STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAMANBHAI BHAGUBHAI GAMIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned APP Mr.K.P. Rawal for the applicant and learned advocate Mr.Kunal S.Shah for the respondent.

(2.) Perused the record in the form of compilation, which includes depositions and papers of chargesheet.

(3.) The applicant is State being the investigating and prosecuting agency. It has challenged the judgment and order dated 6.2.2016 in Special A.C.B. Case No.4 of 2000 by Special Judge and 3rd Addl.Sessions Judge of Surat. By such impugned judgment, the respondent has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him u/ss.7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is to the effect that the complainant has to recover an amount of Rs.4,384/- from the P.F. A/c. and therefore, he had been to the office of the applicant with one Manjitsinh Sodha, who was also to recover an amount of Rs.13,260/- from his P.F. A/c. It is further contended in the complaint that when they approached the office of the respondent, the applicant has asked for Rs.600/- towards his remuneration for managing the refund of P.F. amount as aforesaid for the complainant and one Manjitsinh Sodha. However, at that time, complainant was having only Rs.100/- and therefore, it is his case that he has paid Rs.100/- to the respondent and it was agreed between the parties that complainant shall pay the remaining Rs.500/- on next Monday in the office of the respondent. Thereupon, as usual, when the complainant averred that he does not want to pay such amount, he approached the ACB office at Surat, which has initiated the process of arranging trap and raid so as to catch the respondent red-handed while demanding and accepting the illegal gratification or bribe and during such procedure, it is the case of the prosecution that when complainant and panch witness met the respondent on 20.10.1997 in his office, the respondent has demanded the amount of bribe by asking that whether complainant has brought the amount as discussed and thereupon, complainant has offered the amount which was accepted by the respondent and placed in the pocket of his trouser. The story thereafter is as usual regarding trap and testing of the respondent and the currency notes etc. wherein the prosecution has termed it as a successful trap and therefore, after completing the investigation, chargesheet was filed. However, after full-fledged trial, wherein prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses and produced 17 documentary evidence to prove the commission of offence as alleged in the chargesheet, the Special Judge of ACB Court has by impugned judgment acquitted the respondent herein. Thereby, in such Revision Application against acquittal, what is initially required to be examined is illegality, if any, committed by the trial Court in acquitting the accused/respondent herein, more particularly to clarify that whether it results into any injustice or whether its outcome reflects any arbitrariness or perverseness on the part of the trial Court. The law is well settled, whereby in absence of cogent and reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt, there cannot be a conviction so also order of acquittal cannot be converted into conviction only because different opinion is possible on the basis of same set of evidence. Trial Court has after perusal of evidence, came to the conclusion that it does not prove the commission of offence as alleged. However, to ascertain such fact, though there is limitation upon Revisional Court to re-appreciate such evidence at such revisional stage, evidence before the lower Court needs to be scrutinized.