STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KUMUDCHANDRA PRANJIVAN SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State of Gujarat against the judgment dated 6-7-1981 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 796 of 1981 by the High Court of Gujarat setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the respondent by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad in Special Case No. 32 of 1980 dated 31-7-1981. The respondent was convicted by the learned Special Judge for an offence punishable under Sec. 5(2) read with Sec. 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and also for an offence punishable under Sec. 161 I.P.C. The respondent was sentenced by the learned Special Judge to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months, on a charge that he had accepted bribe from the complainant Mansukhlal Hemchand Doshi, the Managing Partner of M/s. Indian Construction Company. The prosecution case is that on a complaint of Shri Mansukhlal Hemchand Doshi that the respondent, a Government Officer had demanded bribe in connection with a Government contract undertaken by the said M/s. Indian Construction Company. The case was that a trap was laid by treating the currency notes with a chemical which was given to the complainant for offering to the respondent. When the respondent accepted the bribe he was caught red-handed. Such case was sought to be proved by examining the panch witness and also the police officer who was present at the time. It was alleged by the respondent that he had been falsely implicated and the police wanted to prove the case with the help of a panch witness who is very closely associated with the police in a number of cases. As a matter of fact, initially when the panch witness was examined the accused-respondent could not procure materials to establish that the said witness had already acted as panch witness in several other cases. After procuring such material, an application was made before the learned trial Court to recall the said panch witness for further examination and the witness was further cross-examined at length. It has been established by documentary evidence that the panch witness had acted in a number of cases and the said panch witness had also made statement that being a social worker he had been in close touch with the police. The learned Special Judge, however, accepted the evidence given by the said panch witness and also the police officer and accepting such evidences inter alia came to the finding that the acceptance of bribe was proved and accordingly convicted the respondent and passed the aforesaid sentence. On appeal preferred by the respondent before the High Court of Gujarat, the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court inter alia came to the finding that the panch witness though initially tried to give a picture before the Court that he had not acted as a panch witness, it was established by cogent evidence that he had acted in a number of cases as a panch witness and there were good reasons to believe that he was a pliable witness not worthy of evidence. So far as the police witness is concerned, the High Court has also held by indicating that the police officer initially did not speak out the truth and tried to suppress that the said panch witness had acted as panch witness in earlier cases. Considering the aforesaid fact, the High Court was of the view that the said witnesses did not appear to be reliable and reliance should not be placed on their deposition. Accordingly, the High Court was of the view that the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt and passed the aforesaid judgment acquitting the respondent.

(2.) We have considered the reasoning given by both the trial Court and the High Court and we have been taken through the evidences given in the case. It appears to us that there is force in the view taken by the High Court. In the instant case, the panch witness who admittedly was the President of vegetable sellers in the city of Rajkot had acted as a panch witness in a number of cases and admittedly he was a social worker. There was no reason for not remembering the fact that he appeared as panch witness. He initially tried to suppress the said fact and the police officer also did not speak out the truth about the said panch witness acting as panch witness in other cases. In the aforesaid circumstances, the High Court felt that the prosecution case should not be accepted in the absence of convicing independent evidence fully corroborating the evidence given by the said witnesses. We do not think that such view is unjustified. We accordingly find no reason to interfere with the aforesaid judgment and the appeal fails and is dismissed.