CHATURDAS BHAGWANDAS PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal was accused no. 2 in the trial Court. He was a Head Constable (Jamadar) posted at the relevant time in Police Station, Zinzuwada. His co-accused (no. 1) was a police sub-inspector posted in the same station. One Bai Sati, was alleged to have been abducted by Ghanshyamsinh alias Ghanubha. She was in the Police Station on the 10th and 11th of July, 1968. Accused 1 recorded her statement and thereafter asked one Fateh Singh (PW 7) to bring and produce his cousin Ghanshamsinh. Fatesinh accordingly produced Ghanshamsinh before accused 1 on July 11,1968. Accused 1 directed the appellant to take charge of ghanshamsinh. The appellant lid likewise and told ghanshamsinh that if he wanted to get rid of the charge, he should gratify the sub-inspector. The appellant backed up the suggestion with a threat to handcuff ghanshamsinh and put him in the police lock up. The appellant further demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,000/-. At first Ghanshamsinh expressed his inability to pay the amount. Ultimately at the intervention of accused 2, the demand was scaled down to rupees 1,000/- and it was agreed that out of the amount, a sum of Rs. 500/- would be paid on the following evening at the latest. Ghanshamsinh was then allowed to go. He then talked about this deal to his cousin, fatesinh.

(2.) On the following day, ghanshamsinh went to Ahmedabad and contacted Shri R R. Desai (PW 8), inspector of the anti-corruption staff of police and made a complaint which was recorded. Shri Desai then in the presence of panchas, supplied a sum of Rs. 500/- in five currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each to Ghanshamsinh for use in the trapping the accused persons in the Act of taking the bribe. The notes were smeared with anthracene powder and Ghanshamsinh was directed to hand over the same on demand to the accused, and then signal to the raiding party. After settling the plan, the party came to Zinzuwada on July 12. 1968. Ghanshamsingh was sent ahead with the tainted money to the Police Station. On seeing ghanshamsingh along with panch Mahendra going to the residence of accused, the appellant called him and took him to his of fice room in the Police Station. Ghanshamsingh informed the appellant that he had brought the money as agreed for payment to accused 1. The appellant told him that accused 1 being away, he was the Acting Station House of ficer and the money should be paid to him, adding that he would, in turn, pass it on to accused 1 on his return. Ghanshamsingh then handed over those five currency notes to the appellant who accepted the same and placed them in the drawer of his table. All the three persons then came out of the room. The appellant locked the room. On receiving the agreed signal from Ghanshamsingh, the police party rushed in and caught hold of the appellant by the hand. With the key found on the person of the appellant, inspector desai unlocked the room and recovered the currency notes from the drawer of the appellant's table. The hands of the complainant Ghanshamsinh, Panch Mahendra and the appellant were examined in the light of an ultra-violet lamp. Such examination revealed anthracene powder on the hands of the appellant and ghanshamsinh; but no such powder was seen on Panch Mahendra. Shri Desai prepared the panchanama. Certain police papers on the demand of inspector desai were produced by the writer-constable, Karsanbhai. These are: (1) statement, dated July 11, 1968 of bai sati recorded by accused 1; (2) statement dated July 11, 1968 of Koli Mana Jiva, recorded by accused 1; (3) the writing sent by the Police Sub-Inspector, Dasuda under Javak no. 2991 dated July 10, 1968 as per endorsement dated July 18, 1968 to the Police Inspector, Zinzuvada; (4) the statement of bai sati recorded by the Police Sub-Inspector at Dasuda on July 10, 1968. The inspector seized these records.

(3.) After completing the investigation, the police sent both the accused under a charge-sheet for trial before the Special Judge, Surendranagar on charges under sec. 161 read with sec. 34 and sec. 165 A of the penal code and under sec. 5 (2) read with sec. 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial Judge acquitted both the accused of all the charges levelled against them.