DHULABHAI GOKULDAS DRARJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an order dated 07.08.2007 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad whereby Criminal Appeal No. 801 of 1996 filed by the Appellant has been dismissed, his conviction for offences punishable Under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentence of six months on the former count and one year on the later upheld. The Appellant it appears was working as a Mamlatdar and Krishi Panch, Dehhgam in the Kachchh District, State of Gujarat. He is accused of having demanded and received a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant in connection with a case under The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 pending before him. Not ready to part with that amount towards bribe the complainant appears to have approached the Anti Corruption Bureau at Ahmedabad who organised a trap in which the Appellant is said to have demanded and received the bribe amount from the complainant in the presence of the witness accompanying him. The recovery of the amount from the person of the Appellant and related steps taken in connection with the trap eventually culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet against the Appellant before the Jurisdictional Court at Ahmedabad who eventually found the Appellant guilty relying upon the deposition of the complainant Somji Chhaganbhai, Devram Premji and Vasudev Ambaram. The Trial Court was of the view that the deposition of the complainant and so also the two witnesses named above examined at the trial inspired evidence and proved not only the factum of the Appellant having made a demand from the complainant but also having received the bribe amount. The Trial Court accordingly recorded a finding of guilt against the Appellant and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months Under Section 7 and one year Under Section 13(1)(d) (ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. An appeal by the Appellant against his conviction and sentence awarded to him before the High Court having failed, the Appellant has assailed the judgment of the courts below in the present appeal as already noticed above.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Fakhruddin Ali, learned senior Counsel for the Appellant at some length who has taken us through the orders passed by the courts below as also relevant portion of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses examined at the trial. We have no hesitation in holding that the version given by the complainant and the two other witnesses examined by the prosecution in support of its case is consistent and has been rightly accepted by the courts below. There is nothing unworthy or improbable in the version given by the said witnesses to call for rejection of the prosecution story. The argument that the demand and receipt of bribe on 25.09.1989 was improbable in view of the fact that an appropriate order in relation to the complainant's case stood already passed in his favour on 18.09.1989 was noticed and rejected by the courts below and in our opinion rightly so. That is because the version of the complainant and so also the other two witness is that on 25.09.1989 when they approached the complainant with the money pursuant to the trap organised by the Anti Corruption Bureau, the complainant was shown the order passed in his favour but the Appellant declined to hand-over the same to the complainant unless the bribe money was paid to him. That explains the reason why the order passed on 18.09.1989 in favour of the complainant was of no assistance to the Appellant. All told the view taken by the courts below appears to be perfectly justified. There is no perversity in the appreciation of evidence or the conclusions which the courts below have drawn to warrant our interference in exercise of our powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. In the result this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.