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 10-07-2007 passed by the learned Special Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 7, Rajkot in Special (ACB) Case No. 5 of 1994. The respondent, Ashokbhai Manilal Shah, was a public servant serving as a Government Labour Officer, Class-II. He had visited the establishment of M/s. Raghavji Kanji & Company situated at Luhana Mahajanwadi, Rajkot, in the course of his official duties under the Factories Act, 1948. Upon inspecting statutory records, he found that the establishment had failed to maintain mandatory documents and issued a show cause notice. The prosecution alleged that the accused demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.2,500/- from the complainant for each lapse detected, with an assurance that on payment the matter would be settled. After negotiations, the amount was settled at Rs.2,500/-, and a decoy trap was arranged by Police Inspector Praveenchandra Harjivandas Ganatara of ACB, Rajkot, after following legal formalities including recording serial numbers of currency notes and demonstration of anthracene powder. The trial court acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and panch witnesses, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The court noted that the demand and acceptance of bribe were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The anthracene powder test and recovery of tainted notes were not properly established. The court held that the trial court's findings were not perverse and did not warrant interference. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Scope of Interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal can interfere only if the findings of the trial court are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellate court should not substitute its own view merely because another view is possible. (Paras 1-3) B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Presumption under Section 20 - The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act arises only when the prosecution proves that the accused accepted or obtained gratification other than legal remuneration. In the absence of credible evidence of demand and acceptance, the presumption cannot be invoked. (Paras 4-6) C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 155 - Hostile Witness - When a prosecution witness turns hostile and does not support the prosecution case, the testimony of such witness cannot be relied upon to convict the accused. The prosecution must prove its case through independent and credible evidence. (Paras 7-9) D) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Trap Proceedings - Anthracene Powder Test - The failure to properly conduct and prove the anthracene powder test and the recovery of tainted notes from the accused weakens the prosecution case. The absence of independent panch witnesses and contradictions in the evidence of trap witnesses lead to acquittal. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is perverse and requires interference by the High Court in an appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of acquittal dated 10-07-2007 passed by the learned Special Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 7, Rajkot in Special (ACB) Case No. 5 of 1994.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 378 CrPC
- presumption under Section 20 PC Act
- demand and acceptance of bribe
- hostile witness
- trap proceedings
- anthracene powder test
- credibility of complainant
