Back
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Z.K. Saiyed, J.
State of Gujarat —Appellant
versus
Virabhai Dadubhai Likheda —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1024 of 2003
Decided on 8.12.2014
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:H.S. Soni, Advocate
For the Respondent:Pravin Gondaliya, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
While exercising appellate power, even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) —Accused a police official prosecuted for having accepted Rs.20 at bribe from a track driver for passing vehicle from the road—Decoy trap was arranged and currency notes smeared with anthracite powder were recovered from accused—Acquittal by Trial Court—Appeal—Contradictory version as regards recovery of currencynotes from accused as panch witness No.2 stated that he himself pulled out currencynotes from the mouth of accused but complainant stated that accused had taken out bribe amount from his mouth—Evidence failed to prove factor of demand—Acquittal was not to be interfered with. (Para 8)
ii. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 378—Appeal against acquittal—If two reasonable conclusions are possible form evidence, appellate court should not disturb finding of acquittal—In case appellate Court agree with reasons and opinion given by trial Court, then discussion of evidence is not necessary. (Paras 9 & 10)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Z.K. Saiyed, J.— The present appeal, under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.5.2003 passed by the learned Special Fast Track Judge, Amreli, in Special Case No.47 of 1996, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are such that the complainant Mr. J.G. Chavda, P.I., ACB office, Amreli, received authentic information that the police and RTO staff are collecting entry fees from the vehicles like truck, loading rickshaw, luxury bus, shuttle rickshaw and heavy trucks passing on the road between Khambha, Chalala, Amreli, Lathi and Chanvad. Therefore, the complainant arranged decoy trap and on success of trap, the complaint was filed against the accused and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. As such the accused as a public servant demanded and accepted illegal gratification and thereby committed offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(gh) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Thereafter, charge was framed and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined, in witnesses Viz. (1) Harunbhai Sultanbhai Agvan Exhibit 9, (2) Raysinh Gangasinh Gohil Exhibit 12, (3) Ramnikbhai Manjibhai Bakraniya, Exhibit 15 (4) Jagmalbhai Govindbhai Chavda, Exhibit 19 (5) Jaswantrav Marutirav Dhone Exhibit 21 (6) Dineshkumar Bhimjibhai Barvaliya Exhibit 24. The prosecution also produced several documentary evidence on record.
4. At the end of trial, while recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., it was stated that they had not committed alleged offence and they were totally innocent persons and they had been wrongly implicated in the offence. After hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 27.3.2003.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.
6. It is submitted by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondent.Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. Therefore, as per his submission, the case of the prosecution was required to be believed by the learned Special Judge and other witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution. He therefore, submitted that impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be quashed and set aside and the accused is required to be punished as per the provisions of the alleged offence.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya for the respondent accused supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the learned Special Judge has rightly observed that the accused was acquitted for the charges levelled against him. He also submitted that three ingredients of alleged offence are not proved i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery and therefore, appeal is required to be dismissed. He also submitted that the demand was not made by the accused at the time of incident and therefore, demand itself is not proved, then question of alleged offence does not arise. He submitted that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be confirmed.
8. I have perused the record and considered the submissions made by the parties. Herein this case to prove the case against the accused, six witnesses were examined and several documentary evidence were produced by the prosecution. The police complainant
