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 27-09-2012 passed by the learned Special (ACB) Judge & 7th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Special (ACB) Case No. 08 of 2004. The respondent, Bhimabhai Chakubhai Chauhan, was acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arose from an incident in September 1994 when the accused, working as a Junior Clerk in the RTO Office, Amreli, allegedly demanded Rs.50 as illegal gratification from the complainant, Harshadrai Jamnadas Gadhiya, for returning the RC book of his passenger bus. The complainant lodged a complaint with the ACB, and a trap was laid. The trap team recovered the tainted currency notes from the accused. However, the trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution case unreliable. The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, held that the complainant's testimony was not trustworthy, the independent panch witness was not examined, and the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could not be invoked without proof of demand. 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 will not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or based on no evidence. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act arises only after demand and acceptance are proved. (Paras 1-20) B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the complainant's testimony was found to be untrustworthy and the independent panch witness was not examined, leading to failure of proof. (Paras 2-20) C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114(g) - Adverse Inference - When an independent witness is available but not examined, an adverse inference may be drawn against the prosecution. The non-examination of the panch witness weakened the prosecution case. (Para 20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is perverse and requires interference by this Court.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 27-09-2012 passed by the learned Special (ACB) Judge & 7th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Special (ACB) Case No. 08 of 2004 is confirmed. The accused is acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 378 CrPC
- presumption under Section 20 PC Act
- demand and acceptance of bribe
- credibility of trap witness
- examination of independent witness
