Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. It is true that P.I., Trivedi has admitted in his evidence that RDC is the member of Vigilance Cell ACB and Panch witness Jayrajbhai was serving as Deputy Mamlatdar in RDC. But as stated earlier in my considered opinion that would not be a ground to discard the evidence of the panch witness. Lastly Mr. Shah submitted that use of anthracene powder in trap cases was condemned by this court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court more than once. In spite of it, in the instant case, I.O. Shri Trivedi has used anthracene powder and not deliberately examined Shri Nankubhai, who demonstrated experiment. He, therefore, submitted that benefit of doubt should be given to the accused as on the point of finding of Anthracene power on the tips of the figures and palms of hands of the accused, evidence of all three i.e. complainant, panch, I.O. is wholly inconsistent and vague. In support of his submission, Mr. Shah has placed reliance upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 11 of of Raghbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1976 SC 91.

"(1) that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defence version while proving its case;

(2) that in a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is. Proved to. be guilty; and (3) that the onus of the prosecution never shifts".

17. There cannot be any quarrel with the aforesaid golden principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, in my considered opinion none of the judgments cited by Mr. Shah will have any application to this case. It is true that the investigation agency should have gone for more scientific method but merely because in the instant case the investigation agency used anthracene powder that itself would not be a ground to acquit the accused when all the important three prosecution witnesses viz. complainant, panch and I.O. have fully supported the prosecution case and their evidence is found to be wholly reliable by this court. It is true that there is slight variance in expression of the witnesses about the colour of the anthracene power. But that is bound to be there when expert giving his opinion and layman expressing about the colour which was detected on the hands of the accused at the time of experiment after the currency notes were accepted by the accused. One may describe it as light blue colour, one may describe it as bluish colour but this type of discrepancies cannot be fatal to the prosecution. The fact of finding of colour on the tips of the figures and palms of the accused is not questionable at all. One can understand that if marks of anthracene power were not at all visible, then something could have been said but that is not the case here. Mr. Shah has also tried to rely upon the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 SCC (Criminal) 878 regarding use of anthracene power and old judgments of full bench of this court reported in 1979 GLR 535 regarding use of anthracene powder. At the cost of repetition I must state that as far as possible the investigating agency should not have used anthracene powder and it was desirable that they should have gone for phenolphthalein powder but merely because anthracene powder was used that itself would not be a ground to acquit the accused unless and until the accused is able to show any breach being caused to him, which is not in this case. It may be stated that in the instant case offence was committed way back on 15.11.1994 and that time by and large there was use of anthracene powder by the investigating agency in trap cases. Therefore, it would not be proper for this court to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge and set aside the same on this ground.

18. Even in case of Rabindra Kumar Dey's case (supra) full bench of this court while answering the question referred to it stated about the prejudice caused to the accused while using phenolphthalein powder in trap cases.

19. Learned counsel Shri Gohil was right in submitting that though the Hon'ble Supreme court and this court has deprecated the practice of using anthracene powder in trap cases by the investigating agency but neither the Hon'ble Supreme Court nor this court has held that the use of anthracene powder in trap cases was illegal. He rightly submitted that the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this court in aforesaid cases and other cases was only of recommendatory nature where by the investigating agencies were sounded to go for better scientific method than the old method of use of anthracene powder in trap cases. In fact, the accused were never acquitted on the ground of use of anthracene powder. The accused were acquitted in those cases where the Hon'ble Supreme Court or this court was not satisfied with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses like complainant, panch or I.O.