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 19.02.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhavnagar in Special (ACB) Case No.19 of 2008. The respondents (original accused) were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arose from a decoy trap arranged by the ACB Police, Bhavnagar, based on secret information that traffic police were illegally demanding money from vehicle riders. The decoy, Ashwinbhai Amulakhrai Bhatt, was given currency notes smeared with anthracene powder. The trap allegedly resulted in the accused demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.20/-. The trial court acquitted the accused on grounds that the panch witnesses were police employees and not independent, the sanction for prosecution was not valid, and the anthracene powder test was unreliable. The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, held that the trial court's findings were possible views and not perverse. The court noted that the panch witnesses were employees of the Police Department and thus not independent, and their testimony lacked corroboration. Additionally, no valid sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act was obtained. The court also observed that the anthracene powder test could have been transferred inadvertently. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Appeal - Acquittal Appeal - Scope of Interference - Section 378(1)(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Appeal against acquittal - The High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or based on no evidence, or the view taken by the trial court is not a possible view. (Paras 1, 12) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Trap Witness - Credibility - Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Trap witnesses who are police employees are not independent witnesses and their testimony requires corroboration. The trial court's finding that the panch witnesses were not independent was a possible view. (Paras 13-15) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Lack of valid sanction vitiates the trial. The trial court's finding that no valid sanction was obtained was a possible view. (Paras 16-17) D) Evidence Act - Anthracene Powder Test - Reliability - The trial court's observation that the anthracene powder test was not reliable due to the possibility of transfer was a possible view. (Para 18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhavnagar in Special (ACB) Case No.19 of 2008 is perverse and requires interference by this Court.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.02.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhavnagar in Special (ACB) Case No.19 of 2008 is confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 378 CrPC
- Scope of interference in acquittal
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Sections 7
- 12
- 13(1)(d)
- 13(2)
- Trap witness credibility
- Anthracene powder test
- Sanction for prosecution
- Section 19 PC Act
- Decoy trap
- Independent witness
- Police employee as panch
- Reasonable doubt
- Benefit of doubt
