1. The present Appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat against the Judgment and order dated 28.04.1995 passed by learned Special Judge, Surat, in Special (Corruption) Case No. 3 of 1992, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents – original accused from the charges alleged against them. Against the said Judgment, the appellant – State has filed present Appeal against respondents – original accused.
2. During the hearing on admission of above Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.8.1997 has suo-motu issued Notice to the original complainant of Special Case for showing cause as to why action for perjury should not be taken against him, and the same was numbered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4771 of 1997 (suo-motu).
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that there was some quarrel between the driver of the bus and the complainant as the driver of bus has crushed the hen of the complainant. It is alleged that the driver of the bus had filed criminal complaint against the complainant and, therefore, the complainant was called to the Police station. It is alleged that thereafter, the matter was settled between the driver and the complainant. It is alleged that the two policemen, who came to call the complainant, present respondents have demanded money by saying that if he (complainant) want to save his skin, then he should pay Rs.500/- to them. It is alleged that at that time the complainant paid Rs.100/- to the respondents and thereafter, on demand, he paid Rs.200/-
to them. It is alleged that though the complainant has paid Rs.300/- to the respondents, they demanded Rs.200/- more. As the complainant was not willing to pay the said amount, he approached the A.C.B. Office and lodged his complaint on 21.2.199. Upon receipt of the complaint, P.I. of A.C.B. Police Station has arranged for Panchas and completed necessary formalities. Thereafter, trap was carried out. It is alleged that the accused was caught red-handed. Thereafter, necessary procedure was carried out. Offence under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been registered against the respondents – accused.
4. Necessary investigation was carried out, statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondents – accused. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the respondents – 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 the 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 Additional Sessions Judge, vide the impugned Judgment and order, has acquitted the respondents – accused from the charges levelled against them.
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. Jirga Jhaveri, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State of Gujarat and learned Advocate Mr. Jairaj Chauhan for Mr. Shastri, appearing on behalf of the respondents – accused. I have also gone through the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court and also considered the documents produced on the record of the case.
8. Learned APP, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended that the Judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is without considering the facts and evidence on the record. She has contended that the complainant has categorically stated in his complaint that the accused demanded Rs.500/- for disposing of the complaint which was lodged in respect of the dispute between the complainant and the bus-driver, as the bus- driver had crushed the hen of the complainant. She has contended that the Panch No.1 has clearly deposed that the accused has demanded the money from the complainant and accepted the same from the complainant and put the money in his pocket and there was mark of anthracene powder on the hand and pocket of the pant of the accused. She has, therefore, contended that looking to the over all evidence, prima-facie, the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Judge has wrongly acquitted the respondents - accused from the charges levelled against them. She, therefore, contended that the Judgment and order of the trial Court is bad in law and perverse and, therefore, the same requires to be quashed & set aside.
9. On behalf of respondents, learned Advocate Mr. Chauhan has supported the Judgment and order of the trial Court. He has contended that the learned Judge has considered the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on the record and after considering the same, the learned Judge has rightly not believed the case of the prosecution and acquitted the respondents – accused from the charges alleged against them and, therefore, no interference may be called for by this Court.
10. I have gone through the papers produced before me and also considered the evidence produced on the record. Reading the evidence, it appears that the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been declared as hostile witness. The learned Judge has categorically observed that the panch witnesses are selected panchas. It has come in evidence that A.C.B. Office used to call the panch from the same office where the panch witnesses are serving. The learned Judge has observed that there are material contradictions in the evidence of panch witness and the complainant. From the deposition of Police Inspector Baria (Exh.17) it appears that this witness has categorically admitted in his deposition that they called the panchas from the office of Minor Irrigation Department as and when they required. The complainant deposed that the panchnama was prepared in the Rest House, while the Panch No.1 deposed that the panchnama was prepared in the Police Station.
11. In a corruption case, three things are required to be considered, viz. Demand, acceptance and recovery. Looking to the evidence, produced on the record, the complainant himself has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been declared as hostile witness. It is also clearly appeared there are material contradictions in the evidence of witnesses. From the deposition of P.I. Baria, it clearly appears that they used to call the panchas from the same office as and when occasion arise and, therefore, the learned Judge has rightly observed that the panchas are selected witnesses. Looking to the evidence of witnesses, it clearly appears that the demand and acceptance is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and when the demand and acceptance is not proved, then mere recovery of amount would not sufficient to held the person guilty for the offence alleged against him. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Judge has not committed any error in not believing the case of the prosecution and has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charges alleged against them.
12. 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. Learned A.P.P. Is also 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.
13. In view of above, the Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and order dated 28.04.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra, in Special (Corruption) Case No.03 of 1992, is hereby confirmed. Bail Bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record & Proceeding to be sent back to the trial Court immediately.
14. In view of what is stated herein above, Criminal Misc. Application No. 4771 of 1997 (suo-motu) is also disposed of.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) sas