BHANUPRASAD HARIPRASAD DAVE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in this appeal are two police officers. The first appellant Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave was the police Sub-Inspector and the second appellant, Rajuji Gambhirji, was his writer constable in February 1963. At that time both of them were attached to the Navrangpura police station, Ahmedabad. They were tried and convicted by the Special Judge, Ahmedabad, for offences under S.161 read with S.165-A of the Indian Penal Code and S.5(1) (d) read with S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (No.2 of 1947) , and for those offences each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two and half years and a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The judgment of the learned Special Judge was affirmed by the High Court of Gujarat. It is against that judgment, this appeal has been filed, after obtaining special leave from this Court.

(2.) To state briefly, the prosecution case is as follows:Ramanlal, the complainant in this case, wrote a postcard on February 11, 1963 to one Madhukanta, a lady teacher, requesting her to ask Chandrakanta, another lady teacher working with her, to meet him in connection with certain work. Therein he also wrote that he would be glad if Madhukanta could accompany Chandrakanta. The headmaster of the school where Madhukanta and Chandrakanta were working happened to read that postcard. She took Madhukanta to task for allowing strangers to write to her in that manner. Piqued by the conduct of Ramanlal, Madhukanta made over the postcard in question to the first appellant, probably with a request that Ramanlal might be pulled up for his conduct. On February 16,1963, the first appellant sent the second appellant to fetch Ramanlal to the police station. On his arrival at the police station. Ramanlal was abused and slapped by the first appellant. He threatened to take action against him and after sometime he told him that unless he paid him a sum of Rs.100 he would be harassed. With a view to get out of the situation, Ramanlal agreed to pay the sum demanded. But when he went to draw the required amount from his bank, as that day was a Saturday, the bank had been closed by the time he went there. He therefore asked the first appellant time for payment till the 18th. The first appellant agreed to the same. On the morning of 18th, Ramanlal met the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department and complained to him about the incident in question. He was asked to give a written complaint in that regard which he did. Thereafter he produced before the Dy. S. P. ten currency notes of Rs.10 each. The numbers of those notes were noted and then those notes were treated with anthracene powder. Ramanlal was asked to give those notes to the first appellant if he made any further demand for bribe. Thereafter he was sent to the police station with the panch witness, Dahyabhai. But when they went to the police station they found that the first appellant was not there. They were told that he had gone to attend court. Hence Ramanlal and Dahyabhai returned to the office of the Anti-Corruption Department and reported to the Dy. S. P. about the same. Under instructions from the Dy. S. P. he again went to the office of the Anti-Corruption Department on the evening of that day with fresh currency notes. Those notes were again treated with anthracene powder and their numbers noted. Ramanlal was again sent to the police station with Dahyabhai on that evening at about 5-30 p.m. When they went there, the first appellant was not there, but the second appellant was there. He told them that the first appellant was expected in the station at any moment. Thereafter the second appellant, Ramanlal and Dahyabhai went to a nearby teashop and took tea. By the time they returned to the police station the first appellant was there. Ramanlal told the first appellant that tie had brought the money. Then he asked him to pay the same to the second appellant who was in one of the room of the police station. When Ramanlal went to pay the money to the second appellant, the first appellant took out the postcard written by Ramanlal to Madhukanta, showed it to Dahyabhai and thereafter tore it to pieces and burnt it. Meanwhile Ramanlal went and paid the currency-notes in question to the second appellant. While Ramanlal and Dahyabhai were in the police station, police Sub-Inspector Erulker and constable, Santramji, both belonging to the Anti-Corruption Department, were observing from a nearby compound the happenings in the police station. The second appellant immediately on receiving the notes in question left the police station. But he was followed by constable Santramji. From the police station the second appellant first went to the shop of one Sanghvi and changed one of the currency-notes. From there he went to the pan shop of Sendhalal and there changed three more currency-notes. Thereafter constable Santramji was not able to keep track of him. Meanwhile when things did not go according to plan, Ramanlal was somewhat confused. He after paying amount to the second appellant straight rushed back to the Dy. S. P. and told him what had happened at the police station. Immediately, the Dy. S.P. rushed to the police station and there he searched the person of the first appellant, but nothing incriminating was found. He seized the burnt pieces of the postcard. Some of the unburnt pieces were recognised by Ramanlal as portions of the postcard written by him to Madbukanta. From there the Dy. S. P. proceeded to the shop of Sanghvi and Sendhalal and seized the currency-notes changed in their shops by the second appellant. Their numbers tallied with the numbers of the notes earlier handed over to Ramanlal after being treated with anthracene powder. Those notes were full of anthracene powder. The same night the second appellant was arrested and at the time it was found there was considerable anthracene powder on his person. After investigation the appellants were prosecuted for the offences mentioned earlier.

(3.) Both the trial court and the High Court have accepted the prosecution case. This Court being a court of special jurisdiction does not examine the evidence afresh except under exceptional circumstances. No good reasons were shown to us for departing from the ordinary rule. Hence we proceed on the basis that the findings of fact reached by the High Court are correct.