Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction order of the trial court, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this court. It has been mainly contended before this court that the Police Sub-Inspector Puwar was not examined as a witness before the trial court though he was mainly responsible for demonstrating the effect of anthracene powder and ultra violet lamp at the office of the ACB. That though the Supreme Court has laid down since long that in such traps the ACB should use phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution, the I.O. in the present case has used anthracene powder and ultra violet lamp. That the entries were already made and the copies were ready before the incident in question and, therefore, it is not probable that the appellant would demand money and the informant would part with the said money in favour of the appellant. That the Investigating Officer was also a member of the raiding party and, therefore, he could not have undertaken the investigation and he ought to have entrusted the same to another officer. That the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and, therefore, there is serious error on the part of the trial court in convicting the appellant. That on the whole, the judgment and conviction order of the trial court are erroneous and illegal and deserve to be set aside. It is, therefore, prayed that the present appeal be allowed, the judgment and conviction order of the trial court be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the offence in question.

21. It has then been argued that sine long it has been observed by Courts that ACB should not use anthracene powder and ultra violet lamp. There is no dispute about the said argument also. Long back in 1976, Hon'ble the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with such an issue in the case of Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1976 SC 91. In para 11 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has observed that it would be desirable if in cases of this kind where a trap is laid for a public servant, the marked currency notes, which are used for the purpose of trap, are treated with phenolphthalein powder so that the handling of such marked currency notes by the public servant can be detected by chemical process and the court does not have to depend on oral evidence which is sometimes of a dubious character for the purpose of deciding the fate of the public servant. There is no dispute about the said desire expressed by the Supreme Court with respect to the use of a particular chemical for the purpose of trap. It is required to be considered that in para 8 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has observed that the prosecution case also suffers from another serious infirmity and it is that it rests entirely on the evidence of witnesses who are either interested witnesses or police witnesses.

22. In the present case we find that the present informant cannot be treated to be an interested witness who was willing to part with money. On compulsion, he was required to give bribe to the appellant. Therefore, he could not be treated to be a willing bribe giver. It is moreso, when his evidence has been supported by independent panch witness. An attempt has also been made to show that a public servant coming to a court as a panch witness is normally required to support the prosecution case, otherwise he may be dealt with departmentally. There is nothing on record to show that the panch witness was directed to give evidence in a particular fashion and that on his failure to do so, he would be departmentally dealt with. The witnesses are after all witnesses coming to the court who are expected to tell the truth to the court. With a view to judge the veracity and reliability of a witness, cross-examination of a witness is a very strong weapon in the armory of the defence which may be effectively used by the defence at an appropriate stage. In the present case, the panch witness has been cross examined but by and large his evidence is not found to be contradictory to the evidence of the informant and the evidence in the form of panchnama. He is not shown to be a witness interested in the present case. Therefore, when the evidence of the informant has been amply corroborated by the evidence of panch witness, FIR and panchnama, then, simply because the prosecution has used anthracene powder and ultra violet lamp and not phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution, it would not be proper to extend benefit of reasonable doubt to the appellant.

28. So far as use of anthracene powder and ultra violet lamp is concerned, certain observations were made in the said judgment. However, in another matter a different view has been adopted by the Division Bench of this Court. Here we come across a decision of this Court in the case of Gopalbhai Oghadbhai Parekh v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2002(1) GLR 89. There it has been observed by the Division Bench of this Court that with regard to the contention of using anthracene powder for the trap and no explanation by the prosecution having been coming forth as to why the phenolphthalein powder was not used, and therefore, the accused is entitled to be acquitted, the Court may only observe that there cannot be any hard and fast rule that the prosecution must use only phenolphthalein powder for the trap. It is also observed that when the Apex Court has held that it is desirable to use phenolphthalein powder, it cannot be contended that it is a mandatory requirement. This Court has, therefore, observed that decision of Gopalla Chhipa v. State (1999 (1) GLR 546) was not correctly decided. Moreover, it is well settled that there are hardly two to four elements, which are very rarely and hardly available, which would give light bluish fluorescent colour under ultra violet lamp. Therefore, it cannot be said that the experiment is not acceptable for any purpose. It, therefore, cannot be said that conviction based on the said experiment of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp cannot be sustained in appeal.