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 21.4.1992 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No.2, Ahmedabad, in Special Case No.32 of 1989. The said case was registered against the respondent-original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
According to the prosecution case, the accused in his capacity as such Labour Officer visited the site of construction of the complainant at Maninagar about a month prior to the complaint and the site Supervisor Satyanarayan was called and was told that the complainant has indulged in anti-labour activities and hence case will have to be initiated against him. He was also informed by the accused that two labour cases have already been filed against the complainant and he would file a third case. On saying so the complainant told him that if a third case is filed he would be put in trouble. In reply to that the accused told him that he has to understand the situation. The complainant asked as to what he means by "understanding" the accused told him that if sum of Rs.3,000/- is paid to him no further case would be filed against him. The complainant lodged complaint with A.C.B. Office at Ahmedabad. After completing necessary formalities the raid was carried out, statement of the witnesses were recorded by the trapping officer and then before the learned Special Judge charge-sheet was filed.
On the basis of above allegations, charge was framed, read-over and explained to the accused for the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the P.C.Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
In order to bring home the charge levelled against the respondent - accused, the prosecution has examined witnesses and also produced documentary evidence on record of the trial Court.
After examining the witnesses, further statement of the respondent-accused under Sec. 313 of Cr. PC was recorded wherein the respondent-accused has denied the case of the prosecution.
After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned Special Judge, Court No.2, Ahmedabad, vide impugned judgment and order dated 21.4.1992 passed in Special Case No.32 of 1989, held the respondent - accused not guilty of the charge levelled against him and acquitted as stated herein above.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No.2, Ahmedabad, the present appellant - State has preferred this appeal.
Heard Ms.Hansa Punani, learned APP for the appellant - State and Mr.Adil Mehta, learned advocate appearing for Mr.K.J.Shethna, for the respondent.
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.
She has contended that the learned Special Judge has erred in holding that it is unsafe to rely upon the evidence of the complainant who is a seasoned campaigner and who is also having chequered history. The learned Judge on the contrary ought to have taken into consideration the facts on record. The learned Judge ought to have considered that as per the prosecution case, the accused at the first instance demanded Rs.3,000/- so that no further case can be initiated. Ultimately the above said amount was reduced to Rs.1,000/-. The learned Judge also ought to have considered that the accused has asked the complainant to visit his residential premises in the late evening and to pay the amount of Rs.1,000/- at his residential premises. Thus, facts on record is do suggestive of the fact that the accused had demanded Rs.1,000/- and as a result of the case the complainant had visited residential premises belonging to the accused and the amount was paid to the accused. The accused was caught red-handed while accepting bribe money.
She has read oral evidence of the witnesses and contended that looking to the evidence of the present complainant demand and acceptance is proved beyond reasonable doubt. She has contended that the learned Judge ought to have considered that the evidence of the complainant is corroborated by the evidence of panch witness Mirza. Moreover, other materials on record also corroborate the say of the complainant i.e. Panchnama at Ex.13 and seizure memo at Ex.12. Such documents corroborate the say of the complainant. The learned Judge ought to have taken into consideration the entire conversation which has taken place. Lastly, she has read observations of the learned Judge and contended that 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.
Heard Mr.Adil Mehta, learned advocate appearing for Mr.K.J.Shethna, for the respondent. 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 contended that as per evidence of the complainant main ingredient of demand is not proved. He has further contended that as per law laid down by the Apex Court when the demand is not proved and simple recovery is made by the Trapping Officer from then the accused cannot be convicted for the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. He has contended that, prima-facie, case of the appellant is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, learned Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent. He has prayed to dismiss the Appeal.
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 witness-complainant and also perused the charge framed against the accused. I have also considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties.
In corruption cases demand of illegal gratification is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere recovery of notes from the drawer of the table of accused to prove its case either under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 5(1)(d) of the P.C.Act the accused is not proved to have attempted or accepted the amount. The motive or reward which is an important ingredient for the offence under Section 161 of the Code is not there and therefore, the charge cannot sustain. For proving the offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act the prosecution is required to prove that the accused has obtained or attempted to obtain gratification from the complainant. The prosecution has failed to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was not in any dominating position to compel the complainant to part with the 'demand' and hence ingredients of Section 5(1)(d) of the Act are not attracted.
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 re-appreciate 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."
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.
It is settled legal position that in an 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 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.
In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 21.4.1992 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No.2, Ahmedabad, in Special Case No.32 of 1989 acquitting the respondent - accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks Top