AMBALAL MOTIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
AMBALAL MOTIBHAI PATEL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This is a criminal appeal by one Ambalal Motibhai Patel who in Special Case No. 8 of 1960 was convicted by the Special Judge of Kaira at Nadiad under section 161 I. P. C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(2.)Although the circumstance of the finding of the notes with bribe taker is absent in this case the prosecution wants to rely on the finding of the anthracene powder on the fingers of the left had of the accused immediately after the alleged bribe was taken. It is the evidence of all the witnesses Ranchhodbhai Panch Ghanashyam Panch Motibhai Head Constable Bharatsing and P.S.I. Jadeja that when they entered the room of the accused they asked the accused to stretch out his hand and marks of white powder were seen on all the fingers of the left hand of the accused. The evidence regarding the anthracene powder has been strongly commented upon by Mr. Ghaswala. His criticism is that marks of powder could not be seen even under the light of the ultra violet lamp that no witness speaks of any bluish glow or fluorescence on the fingers of the left hand of the accused that there is no evidence that the glow on the fingers of the left hand of the accused was similar to the glow noticed at the time of the demonstration made by Bharatsing by applying anthracene powder to his own hands. Bharasting has deposed that he brought anthracene powder from Baroda and gave a demonstration as to how to detect anthracene powder by using an ultra violet lamp Anthracene powder is one of many fluorescent substances. There are more than 200 to 300 fluorescent substances the names of which are found in hand book of Chemistry and Physics by C. D. Hodgman M. S. 30th Edition pages 2283 to 2294. Fluorescent substances emit light under the influence of an exciting agent such as ultra violet rays. Ultra violet light is used with most success in detection fluorescent substances. Ultra violet light is used to excite the substance in question. When a fluorescent substance is excited in such a manner it emits light of a particular hue. Some fluorescent substances emit green light some brown some blue some yellow some light blue etc. There are only 3 or 4 substances emitting light blue light under the influence of the exciting agent ultra violet light. All these fluorescent substances are rare substances and ordinarily therefore it the prosecution case is that anthracene powder was applied and that under the influence of the ultra violet lamp light a light blue light was found emitting from the hand of as particular person it can be fairly inferred that anthracene powder was present on the hand of such a person. According to the experiment made by Bharatsing anthracene powder is not visible to the naked eye but visible only under the light of the ultra violet lamp. In such cases in order to enable a court to draw the inference that what was found on the person was anthracene powder the prosecution must establish that the tests for the detection of anthracene powder had been properly made and had yielded positive results. The main test is the emission of light blue fluorescent light under the influence of ultra violet rays. It is therefore essential for the prosecution to prove that there was light blue emission of light under the influence of ultra violet light. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to prove that under the ultra violet light witnesses saw stains of white powder or even that under the ultra violet light they saw some sparking or some shimmering. None of the witnesses have deposed that when ultra violet light was focused on the left and of the accused there were any sings of sparking. The only witness to talk of sparkling is the Panch Motibhai who talks of sparking when ultra violet light was focused on Bharatsings hand at the time of the experiment. This witness does not speak of the sparkling on the fingers of the hand of the accused when ultra violet light was focused on it. Mere sparkling is not a positive result. There must be emission of light blue light. None of the witnesses says that when the accused stretched out his hands they failed to notice any marks of white powder. According to the prosecution anthracene powder cannot be detected by the naked eye but only under the influence of ultra violet lamp. The two tests required to be satisfied by the prosecution to prove the presence of anthracene powder are therefore (1) that no powder was detected with the naked eye and (2) that when ultra violet light was focused there was emission of light blue fluorescent light. If evidence proved positive results for both these tests then it would be right to infer that anthracene powder was present but evidence of this type is completely absent in the present case.
(3.)Mr. Ghaswalla drew our attention to the book Fluorescence Analysis in Ultra Violet Light by Radley Julius Grant wherein the following observations are made at page:-
"Pure distilled water has practically no fluorescence. The faint blue colour observed has been attributed by S. J. Vavilov and L. A. Tummermann to oxygen or carbon dioxide since it is also shown by many liquids with similar spectral features (e. g. sulphuric acid ether acetone and benzene). Ordinarily tap water has generally a faint bluish fluorescence due in all probability to small traces of dissolved organic matter;"
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.