AJIT KUMAR VASANTLAL ZAVERI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant was tried under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ('Act' for short). The Special Judge, Surat acquitted him. The State preferred an appeal and the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act. He was sentenced under Section 161, I.P.C. to three months' R. 1. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -in default of payment of which to suffer R.I. for one month. However, no separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act.

(2.) The prosecution case is that page No. W. 1 started a tailoring shop in the month of January, 1976. For the purpose of furnishing his shop he applied for a loan to the Bank of Baroda and his application was pending. On 9-2-1976 he applied for a licence under the Shops and Establishments Act after paying the necessary fee. Later he went to the office of the Municipal Corporation and found the accused, an Inspector under the Shops and Establishments Act in his office and requested him for a licence. The accused demanded a sum of Rs. 30/ - as bribe. On 21-2-76 he happened to meet the Municipal Corporator and told him about the demand made by the accused for issuance of the licence. He was advised to give a complaint to the A.C.B. Thereupon the Corporator took P.W. 1 to the A.C.B. Office and there he made a complaint before the Inspector. In the presence of the panchas the Inspector prepared a panchnama treating three currency notes of Rs. 10/ - each with phenolphthalein powder and sodium cai.bonate and thereafter P.1Y. 1 was asked to give the amount to the accused and thus a trap was laid. Panch witness No. 1 and P.W. 1 went to the office of the accused and the tainted money was offered and it was accepted by the accused. On a signal being given the trap party rushed in and recovered the three currency notes and the accused was asked to put his hands in a glass full of water which turned pink. A panchnama was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded and sanction was obtained and the chargesheet was laid. The plea of the accused was that he had not demanded any amount and that the complainant asked for a licence and he got up to search for the licence. At that time the complainant tried to thrust the amount in his pocket and the accused gave a push as a result of which the currency notes fell on the table. Just at that time the raiding party entered and recovered the amount. In substance his plea was that the money was thrusted and the case was fabricated.

(3.) The trial Court, if we may say so, on flimsy grounds rejected the entire evidence and acquitted him. The appellate Court while reversing the order of acquittal has taken into consideration the evidence of the panch witnesses and the Inspector as well as the statement of the accused and reached the conclusion that the reasons given by the trial Court were highly unsound and warranted interference and accordingly convicted the appellant.