Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Shethna has placed reliance on the decision of Ramsingh Bahadursingh v. State, 1 GLR 138 (1960 GLR 138) and other decisions wherein this Court and the Apex Court have dealt with the use of Anthracene powder in arranging a trap. In the present case, Panch Witness Shri Malek or the complainant were not competent to depose in a positive manner under which it can be proved that Anthracene powder was really applied or detected on the finger tips of the accused or on the busshirt of the accused. The prosecution must lead a positive evidence by way of an expert evidence or books of science to prove the method of detecting the Anthracene powder, nature of test to be applied, nature of result to be expected and also evidence to the satisfaction of the Court that a layman (including the panch witness and complainant if they are not the real experts or scientists) can say that Anthracene powder was detected or the same was applied. Mr. Shethna, therefore, argued that the evidence led by the prosecution through the panch witness Shri Malek and complainant, therefore, can not be said to be legal and convincing evidence and use of Anthracene powder instead of phenolphthalein powder as in the present case, and therefore, the same should be held fatal. The Court is not in agreement with the submission of ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Shethna that in each case, the prosecuting agency or authorised officer of Anticorruption Bureau arranging trap can not use Anthracene powder at all. The use of phenolphthalein powder is not a statutory requirement. When this Court is not able to record a positive finding qua the evidence of detection of anthracence powder under an ultra-violate lamp either on currency notes or on muddamal cloth or on the finger tips of the complainant or the accused or even of panch witness as the case may be as not a convincing or haphazard in nature, the ratio of the above-cited decision on this point would not help the defence. It is true that the Court should insist for evidence of convincing nature especially when Anthracene powder has been used in a ACB Trap. The cases where a public servant is not otherwise supposed to accept currency notes from any member of the public, it is not that unsafe to use Anthracene powder to prove the transfer of muddamal currency notes from the pocket/custody of the complainant either to the accused or at the place from where the same is found at the conclusion of the trap. In the present case, which types of stains are found or where Anthracene powder is applied, was shown to the panch witnesses and the complainant. So, a prudent layman, if competent to depose, can depose that a particular type of glooming powder stains were found on the finger tips of the accused or on the muddamal cloth put on by the accused. In a given case, Anthracene powder was found on more than one place and presence of Anthracene powder would speak by itself about the journey of the currency notes, but the evidence qua this journey/ transfer of currency notes should be brought in convincing manner. In the present case, such evidence is available and it would be difficult for this Court to pass any negative comments on this aspect.