Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Hemubhai @ Babubhai Raychand Prajapati on 2 September, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 158 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
=========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? Yes
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ? No
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of No
India or any order made thereunder ?
=========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
HEMUBHAI @ BABUBHAI RAYCHAND PRAJAPATI
=========================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 1
=========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 02/09/2024
ORAL 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 judgement and order of acquittal passed by the Page 1 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined learned Special Judge, Patan (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special ACB Case No. 38/2002 on 03.01.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as "the PC Act" for short) 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 The accused was working as a Talati Cum Mantri of Gambhu (Ganeshpura), Taluka Becharaji, District Mehsana and was a public servant. The complainant Visabhai Ramdas Patel was a farmer and residing at village Gambhu, Taluka Becharaji, District Mehsana and had an agricultural land and wanted to buy a tractor from Mahindra & Company. The complainant wanted the copies of village form number 7/12 and village form number 8A of his land Page 2 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined and met the accused and the accused demanded an amount of ₹300/- as a illegal gratification. The complainant went on 07.06.2002 to take the copies but the accused demanded an amount of ₹700/- and told the complainant that he would prepare the copies and give it to him within two days. On 10.06.2002, the Peon - Rameshji Thakur of the Gram panchayat met the complainant and told him that the copies were ready and he collected the copies and the certificate and on 10.06.2002, give it to the Manager -
Kiritbhai of Gramin Vikas Bank, Chanasma. The Bank Manager told him that the pedigree was not in the documents and once again the complainant had to go to meet the accused and had apprehended that the accused would demand for the amount of ₹700/- as illegal gratification and as the complainant did not want to pay the amount, he went to the ACB Police Station, Mehsana and filed the complaint on11.06.2000. The Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and introduced the complainant to the panch witnesses and the complaint was read by the panch witnesses and they affixed their signatures on the Page 3 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined complaint. Police Constable Dungarbhai L. Srimali was instructed to conduct the demonstration of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp and explain the characteristics of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp to the complainant and the panch witnesses and accordingly the same was done. The complainant gave one currency note of the denomination of ₹500/- and two currency notes of the denomination of ₹100/- each and all the currency notes were smeared with anthracene powder and placed in the left shirt pocket of the complainant and necessary instructions were given to the complainant and the panch witnesses and the trap was arranged. The panchnama part-I was drawn, and the panch witnesses and the Trap Laying Officer affixed their signatures on the panchnama part-I. As decided the complainant, panch witnesses and members of the raiding party went in government jeep bearing registration No. GJ- 1-G-3366 and went from Mehsana to Gopi Nala, Radhanpur Crossroads, Modhera Crossroads and reached Ganeshpura Bus Stand and took a right turn towards Gambhu village and halted the jeep near the dairy and Government Page 4 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined Hospital. The complainant and the panch no. 1 got down and walked towards the Gram Panchayat Office and the panch no. 2 and members of the raiding party followed them. The complainant and the panch no. 1 went into the office and met the accused, and the complainant demanded for the pedigree and the accused told him to come after an hour as the Taluka Development Officer had come and hence, the complainant and the panch no. 1 went out of the office and returned to the government vehicle. At 16:50 hours once again, the complainant and the panch witness went into the Gram Panchayat Office and met the accused and at that time, the accused told the complainant that he had sent the pedigree with Hargovanbhai and hence, they left the Panchayat Office and walked to the government jeep. The accused did not demand the amount of illegal gratification and the trap was kept pending and the panchnama part-II was drawn and the panch witnesses as also the Trap Laying Officer affixed their signatures on the panchnama part-II. That on 25.06.2002, the complainant once again met the accused who told him that he would be Page 5 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined at Ganeshpura on the next day in the afternoon and he would prepare the papers and to collect the same and to bring the amount of illegal gratification and hence, the complainant went to the ACB Police Station, Mehsana on 26.06.2002 and informed the Trap Laying Officer about the same and the details of the further complaint were noted and the complainant and the Trap Laying Officer affixed their signatures. The Trap Laying Officer called the same panch witnesses who were called on 11.06.2002 and the amount of ₹700/- which was earlier smeared with anthracene powder were taken from the cupboard in the ACB Police Station by Police Constable - Dungarbhai Srimali and once again the currency notes were smeared with anthracene powder and folded and placed in the left shirt pocket of the complainant. The necessary instructions were given and once again the trap was arranged and panchnama part-III was drawn and the panch witnesses and the Trap Laying Officer affixed their signatures. The complainant, panch witnesses and members of the raiding party left in a private jeep no. GJ-2-K-8266 and went from Page 6 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined Mehsana to Bhammariya Nala, Modhera Crossroads and went to Ganeshapura (Gambhu) and reached the Bus Stand and the complainant and the panch witness walked to the Gram Panchayat Office. That the accused had not arrived and they waited at the Bus Stand and at about 15:00 hours, the accused came on a scooter from Modhera Road and called them to the house of the Sarpanch and in the presence of the panch witness, the accused demanded the amount and asked the complainant whether he had brought the 'Dapu' and told the complainant that ₹2000/- of earlier was remaining and the complainant took the tainted currency notes with his right hand and gave it to the accused who accepted it with his right hand and placed it in his left shirt pocket. The complainant gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused and the amount was recovered from the accused. The panchnama part-IV was drawn after the tests were done and the panch witnesses and the Trap Laying Officer affixed their signatures on the panchnama part-IV.
Page 7 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined 2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and after the necessary documents, including the service record of the accused and the order of sanction for prosecution was received, a charge sheet came to be filed before the Sessions Court, Patan, which was registered as Special ACB case No. 38/2002. 2.4 The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and after the procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was followed, a charge at Exh. 8 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 9, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.5 The prosecution produced the following oral evidence to bring home the charge against the accused.
Sr. No. PW Particulars Exh. 1. 1 Visabhai Rambhai Patel 16 2. 2 Mahendrakumar Parsottambhaidas 23 Patel 3. 3 Doljibhai Savjibhai 28 4. 4 Patel Natwarlal Bechardas 31 Page 8 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined 2.6 The prosecution also produced the following
documentary evidence to bring home the charge against the accused.
Sr. No. Particulars Exh. 1. Complaint dated 11.06.2002 17 2. Complaint dated 26.06.2002 18 3. Seizure Memo 24 4. Panchnama 25 5. Yadi 29 6. Muddamaal receipt 26 7. Extract of service book 32 8 Appointment order - 9 Order of sanction for prosecution 33 2.7 The accused produced the following oral evidence to
bring home the charge against the accused.
Sr. No. DW Particulars Exh.
1. 1 Patel Babulal Chaturdas 37
2.8 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the
closing pursis at Exh. 34 and the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution produced on record and refused to step into the witness-box and stated that he Page 9 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined wanted to examine a defence witness and examined defence witness no. 1 - Babubhai Chaturbhai Patel at Exh. 37. The accused further stated that he had good relations with the complainant and before a month, the complainant had taken an amount of ₹2000/- as loan from the accused for diesel and he had returned ₹700/- and at that time, the accused had told him that ₹1300/- was less and he has not demanded any amount of illegal gratification, but had only demanded the amount that was loaned to the complainant. 2.9 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 was pleased to acquit the accused from all the charges leveled against him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant state has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the judgement and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has erred in not appreciating the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence produced Page 10 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined by the prosecution on record of the case. The Investigating Officer has followed the due procedure before setting up the trap and the trap was successful and after all the records were produced, the Competent Authority has granted the sanction for prosecution at Exh. 33. The tainted currency notes smeared with anthracene powder were recovered from the respondent and the test was positive and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the panch witness who has supported the case of the prosecution and has stood his ground in the cross-examination. The learned Trial Court has not appreciated that there was demand of money which was not within the scope of duty of the respondent and the defence raised by the respondent is not supported by any cogent evidence and the respondent has not been able to discharge his burden to establish his defence. The Investigating Officer and other police witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the impugned judgement and order of acquittal is improper, perverse, and bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside.
Page 11 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah with learned advocate Ms. Aesha Gandhi for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery but the learned Trial Court has not considered the same in proper perspective. That the complainant had filed the complaint on 11.06.2002 and the trap was arranged but on that date, the respondent did not demand for the amount of illegal gratification and hence, the trap was kept pending. That once again the demand was made and the complainant went to the ACB Police Station and the further complaint was recorded and the trap was arranged and in the house of the Sarpanch, the accused demanded and accepted the amount of illegal gratification in the presence of the panch Page 12 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined witness. The panch witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution and it is proved that the amount was recovered from the possession of the respondent but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the panch witness as also the police witnesses and learned APP has urged the Court to allow the appeal and find the respondent guilty for the offences.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah with learned advocate Ms. Aesha Gandhi for the respondent for the respondent has submitted that the prosecution has examined four witnesses and the respondent has examined one witness and in the entire evidence of the prosecution, it is clear that the respondent did not demand any amount of illegal gratification and in the entire evidence, the demand has not been proved by the prosecution. From the evidence of the complainant, it appears that the complainant had gone to meet the respondent on various occasions to collect the revenue documents, to collect the pedigree and to mutate his name in the revenue revenue record but there is no clear evidence that any amount was demanded as illegal Page 13 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined gratification. The words uttered by the respondent are 'to understand the transaction' but it cannot be termed as a demand as envisaged in the PC Act. The complainant states that the documents were given to him by the Peon of the Panchayat on 10.06.2002 and if the respondent had in fact, demanded any amount of illegal gratification, it is highly improbable that he would deliver the documents without receiving any amount. That even on 11.06.2002, no demand of any illegal gratification was made by the respondent and instead the pedigree was given to Hargovanbhai - a relative of the complainant. From the evidence of the complainant, the prior demand is not approved and even on 26.06.2002, as per the case of the prosecution, the word 'Dapu' was used by the accused. This cannot be said to be a demand and the story is completely unbelievable as during the cross-examination, the witness has stated that no such words were uttered by the respondent. The respondent had never demanded any amount as bribe and the respondent has stated that he had given an amount of ₹2000/- to the complainant and at the time of the trap had accepted Page 14 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined ₹700/- as part payment of the amount. The respondent had informed the complainant that an amount of ₹1300/- is remaining and the Defence Witness - Babubhai Chaturdas Patel who is the Sarpanch of the village has admitted that the accused had stated that ₹1300/- are still remaining to be paid and even the panch no. 1 who was present at the place of the trap has stated that these words were stated by the respondent. The demand on the date of the trap is not proved by any cogent evidence and the story of the prosecution is questionable as it is uncertain in which manner the complainant got to know that the respondent was at the house of the Sarpanch. As per the complaint, the respondent had called the complainant on 25.06.2002 and asked him to collect the documents from the Sarpanch's house but in the deposition, the complainant had stated that when he went to ask the respondent, he was told to collect the documents after two days when he will be visiting the house of the Sarpanch. The panch witness has stated that when they visited the Gram Panchayat Office, Ganeshpura, the Peon informed them that the respondent is Page 15 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined at the house of the Sarpanch and hence, they went to the house of the Sarpanch hence, there are contradictory versions regarding the information that the respondent was at the house of the Sarpanch on record and this story is not believable and the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in proper perspective. Moreover, it is settled that the Appellate Court should resist interference in acquittal appeals unless the judgement of acquittal is perverse or bad in law and looking at the evidence on record and various infirmities in the case of the prosecution, there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgement and order and hence, learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah has urged this court to reject the appeal of the appellant. 6.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah has relied on Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2018, wherein, the Apex Court has observed in para 9 as under:
9....... The law with regard to interference by the Appellate Court is very well crystallized. Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with the same would not be warranted. Though, there are a Page 16 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined catena of judgments on the issue, we will only refer to two judgments which the High Court itself has reproduced in the impugned judgment, which are as reproduced below:
"13. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P. (2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court has held that:-
"In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and !aw. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. Appellate Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded."
14. Similar, In case of Harljan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat (2016) 12 SCC 665, the Supreme Court has held that:-
"No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on Page 17 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined record, two views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the same. However, this does not mean that in all the cases where the trial court has recorded acquittal, the same should not be interfered with, even if the view is perverse. Where the view taken by the trial court is against the weight of evidence on record, or perverse, it is always open far the appellate court to express the right conclusion after reappreciating the evidence If the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt on record, and convict the accused."
6.2 Learned Advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah has relied on Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248, wherein, the Apex Court has observed in para 68 as under:
"68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under: -
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections
7 and 13 (1)(d) (I) and(ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal Page 18 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 Page 19 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1) (d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and inturn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a Court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the Page 20 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the Court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the Court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature."
6.3 Learned Advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah has relied on K. Shanthamma Vs. State of Telangana reported in Page 21 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined (2022) 4 SCC 574, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 17 has observed as under:
17. Thus, the version of PW1 in his examination-in-chief about the demand made by the appellant from time to time is an improvement. As stated earlier, LW8 did not enter the appellant's chamber at the time of trap. There is no other evidence of the alleged demand. Thus, the evidence of PW1 about the demand for bribe by the appellant is not at all reliable. Hence, we conclude that the demand made by the appellant has not been conclusively proved.
18......
19......
20. Thus, this is a case where the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant was not proved by the prosecution. Thus, the demand which is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 was not established.
6.4 Learned Advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah has relied on Soundarajan Vs. State Rep. By the Inspector of Police Vigilance Anticorruption Dindigul reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-SC 70804, wherein, the Apex Court has observed in paras 11 and 12 as under:
11. Now, we turn to the evidence of the shadow witness (PW-3). In the examination-in-chief, he stated that the Page 22 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined appellant asked the PW-2 whether he had brought the amount. PW-3 did not say that the appellant made a specific demand of gratification in his presence to PW-2. To attract Section 7 of the PC Act, the demand for gratification has to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The word used in Section 7, as it existed before 26 th July 2018, is 'gratification'. There has to be a demand for gratification. It is not a simple demand for money, but it has to be a demand for gratification. If the factum of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof is proved, then the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked, and the Court can presume that the demand must be as a motive or reward for doing any official act. This presumption can be rebutted by the accused.
12. There is no circumstantial evidence of demand for gratification in this case. In the circumstances, the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) have not been established.
Unless both demand and acceptance are established, offence of obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means covered by clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) cannot be proved.
6.5 Learned Advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah has relied on B.Jayaraj Vs. State Of A.P reported in 2014 (13) SCC 55, wherein, the Apex Court has observed in paras 8 and 9 as under:
Page 23 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined
8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case in so far as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Exbt.P-11) before LW-9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Exhibit P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive in so far as the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established.
9. In so far as the presumption permissible to be drawn Page 24 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.
6.6 Learned Advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah has relied on Kanubhai Kantilal Patel Vs. The State of Gujarat reported in (1998) 1 GLH 924, wherein, this Court has observed in para 6 as under:
6. ......About the panchnama a question was raised before this Court in criminal Appeal No. 876 of 1981. In that case, the panchnama was not dictated by the panchas, but it was dictated by the police officer investigating into the matter. No reliance was therefore placed thereon because in that case it was held that it was not the record prepared on the basis of what was told by the panchas and what the panchas heard and saw. In this case also, it is made clear by Deveshbhai Ramanlal, that P.I Mr. Gadhvi dictated the panchnama to his writer Page 25 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined constable and the panchas were asked to sign mechanically. The panchas have not stated what they saw and heard. When that is so as per the decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 1981 the panchnama cannot be accepted as a supporting piece of evidence.......
7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. That the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. That there is no inhibition to reappreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after reappreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
8. In view of the above settled principles of law, in acquittal appeals under the PC Act, the evidence produced by the prosecution is required to be reappreciated and the Page 26 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined prosecution has examined PW1 - Visabhai Ramdas Patel at Exh. 16 and the witness is the complainant and he has stated that he had purchased a tractor from Gokul Tractors, Mehsana in the year 2002 and he wanted to take a loan from Gramin Vikas Bank and required the documents such as copies of village form no. 7/12, village form no. 8A, village form no. 6, pedigree, etc. and he had gone to the Gram Panchayat Office and met the accused who demanded for some amount and told him that he would have to do the transaction and normally he would charge ₹1000/- but as he knew the complainant, he could give him ₹700/-. The complainant did not want to pay the amount and he had gone to the ACB Police Station, Mehsana and gave one currency note of the denomination of ₹500/- and two currency notes of the denomination of ₹100/- each and Asari Saheb brought one light bulb and put some paper and placed the currency notes on the paper and sprinkled some powder on all sides of the currency notes. The room was darkened and the currency notes were shown in a machine and shining powder was seen on the currency notes. The Page 27 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined currency notes with the powder were placed by the ACB person in his left shirt pocket and instructions were given to him, not to touch the currency notes except when the accused would ask for them. That they went in the government jeep and he and the panch no. 1 went into the Gram Panchayat Office and as the Taluka Development Officer had come, the accused told him to come after sometime. That when they went once again, the accused told the complainant that the pedigree was sent with his relative Hargovanbhai and the complainant and the panch witness came back to where the Trap Laying Officer was, and the trap was kept pending. That once again, the complainant went to the ACB Office and gave the further complaint and the currency notes which were earlier taken and kept in a paper were brought out and powder was applied and placed in his pocket and necessary instructions were given and once again they went in the government jeep to Ganeshpura. The complainant and the panch no. 1 went into the Ganeshpura Panchayat Office and the Peon was present who told them that the accused was at the house of Page 28 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined the Sarpanch and the complainant and the panch no. 1 went to the house of the Sarpanch and the other members of the raiding party followed them. When they went into the house of the Sarpanch; the accused, the Sarpanch and one more person were sitting and the complainant and the accused had a conversation and the accused asked the complainant if he brought the 'Dapu' and the complainant took the currency notes that were smeared with powder and gave to the accused who took it and kept it in his shirt. The complainant gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the accused was working in the Gram Panchayat for the past two years and he had good relations with the accused. That when he went to the accused for the documents, the accused had not asked him anything but had told him that he would give the papers but to bring the ₹2000/- that was pending of the earlier amount. That in the complaint he has not stated that earlier there was any talk of any amount with the Page 29 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined complainant and when he met the accused for the first time, no specific amount was demanded. That the revenue documents were given to him ten days after Akhatrij and he had filed the complaint fifteen days after he received the documents. That he had not made any application for loan till Akhatrij, the day on which he had brought the tractor and he met the accused a day before he brought the tractor. That at that time, the accused did not demand for any amount, and the documents were given to him by the accused himself. On the date of the first trap, the accused had merely told him to come after sometime as the Taluka Development Officer was present and he had told him that he would keep the documents ready and to come and collect the same. That when he went for the second time to the Gram Panchayat Office, the accused told him that he had sent the pedigree with Hargovanbhai and did not have any other conversation with him. That he told ACB Officer that the document was sent but no amount was demanded by the accused and he had given the amount to Asari Saheb. That he got the pedigree on the next day and he gave it in Page 30 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined the Bank on the third day. That he and the panch no. 1 had gone walking to the house of the Sarpanch and at that time, the accused was sitting on a cot and the Sarpanch and one another person were sitting on another cot nearby. That he went and sat near the accused and the panch no. 1 sat near him and he introduced the panch no. 1 as the person from Gokul Tractors. That before he gave the amount to the accused, the documents were checked by the panch no. 1 and the panch no. 1 and the accused had a conversation. 8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Mahendrakumar Parsottam Patel at Exh. 23 and the witness is the panch witness who has fully supported the case of the prosecution and had narrated in detail all the incidents that had taken place on 11.06.2002 and 26.02.2002 when he and the other panch witness - Amrutbhai Mafatlal Patel went to the ACB Office and the entire procedure that was undertaken in their presence for the trap and till the trap was unsuccessful on 11.06.2002 and thereafter, the trap was successful on 26.02.2002. The panch witness has stated that when the complainant took the amount from his left shirt pocket with Page 31 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined his right hand and gave it to the accused, the accused took the amount with his right hand and counted the amount with both hands and stated that the amount was less and placed it in his left shirt pocket. The panch witness has produced the panchnama at Exh. 25 and the panch slip at Exh. 26 and the memo at Exh. 24. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had gone with the complainant in the Panchayat Office on the day of the unsuccessful trap and at that time, the accused told them to come later after one hour and take the pedigree as the Taluka Development Officer was present and at that time, the accused did not demand for any amount of illegal gratification. That when they went for the second time, the accused told the complainant that the pedigree was sent with Hargovanbhai, and even at that time, the accused did not demand for any amount of illegal gratification. That when they went for the second time to the house of the Sarpanch, the accused told the complainant to pay the amount of ₹2000/- which was the earlier amount and after the accused said these words, Page 32 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined the complainant gave the amount. After the trap, the statement of the accused was recorded, wherein, the accused had stated that he had taken the amount which was earlier loaned to the complainant. The panch witness has stated that he is a government employee and has to dispose as per the panchnama or his service would be affected and he had read the panchnama before his deposition. The panchnama was written by the writer and it was dictated by the ACB Officer.
8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Dholjibhai Savjibhai at Exh. 28 and the witness is the Trap Laying Officer who has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has narrated in great detail all the procedure that he had undertaken on 11.06.2002 and on 26.02.2002, when the complainant came to the ACB Police Station, Mehsana. The witness has stated that he had arranged for the trap and has narrated all the incidents in detail till the trap was successful and has stated that the complaint was recorded on 11.06.2002 and the further complaint on 26.06.2002 and the panchnamas were also recorded on that date. Page 33 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that at the time of the first trap, the complainant and the shadow witness came and told him that the accused did not demand for any amount of illegal gratification and the accused had told the complainant that the pedigree and other documents were sent with Hargovanbhai. At that time, the trap was unsuccessful and in the complaint on 26.06.2002, no specific amount is mentioned. That the muddamaal currency notes were placed in an envelope but they were not sealed, and the currency notes were placed in his personal cupboard. That the panch no. 1 had told him that in the house of the Sarpanch, the accused had stated that an amount of ₹2000/- is outstanding and had also stated that more amount would be given if required. The accused had also told him that he had not taken any amount of illegal gratification but had taken the amount that was loaned to the complainant and had also stated that due to political rivalry between the Sarpanch and other persons, the trap was arranged. That he had recorded the statement of the Page 34 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined other person sitting in the house of the Sarpanch and before arranging for the trap, if any complainant comes to him, he has to verify what amount has been demanded, the reason for the demand of the amount, the place, date and time when the amount has to be paid.
8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Natwarlal Bechardas Patel at Exh. 31 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who has recorded the statement of the connected witnesses and after the service record of the accused was received from the District Panchayat Office, Mehsana and the order of sanction for prosecution was received, the charge-sheet was filed before the Sessions Court, Patan. The witness has produced the service record of the accused at Exh. 32 and the order of sanction for prosecution at Exh. 33. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he was a member of the raiding party when the trap was arranged for the first time and he had not verified whether the pedigree was required to be produced by the complainant. That he had not recorded the statement of Page 35 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined Naveenbhai Modi of Gokul Tractors and has not recorded the statement of the complainant regarding the pedigree. That he has not recorded the statements of Balwant Bharti, Bhudarbhai Shivram and the statement of the authority who had certified mutation entry no. 4517 dated 23.11.2001.
9. The accused has examined defence witness no. 1 - Babulal Chaturdas Patel and the wife of the witness was the Sarpanch of Ganeshpura village at the time of the incident. The witness has stated that on 26.06.2002, he was at his house and Maljibhai Desai had come to his house to take a certificate and while they were sitting, at around 3.00 pm, the accused came to his house. That the complainant and one another person also came and the complainant told the accused that the person from Gokul Tractors has come and the accused took some papers from a plastic bag and gave them to the person from Gokul Tractors. That the papers were verified and the person said that the papers are in order and the accused asked the complainant whether he had brought the amount of ₹2000/- which he had borrowed Page 36 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined earlier. The complainant took some amount from his pocket and gave it to the accused and at that time the accused told the complainant that ₹1300/- was less and the complainant told the accused that he would pay the amount within a couple of days. The complainant went out of the house and after sometime, the members of the police department came in his house and he and Maljibhai Desai were asked to leave the house. That they were there for about half an hour to 45 minutes and thereafter they went away. During the cross- examination by the learned APP, the witness has stated that the accused would come to his house for official work and the witness has denied that the accused asked the complainant whether he had brought the 'Dapu'.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution the infirmities in the case of the prosecution have come on record and at the first instance, when the documents were given by the accused to the complainant, no amount was demanded as illegal gratification and even on 11.06.2002, when the complainant and the panch witness went to take the pedigree from the accused and met Page 37 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined the accused twice, the accused did not demand for any amount of illegal gratification. The accused sent the documents through Hargovanbhai - the relative of the complainant, and it has emerged that even though the complainant met the accused for work and had to take the pedigree from the complainant, no amount was demanded by the accused. In the complaint at Exh. 17, the complainant has stated that the amount of ₹700/- was demanded as illegal gratification for the documents but it appears that even though the documents were given twice to the complainant, the accused did not demand any amount before giving the documents. That in fact, the documents were given to the Peon and thereafter, to Hargovanbhai - the relative of the complainant and the accused did not demand any amount through them before giving the documents. That in fact, if the accused had actually demanded any amount of illegal gratification, it is improbable that the documents would be delivered without receiving any amount. In the further complaint, it appears that only on the apprehension that the accused would demand the Page 38 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined amount, the further complaint has been filed, even though the trap on 11.06.2002 had failed. In the entire evidence, the prior demand has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts and on the date of the trap, as per the complainant, the accused had asked him whether he brought the ' Dapu' but the panch witness and Defence Witness No. 1 - Babubhai Chaturdas Patel have both stated that the word 'Dapu' was not used by the accused. Hence, the say of the complainant that the accused demanded the amount of illegal gratification at the time of the trap, is not proved beyond reasonable doubts. The panch witness has admitted that the accused had told the complainant that the earlier amount of ₹2000/- was remaining to be paid and it is the defence of the accused that he had earlier given a loan of ₹2000/- to the complainant towards which the amount of ₹700/- was repaid and that was accepted by the accused on the day of the trap. The evidence of the complainant is not fully reliable as the demand has not been proved and the place of acceptance of the illegal gratification is also not clearly established from the evidence of the complainant. Page 39 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined Hence, in the entire evidence of the prosecution, the prior demand and demand at the time of the trap which is a sine qua non for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act is not proved beyond reasonable doubts. The prosecution has proved that the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused but the accused has raised a defence and has examined Defence Witness No. 1 - Babulal Chaturdas Patel who has clearly stated that when the amount of ₹700/- was given by the complainant, the accused had stated that an amount of ₹1300/- is yet to be paid and the defence of the accused that he had given a loan of ₹2000/- to the complainant is a plausible defence.
11. On minute re-appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution and the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the learned Trial Court has thoroughly appreciated all the evidence on record and has given due consideration to all the material pieces of evidence. The learned Trial Court has discussed all the oral as well as documentary evidences and if the evidence produced by the prosecution is examined in light of the law laid down by the Page 40 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined Constitution Bench in the case of Neeraj Dutta (Supra), it appears that the learned Trial Court has arrived at findings which are legal and proper and there are no errors of law or facts. Moreover, the view taken by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused is fairly possible and there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
12. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund (Supra), K. Shanthamma (Supra), Soundarajan (Supra), B.Jayaraj (Supra) and Kanubhai Kantilal Patel (Supra), the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in extending benefit of doubt and acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against him. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has Page 41 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/158/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2024 undefined been committed by the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
13. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Patan in Special ACB Case No. 38/2002 on 03.01.2007, is hereby confirmed.
14. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J) Vasim Page 42 of 42 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 13 22:16:44 IST 2024