Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 498
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. Pinto, J.
Jagannath Ramrao Patil – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal Appeal No. 1863 of 2006
Decided On : 03-05-2024
Act Referred
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : S.7, S.13(1)(d), S.13(2)
Headnote
Corruption - Traffic Police Bribery - The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Summary: The court discussed the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, contradictions in witness testimonies, and the lack of evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the importance of proving demand and acceptance for an offence under the PC Act and highlighted the unreliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a traffic police officer, was convicted for demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The prosecution's case was based on a decoy trap where the accused allegedly demanded an entry fee from a truck driver and was caught with tainted currency notes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found major contradictions in witness testimonies, lack of clear demand by the accused, and discrepancies in the place of trap. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, contradictions in witness testimonies, and the reliability of evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving demand and acceptance for an offence under the PC Act. It highlighted the unreliability of witness testimonies and the lack of clear evidence to sustain the conviction.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned judgment and acquitted the accused from all charges. Bail bond was cancelled, and the fine was to be refunded after due verification.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Mehul Sharad Shah, Najmuddin R Meghani
For the Respondent: Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, APP
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, ACB, Surat (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special ACB Case No. 2 of 1998 on 30.10.2006, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act”).
1.2 The appellant 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 an Unarmed Head Constable in the Traffic Branch, Surat City and was a public servant. That the complainant Mr. L.J. Merunjai, Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, Surat had received information that the traffic police were illegally demanding bribes from vehicles in the name of entry fee and the complainant – Police Inspector – Mr. L.J. Merunjai decided to arrange for a decoy trap. That on 15.07.1997, the driver of truck bearing registration no. GJ-7-T-5374 – Balaji Revaji Thakor was halted on the Kadodara Highway and the procedure of decoy trap was explained to him and he agreed to cooperate and at 09.35 am, when the truck was near the Puna – Kumbhariya Octroi Point, the accused halted the truck and demanded and accepted the amount of Rs. 20/- as entry fee and after the members of the raiding party came, the accused was caught red handed with the tainted currency notes. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and drew the necessary panchnama and after the order of sanction for prosecution was received, a charge-sheet was filed before the Sessions Court, Surat which was registered as Special ACB Case No. 2/1998.
2.2 The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and after the due procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was followed, a charge at Exh. 5 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 6, wherein, the accused denied all the allegations made in the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.3 The prosecution produced the following oral evidence to bring home the charge against the accused.
| Sr. No. | PW | Particulars | Exh. |
| 1. | 1 | Lilaji Revajibhai Thakor | 8 |
| 2. | 2 | Chimanbhai Chhotubhai Surti | 9 |
| 3. | 3 | Naginbhai Haribhai Chauhan | 15 |
| 4. | 4 | Digambar Nathu Shinde | 18 |
| 5. | 5 | Lal Mohammad Jummakhan Merunjai | 20 |
| 6. | 6 | Ajabsinh Mulsinh Rathod | 24 |
2.4 The prosecution also produced the following documentary evidence to bring home the charge against the accused.
| Sr. No. | Particulars | Exh. |
| 1. | Complaint | 21 |
| 2. | Panchnama | 10 |
| 3. | Receipt | 11 |
| 4. | Receipt | 12 |
| 5. | Record produced by Ramanlal Laxmidas | 26 |
| 6. | Record produced by Police Inspector J.V. Desai | 25 |
| 7. | Record produced by Arvindbhai Ishwarbhai | 27 |
| 8. | Record produced by Arun Ukad | 28 |
| 9. | Yadi | 29 |
| 10. | Yadi | 22 |
| 11. | Yadi | 30 |
| 12. | Order of sanction for prosecution | 31 |
2.5 That after the closing pursis of the learned Public Prosecutor was filed at Exh. 32, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidences produced by the prosecution and after the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.10.2006 was pleased to convi
