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 17.01.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra, in Special Case No. 03 of 1997, whereby, the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents – accused for the offences under Sections 7, 124, 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 the complainant is driving the luxury bus and moving his Bus on Godhra – Santrampur, via Morva with passengers. It is alleged that before four days on 31.5.1996 the accident was taken place by reliever driver Salim Dadi and one person received injury and the offence was registered against the said driver Salim Dadi with Morvah Police Station and the investigation of the said offence was carried out by Jamadar Lalabhai, respondent No.2 herein. It is alleged that as the said bus was moving on the said road, the relatives of the injured persons were stopping his bus and giving threat to the complainant and, therefore, the complainant had gone to Morvah Police Station for registering his complainant, where P.S.I. Pathan (present respondent No.1) had informed him that he (complainant) should pay Rs.2,000/-, otherwise his complainant would not be registered and he would help in the case of accident, which was occurred earlier. It is alleged that at that time the complainant was not having money and, therefore, he told P.S.I. that he would pay the said amount on Wednesday and thereupon P.S.I. told him to pay the said amount either to him or to Lalabhai whoever is present. The complainant did not arrange for the said amount. Thereafter, Jamadar Lalabhai stopped the bus and demanded money which was to be paid to P.S.I., however, the complainant assured to pay the money on the next day. As the complainant was not willing to pay the said amount and, therefore, he approached the Police Inspector, A.C.B. Office, Godhra and gave his complaint. After recording the complaint, P.I. arranged for the trap, Panchas were called. The raiding party, along with panchas and the complainant proceeded to Morvah. The panch No.1 and the complainant went to the Police Station. 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, 12, 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 17.01.2000 acquitted the respondents – accused from the charges alleged against them.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra, the present appellant – State has preferred this appeal.
9. Heard Mr. D.L. Dabhi, learned APP, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State. Though served, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent – accused.
10. Learned APP, appearing for the appellant has contended that, no doubt, the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution, but, the Panch, who is an independent witness has fully supported 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 Panch No.1 has categorically deposed that the complainant gave the amount which was put in the drawer of the table and the same was recovered in presence of Panch No.2. The number of the said notes were also tallied with the preliminary panchnama. 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. The other side is served, but, nobody is appearing on his behalf. I have gone through the papers produced before me and also gone through the Judgment and order of the trial Court.
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 appellant. 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 the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been declared as hostile and even in cross examination also the prosecution could not be able to establish its case about the demand made by the respondents – accused. It appears that in the deposition of the Panch No.1, who is an independent witness, he has not conversation regarding the demand made by the respondent – accused from the complainant. It appears that in the cross examination the panch witness has categorically deposed that when P.S.I. Pathan was reading the xerox copies of papers, reversing his face towards window side, at that time the complainant had put the money in the drawer of the table. It has also come in the evidence of Panch witness that he has not heard any conversation between the complainant and the respondent No.1. The trial Court has observed that looking to the evidence of Investigating Officer, it has not been mentioned in his evidence that the respondents – accused have demanded illegal gratification from the complainant in the presence of Panch No.1. The learned Judge has categorically observed that the complainant has been turned hostile and he has not supported the case of prosecution and the panch Nos.1 & 2 have not heard any conversation between P.S.I. Pathan and the complainant.
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 17.01.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra, in Special Case No. 03 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