IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. Pinto, J.
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Manukumar Premjibhai Vara – Respondent
R/Criminal Appeal No. 2102 of 2005
Decided On : 08-04-2024
Prevention of Corruption Act - Acquittal Appeal - Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - [7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)] - The court discussed the evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification, the reliability of witnesses, and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the importance of proving demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and the need for evidence to establish these facts. The court also highlighted the discretion to raise a presumption of fact and the distinction between mandatory and discretionary presumptions under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a police constable, was acquitted of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting illegal gratification from truck drivers. The prosecution's case relied on the evidence of a shadow witness and a member of the raiding party.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the shadow witness, was not of sterling quality and contained contradictions. The court also noted infirmities in the panchnama and the lack of proper application of mind in granting the sanction for prosecution. The court emphasized the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the proper application of mind in granting the sanction for prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for sterling quality evidence to establish demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The court also highlighted the importance of proper application of mind in granting the sanction for prosecution and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the acquittal of the accused. The court found no illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial court and concluded that the appeal was devoid of merits.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.03.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Jamnagar (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 16 of 1993, whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 That the accused was working as Grade-II, Unarmed Police Head Constable in the traffic branch of Jamnagar City and was a Public Servant that the complainant i.e. Mr. V.K.Mavani Police Inspector, ACB Police Station had received a secret information on 06.04.1993 that the traffic Police personnel were halting trucks going from Jamnagar Gulabnagar Petrol Pump towards Bedibandar and were threatening to file cases against the truck drivers demanding amount of Rs.100/- to Rs.200/- as illegal gratification to be paid as entry fee and a discreet inquiry about the secret information was made by Mr. V.K.Mavani, Police Inspector, ACB Police Inspector and the information was found to be true. That a running decoy trap was arranged on 07.04.1993 and two panch witnesses were called and Shri Hiralal, Saini resident of Alwar, the driver of Truck No. RJ-02-G-1409 was explained about the running decoy trap and he consented to the trap. That the experiment of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp was explained and carried out in the presence of the panch witnesses and the decoy punter Hiralal Tulsiram Saini.
2.2. That the tap was arranged and the panch witness, the punter truckdriver and member of the raiding part went for the trap and on 07.04.1993, at around 15:00 hrs, the accused demanded for the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.200/- and accepted the same and was caught red handed. That the complaint was filed by the complainant Mr. V.K.Mavani, Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, which was registered at C.R.No. 5 of 1993 on 07.04.1993 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. That the complainant Mr.V.K.Mavani, Police Inspector, ACB Police Station has conducted the entire investigation and recorded the statements of the connected witnesses, drew the necessary panchnamas and after receipt of sanction from the competent authority filed the chargesheet before the learned Sessions Court, Jamnagar, which was registered as Special ACB Case No. 16 of 1993.
2.2 That the accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned trial Court and after the due procedure of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was followed, a charge at Exh: 5 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh: 6. The accused denied all contents of the charge and the evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.3 The prosecution has filed 5 oral evidences and 13 documentary evidence in support of their case respectively, which are as under:
| Sr. No. | Name | Exh |
| 1 | Sureshbhai Bachubhai Barad | 11 |
| 2 | Bhikhusha Alisa Shahamdar | 13 |
| 3 | Kanjibhai Bhagwanbhai Panara | 22 |
| 4 | Mansukhlal Arjanbhai Viradiya | 25 |
| 5 | Pramodkumar Jaybir Jha | 33 |
| Sr. No. | Particular | Exh |
| 1 | Complaint | 14 |
| 2 | Statement of Hirala | 15 |
| 3 | Panchnama | 16 |
| 4 | Xerox copy | 17 |
| 5 | Pass of Shakti Clearing Agency | 18 |
| 6 | Driving License of Hiralal Saini | 19 |
| 7 | Bilti No.69900 | 20 |
| 8 | Chalan No. 1209 | 21 |
| 9 | Letter for record of s | |
The judgment underscores the fundamental legal principle that the prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and that suspicion alone cannot lead to a conviction.
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, comprehensive appreciation of evidence, and the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases.
A presumption of innocence accompanies acquittal; the prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be established for an offence under the Prevention of Corr....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.