1. By way of present appeal, filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal dated 14.8.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Special Case No.7 of 1989. The said case was registered against the respondents–original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 161 and 165(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. According to the prosecution case, the complainant had remained on leave because of illness from dated 3.8.1982 to 10.10.1982. His leave was not sanctioned by the office. Therefore, the complainant met the accused No.1 Taluka Development Officer. He sent the complainant to accused No.2 and accused No.2 suggested that if the complainant agree to the suggestion made by the accused No.3 his work may be done. The accused No.3 demanded bribe of Rs.100/ for the work done therefore accused No.1 and complainant agreed to it. Thereafter accused No.2 demanded bribe of Rs.25/ for sending the order sanctioning the leave of the complainant. The complainant had gone to the accused Nos.1 and 2 and they demanded the bribe amount. The complainant had told them to give it on 14.2.1986. Thereafter the complainant filed a complaint on 13.2.1986 with the ACB Police. After completing necessary formalities the accused persons were caught redhanded and statement of the witnesses were recorded by the trapping officer and then before the learned Special Judge chargesheet was filed.
3. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and after following the necessary procedure, and on grant of sanction, the chargesheet against the accused persons came to be submitted before the Court.
4. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the respondents to which the respondents – accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the charge levelled against the respondents accused, the prosecution has examined witnesses and also produced documentary evidence on record of the trial Court.
6. After examining the witnesses, further statement of the respondentsaccused under Sec. 313 of Cr. PC was recorded wherein the respondentsaccused have denied the case of the prosecution.
7. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned Special Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, vide impugned judgment and order dated 14.8.1995 passed in Special Case No.7 of 1989, held the respondents – accused not guilty of the charge levelled against them and acquitted as stated herein above.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, the present appellant – State has preferred this appeal.
9. Heard Ms.Hansa Punani, learned APP for the appellant – State, Mr.P.S.Patel, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. The respondent No.1 has expired during the pendency of the proceedings, therefore present appeal qua respondent No.1 is abated.
10. Mr.Punani has contended that the impugned 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.
11. She has contended that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the complainant and panch witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The complainant has stated that for the work of sanction of his leave the accused No.1 had demanded bribe of Rs.100/ through accused No.3 and accused No.2 had demanded bribe of Rs.25/ for sending the order immediately. There is also evidence on record that during the trap first accused No.2 had accepted the amount of bribe and thereafter the accused No.1 accepted the amount of bribe in place of work and on making sign by the complainant the police officer caught the accused Nos.2 and 1. The panch No.1 supports the case of the prosecution about acceptance of the bribe during the trap.
12. She has contended that currency note with anthracene power was recovered from the respective accused. The sign of anthracene powder was found on the clothes and the hands of accused No.2 which also supports the case of the prosecution. There is no reason for the complainant to file a false complaint. The learned Judge has erred in appreciating the evidence and thereby acquitted the accused. 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.
13. Heard Mr.P.S.Patel, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. He has contended that there are four stages i.e.
(1) initial demand (2) second demand to be made in the presence of the panch (3) acceptance and (4) recovery, in the corruption cases which are required to be proved through evidence of the complainant and there should be corroboration to all the four stages from the independent and reliable evidence. He has read deposition of the complainant and contended that from the deposition of the complainant it clearly appears that the demand is not established against the respondents accused. In absence of the demand case of the prosecution become fatal. He has prayed to dismiss the appeal of the appellant and confirm the judgment and order of the acquittal.
14. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 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 advocates for the respective parties.
15. In corruption cases demand of illegal gratification is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. I have perused Sections 161 and 165(A) of the Indian Penal Code. So far as ingredients of Sections 161 and 165(A) of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, primafacie misconduct of the public servant must be proved through oral as well as documentary evidence. In the present case when the panchas have not supported the case of the prosecution and they are declared hostile then trial Court has rightly not believed the case of the prosecution from the evidence. It clearly appears that no demand is made by public servant and no recovery is made from possession of the present respondents hence in the result the prosecution has failed to prove case. When the demand, acceptance or misconduct is not proved beyond reasonable doubt through oral as well as documentary evidence, then learned Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents.
16. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran
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.”
17. 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.
18. 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 respondents – 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.
19. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 14.8.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Special Case No.7 of 1989 acquitting the respondents – accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks