Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, 2nd FTC, Gondal, in Special Case No. 7/1997. The respondent, Merubhai Bhanjibhai Vaniya, was the accused in the original case and was working as Registrar (Marriage) at the Office of the Sub-Registrar (Marriage), Gondal, District Rajkot, a public servant. The complainant, Pravinchandra Harjivandas Ganatra, Assistant Director, ACB, Rajkot, received secret information that the accused was demanding illegal gratification ranging from Rs. 100 to Rs. 500 for registration of marriage and issuing certified copies of marriage certificates. A decoy trap was arranged on 24.02.1993, with Samirbhai Hematbhai Bavishi acting as the decoy. Panch witnesses were called, and Panchnama Part-I was drawn. The decoy was to approach the accused for registration of his marriage and to pay the bribe amount. The trap was executed, and the accused was caught red-handed with the bribe money. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the trial court framed charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution examined witnesses, including the decoy and panch witnesses. The trial court, after considering the evidence, acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court found the decoy witness to be unreliable and noted contradictions in the evidence. The State appealed against the acquittal. The High Court, in the appeal, examined the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. The court held that the appellate court can interfere only if the findings of the trial court are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not perverse. The decoy witness was not a wholly reliable witness, and there was no independent corroboration of the demand. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could not be invoked as the demand itself was not proved. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.
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 presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is strengthened by acquittal. (Paras 1-5) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Presumption under Section 20 - The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act arises only when the prosecution proves demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. In the absence of credible evidence of demand, the presumption cannot be invoked. (Paras 6-10) C) Evidence Law - Trap Witness - Credibility - The testimony of a trap witness (decoy) must be scrutinized with care and caution. If the witness is found to be unreliable or interested, his evidence cannot be the sole basis for conviction without independent corroboration. (Paras 11-15) D) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Perversity - The appellate court will not reverse an acquittal merely because a different view is possible. The trial court's appreciation of evidence, if plausible, must be upheld. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is perverse and requires interference by this Court in an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, 2nd FTC, Gondal, in Special Case No. 7/1997 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 378 CrPC
- presumption under Section 20 PC Act
- demand and acceptance of bribe
- credibility of trap witness
- corroboration of evidence
- standard of proof in criminal appeal against acquittal
