Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
K.R. Vyas, A.M. Kapadia, JJ.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Jujarsinh Bhavansinh Vihol and another - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 792 of 1992
Decided On : 22-02-1999
Indian Panel Code, 1860 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Public Servant – Demand of Illegal gratification - Police Constable, respondent No. 2 - Police Sub Inspector, respondent No. 3 Constable and respondent No. 4 Driver, working in traffic branch of City Police Station at the relevant time, who were public servants within the definition and meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code were tried by the learned Special Judge in Special Case No. 5 of 1988 for commission of offence punishable under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC for short), on the accusation that all of them, while they were on duty, at four junction, City, had demanded Rs. 50/- as gratification under the pretext of collecting entry fee from Ambalal driver of matador No. GAL 6299 which was passing from the said road and accepted the said amount from No.1 and in his presence also demanded and accepted gratification from other three drivers of their respective vehicles and thereby they have committed and abetted to the said offence. At the conclusion of the trial, learned Special Judge recorded the finding of acquittal and resultantly he by judgment and order dated 23.6.1992 recorded order of acquittal in favour of the respondents herein. State of Gujarat, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of acquittal has filed this Criminal Appeal with the aids of Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code –Held, An acquittal appeal in which Court would be slow to interfere with the order of acquittal. Infirmities in the prosecution case go to the root of the matter and strike a vital blow on the prosecution case. In such a case, it would not be safe to set aside the order of acquittal, more particularly, when the evidence has not inspired confidence of the learned trial Judge. As this Court is in general agreement with the view expressed by the learned trial Judge, it is not necessary for this Court either to reiterate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses or to restate reasons given by the learned trial Judge for acquittal and in our view, expression of general agreement with the view taken by the learned trial Judge would be sufficient in the facts of the present case for not interfering with the judgment of the learned trial Judge and this is so, in view of the decisions rendered by the Supreme court in the case of Devi and others, AIR 1967 SC 1124 and State of Karnataka and another. On overall appreciation of evidence, this court is satisfied that there is no infirmity in the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge for acquitting the respondents/original accused. Suffice it to say that the learned trail Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the respondents/original accused and the learned A.P.P. has failed to dislodge the reasons given by the learned trial Judge and convince this Court to take a view contrary to the one taken by the learned trial Judge. Therefore, there is no merits in the acquittal appeal – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Kapadia, J.
Respondent No. 1 - Jujarsinh Bhavansinh Vihol, Police Constable, respondent No. 2 - Zalabhai Manjibhai Varsatap, Police Sub Inspector, respondent No. 3 Madhukar Hilal Patil, Constable and respondent No. 4 Somubhai Mitabhai Vankar, Driver, working in traffic branch of Vadodara City Police Station at the relevant time, who were public servants within the definition and meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) were tried by the learned Special Judge, Vadodara, in Special Case No. 5 of 1988 for commission of offence punishable under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) and Section 161 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), on the accusation that all of them, on 9.11.1985, while they were on duty, at Fatehgunj four junction, Vadodara City, had demanded Rs. 50/- as gratification (other than the legal remuneration) under the pretext of collecting entry fee from Ambalal Savjibhai, driver of matador No. GAL 6299 which was passing from the said road and accepted the said amount from Panch No.1, Kailashpuri Girdharpuri Gosai and in his presence also demanded and accepted gratification from other three drivers of their respective vehicles and thereby they have committed and abetted to the said offence. At the conclusion of the trial, learned Special Judge recorded the finding of acquittal and resultantly he by judgment and order dated 23.6.1992 recorded order of acquittal in favour of the respondents herein. State of Gujarat, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of acquittal has filed this Criminal Appeal with the aids of Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code ('the Code' for short).
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:
2.1. Baburao Ramchandra Patil, Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau ('ACB' for short), working at the relevant time in the office of ACB, Ahmedabad, received an information on 8.11.1985 to the effect that traffic police personnel working on Ahmedabad - Bhilad Highway, demanding illegal gratification, under the pretext of entry fee, from the drivers of vehicles while they were passing through Ahmedabad - Bhilad Highway and they are harassing the drivers of the vehicles. Therefore, to verify the correctness of the said information, he instructed Mr. Pathan, a Police Sub Inspector, to arrange for two panchas and also instructed Police Constable Takhaji to hire a matador and also directed them to remain present at 10 P.M. near Dufnala. In pursuance of the said information, ACB constable Takhaji to hire a matador No. GAL 6299 with its driver Ambalal Savjibhai and selected two panchas, namely (1) Kailashpuri Girdharpuri Gosai and (2) Jasubhai Balashanker Mehta as panchas and they were brought to the office of ACB and they were explained about the information which was received by Police Inspector Mr. Patil. Kailashpuri Girdharpuri Gosai was selected as Panch No.1 while Jasubhai Balashanker Mehta was selected as Panch No.2. Mr. Patil also arranged for Rs. 500/- each of Rs. 50/- denomination from the office of the Director of ACB, Ahmedabad, for the purpose of supplying in the trap. Thereafter usual experiment of anthracene powder was made in the presence of panchas and all of them were explained the use and characteristics of anthracene powder by showing the currency notes smeared with anthracene powder in ordinary light and in ultra violate lamp light. Thereafter said Rs. 500/- were put in the pocket of Panch No.1 with instruction that unless and until demanded he should not touch the currency notes. Accordingly, first part of the panchnama was prepared in presence of both the panchas and police personnel and their signatures were also obtained beneath the same.
2.2. After completing the first part of the panchnama, the said convoy started from Ahmedabad to Bhilad in matador No.GAL 6299 which they have hired and the same was driven by Ambalal Savjibhai Thakor. Panch No.1 sat besides the dri
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
