accused asked them to pay Rs.2,000/- each. The complainant and his friend went to their respective village for money. It is alleged that position of the parents of the complainant was very poor, however, he could manage Rs.1500/- on interest at 15% and his friend could manage the amount of Rs.2,000/- after putting his land on lease. It is alleged that both, the complainant and his friend, have paid the above amount and the complainant told the accused that he would pay Rs.500/- after some time. However, the accused often insisted for the amount of Rs.500/- from the complainant and gave threat to him that if he would not pay Rs.500/- then he should be debarred from I.T.I. Thereupon, the complainant approached the A.C.B. Office and gave his complaint against the present accused. After recording the complaint, the trap was arranged, Panchas were called. The raiding party, along with panchas and the complainant proceeded to the place of the accused. The pans No.1 and the complainant went to the house of the accused where the accused told the complainant to put the said currency notes below the mattresses. After some negotiation, the complainant paid the amount to the respondent – accused. Thereafter, on receiving the signal from the complainant, the raiding party rushed to the place and caught the accused.
3. Thereafter, the statement of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded. Necessary sanction was obtained from the concerned Authority and after the investigation was over the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act.
4. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the respondent - accused. The respondent – accused has pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the charge levelled against the respondent - accused, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and also relied upon the documentary evidence.
6. Thereafter, after examining the witnesses, further statement of the respondent - accused under sec. 313 of Cr PC was recorded in which the respondent - accused has denied the case of the prosecution.
7. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 06.12.2003 acquitted the respondent – accused from the charges alleged against him.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad, the present appellant – State has preferred this appeal.
9. Heard Mr. D.L. Dabhi, learned APP, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State and Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala, appearing on behalf of the respondent – accused.
10. Learned APP, appearing for the appellant has contended that the witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution, however, the learned Judge has committed grave error in not believing the case of the prosecution. From the evidence produced on the record and from the evidence of panch witness, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the impugned Judgment of the trial Court may be quashed and set aside. He has contended that the witnesses have categorically deposed that as per the instruction of the complainant the amount was paid, He has contended that looking to the evidence produced on the record, the demand, acceptance and recovery is proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has, therefore, contended that looking to the evidence, produced on the record, the learned Judge has committed grave error in acquitting the respondent – accused and, therefore, the Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge may be quashed.
11. Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent – accused has supported the Judgment and order of the trial Court and contended that looking to the facts and the evidence, produced on the record, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charges alleged against him. He has contended that to prove the guilt against the respondent, the prosecution has to prove the demand, acceptance and the recovery of amount and in the present case, the prosecution could not be able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the demand made by the respondent from the complainant and, therefore, the learned Judge has not committed any error in not believing the case of the prosecution.
12. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge and oral as well as documentary evidence produced on the record. I have read the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses and also perused the charge framed against the respondent. It is pertinent to note that in a case of corruption four things are required to be appreciated, viz. (i) initial demand, (ii) second demand to be made in presence of Panch, (iii) voluntary acceptance and (iv) recovery of amount.
13. From the Judgment of the trial Court, it appears that there are material contradictions in the deposition of witness Vinaychandra and the contents of the complaint. It appears from the record that the complainant and his friend (witness Vinaychandra) have deposited the amount of Rs.215/- each towards fee for getting the admission in the I.T.I. and, thereafter, it is alleged that the respondent has demanded Rs.2,000/- each from the complainant and his friend. It is also evident from the record that the I.T.I. is a Government Institution and once the prescribed admission fee is paid by the complainant and when the admission is given purely on merit, as per the merit list, and when there is no provision to pay additional fee, then there is no question to pay the additional fee. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent has also no authority to give admission to the complainant. It is also evident from the record that the fee was paid by the complainant and his friend on 30.8.1996 and got the admission in I.T.I., on 19.8.1996, then where is the question to demand the amount after the complainant and his friend got the admission. It also appears that the friend of the complainant (witness Vinodchandra) has not filed any complaint towards the demand of Rs.2,000/- made by the respondent. The Panch witness Girishchandra has also deposed in his evidence that the respondent did not ask the complainant about the money. It is also evident from the record that after filing the complaint, the Investigating Officer has not informed his superior and also not made the noting in the Station Diary and also not produced the standing order of the Vigilence Commissioner. As per the contents of the complaint, it is alleged that the respondent has demanded the money from both, the complainant as well as from his friend, however, it is also evident from the deposition of witness Vinodchandra that there was no talk about the money demanded by the respondent. The prosecution has not produced any evidence regarding the demand made by the respondent. The muddamal was also not found from the possession of the respondent.
14. Looking to the overall evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is clearly established that the demand and acceptance is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. From the evidence of panch witness, it clearly appears that he had not heard anything about the demand made by the accused from the complainant. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Judge has not committed any error in acquitting the respondents – accused from the charges of corruption alleged against them. In the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Banarsi Das Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2010 SC 1589, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that mere proof of recovery of bribe money from accused not sufficient to prove the offence. Even in the present case the demand is not established. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that so far as the offence of bribery is concerned, the demand of bribe amount is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in absence of any cogent evidence regarding the demand of bribe, it is difficult to believe the case of prosecution and hence, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
15. It is settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to re-write the Judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents – accused and adopting the said reasons and for the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. Hence, this Appeal requires to be dismissed.
16. In view of above, the Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and order dated 06.12.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge (A.C.B., Fast Track Court No.4), Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad, in Special Case No. 23 of 1997 is hereby confirmed. Bail Bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record & Proceeding to be sent back to the trial Court immediately.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) sas