1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant – original complainant, State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Cr.
P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 10.2.1995 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj, in Sessions Case No.52 of 1992. The said case was registered against the present respondent original accused for the offence under Sections 3(1)(c) and 9 of the Official Secret Act.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 19.7.1991 at Lakhaniya Village in the border area the accused was in possession of map of different stations of border area which may be prejudicial to the security of India. The accused had written one secret message in Urdu language. The art of the accused having been in possession of secret map of border area can be serious for security of India and thereby the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 3(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The accused had kept these maps with an intention to supply the same to the enemy country and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(c) and 9 of the Official Secrets Act. Hence the complaint came to be lodged.
3. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, accused person was arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet came to be filed against him.
4. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused person, to which the accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused person, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused person has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him.
7. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondent – accused.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.2.1995 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj, in Sessions Case No.52 of 1992, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
9. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused person has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him.
10. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondent – accused.
11. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.2.1995 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj, in Sessions Case No.52 of 1992, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
12. Heard Learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State.
She has contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law and evidence on record. She has contended that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties in its proper perspectives.
13. She has contended that the learned has failed to appreciate that the panch witness and P.S.I. Gohil, who accompanied with the panch through the various roads shown in the documents and oral evidence before the Court of both the witnesses are quite corroborative with each other. She has contended that the learned Judge has erred in giving much credence to the contradictions which are minor in between the evidence of panch witness and P.S.I. Gohil. The learned Judge has committed error in coming to the conclusion that Kuberbhai had inimical terms.
14. She has contended that learned Judge has failed to appreciate that if the evidence as a whole has been examined it is proved that the muddamal has been found from the house of the accused during search and merely accused was not present in the house the Court has committed error in acquitted the accused on the ground that it cannot be said that the accused in possession of the documents. Lastly, she has read observations of the learned Judge and contended that the observations made by the learned Judge are not proper in the eye of law and therefore, judgment and order of the learned Judge is required to be set aside.
15. Heard Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP for the appellant – State. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge and oral as well as documentary evidence produced on the record. I have read the oral evidence of prosecution witnesscomplainant and also perused the charge framed against the accused. I have also considered the submissions advanced by the learned APP.
16. The learned Judge has rightly observed that complaint is lodged without sanction. The panchas are professional and their presence at the time of panchnama is doubtful. The material in question is not found from the possession of the respondentaccused. Therefore, looking from all the angles, it appears that the investigation was not done properly.
17. 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 reappreciate 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.”
18. 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.
19. It is settled legal position that in an acquittal Appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to rewrite 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 respondent – accused and adopting the said reasons as well as 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.
20. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 10.2.1995 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj, in Sessions Case No.52 of 1992, acquitting the respondent – accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Bail bond shall stand cancelled.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks