Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed an appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.04.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, Rajula in Special Case (ACB) No.21 of 2011 (Old Case No.55 of 2003). The respondent, Maganbhai Naranbhai Khagad, was the original accused who worked as a Talati-cum-Mantri of Hemad Gram Panchayat, Taluka Jafrabad, District Amreli and was a public servant. The case of the prosecution was that prior to 21.05.2003, Vashrambhai Kanjibhai Padshala, the father of the complainant Chhaganbhai Vashrambhai Padshala, expired and the complainant and his brothers inherited 25 vigas of agricultural land. The names of the legal heirs were to be mutated in the revenue record. The accused allegedly demanded Rs.200/- per entry as illegal gratification for mutating the names, which was later settled at Rs.500/-. On 21.05.2003 at around 10:00 pm, the accused met the complainant in the market and demanded the amount. The complainant did not want to pay and on 23.05.2003, he lodged a complaint at the ACB Police Station, Amreli. A trap was laid, and the accused was caught accepting the bribe money. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, held that the trial court's findings were not perverse. The panch witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The complainant's testimony was not corroborated by independent evidence. The phenolphthalein test result alone was insufficient to prove acceptance without proof of demand. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Standard of Review - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal will not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellate court must give due weight to the opinion of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses depose. (Paras 5-6) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Trap Witness - Credibility - The evidence of a trap witness must be corroborated by independent and reliable evidence. In the present case, the panch witness turned hostile and the complainant's testimony was not corroborated, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 7-12) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Trap Proceedings - Phenolphthalein Test - Evidentiary Value - The positive result of the phenolphthalein test alone is not sufficient to prove acceptance of bribe if the demand itself is not proved. The trial court's finding that the prosecution failed to establish the demand was upheld. (Paras 13-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge is perverse and requires interference by this Court.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Rajula.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC
- standard of proof in corruption cases
- requirement of corroboration for trap witnesses
- demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
