STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAMANBHAI GOVINDBHAI MERAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Gujarat, by way of this appeal, has challenged the judgment and order dated 13.1.1988 passed in Special Case No.3 of 1985 by the learned Special Judge, Surat acquitting the respondent for offences punishable under section 161 of the IPC and sections 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

(2.) The respondent at the relevant time was serving as an Extension Officer (Construction) in Taluka Panchayat, Mangrol. The complainant Kalidas Vasava, Ex. 5, at the relevant time was the Sarpanch of Ranakpur village under Mangrol taluka. For the purpose of constructing public well in the village, the village panchayat, by passing a resolution, applied for grant from the District Panchayat and the District Panchayat granted sanction to the amount of Rs. 18,000.00 for the said purpose. The first instalment of Rs. 4000.00 out of the sanctioned amount was released by the Taluka Development Officer in favour of the complainant on 20.4.1983. As a part of duty to supervise the construction work, the respondent used to come to the site and as per the say of the complainant, the respondent used to raise unnecessary objections regarding the construction work. It is the case of the complainant that after the amount of first instalment was spent, when he demanded payment of next instalment from the respondent, the respondent refused to part with the amount. On being asked for the reason, the respondent, with a view to take the amount of bribe, asked the complainant as to "what about him?" to which the complainant gave an assurance that let the construction work of well be over. It is the case of the complainant that the respondent agreed to the said suggestion and thereafter on 19.7.1983, second instalment in the form of cheque for Rs. 6087.59 was released in favour of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that thereafter also, the respondent used to come for the purpose of supervision at the site and by raising unnecessary objections, used to scold the complainant and give threat to stop the construction work. On 15.3.1984, when the complainant had gone to the Office of the Taluka Development Officer, Mangrol for getting the balance amount and met the respondent, at that time, again he inquired about the amount to be paid to him. The complainant wanted to know the exact amount from the respondent. At that time, the respondent mentioned the amount of Rs. 1000.00 on a piece of paper and showed it to the complainant and thereafter torned out the same. The complainant told the respondent that it will not be possible for him to pay the entire amount at a time. However,he promised to pay the amount in instalments. After the above talk, the complainant requested the respondent to clear the cheque for the balance amount and accordingly on 16.3.1984, the complainant received the cheque for the balance amount. Thereafter, according to the complainant, the respondent used to visit the house of the complainant demanding the amount of bribe. On 23.4.1984, the complainant was required to visit the Office of Taluka Panchayat, Mangrol for the purpose of inquiring as to whether the amount of Rs.3000.00 was sanctioned for construction of road of village Ranakpur and for that purpose, he met the President of Taluka Panchayat in his chamber. The respondent was called in the chamber by the President and he was asked as to whether the amount was sanctioned or not to which the respondent replied that the amount was sanctioned and was pending for giving Work Order only. After giving the said reply, the respondent left the chamber and was waiting for the complainant to come out of the chamber. When the complainant came out of the chamber, the respondent again reminded him of the amount of Rs. 1000.00 to be paid to him. When the complainant showed his inability to pay Rs.1000.00 at a time, the respondent inquired as to how much amount was possible to be paid initially. The complainant told him that at that time, he would be able to manage for Rs. 300.00. Thereafter the respondent told the complainant that he may pay the amount of Rs. 300.00 on the next day near Mangrol Bus Station between 10.00 and 11.00 a.m. The complainant agreed to the same. Since the complainant was not prepared to pay the amount of bribe, he went to Police Inspector, ACB, Surat and lodged his complaint before the Police Inspector Chandrakant A.Mahendrakar,PW 3 Ex.8, who recorded the complaint of the complainant which is at Ex. 9. He contacted Mamlatdar, Choryasi Taluka requesting him to send two persons to act as panchas and to see him on the next morning at 6.00 o'clock in his office. The complainant was also asked to come at the same time. On 24.4.1984, two panchas Ishwarbhai Zinabhai Patel, PW 2 Ex.6 and Natvarlal Vinodbhai from the Office of the Mamlatdar and the complainant came and after introducing each other, complaint was read over to the panchas as well as the complainant and they signed the same. The complainant was asked to produce Rs. 300.00 in the denomination of Rs. 100.00 each and their numbers were noted in the first part of the panchanama. Thereafter the usual test of anthracene powder was carried out by PSI Puwar. The complainant was asked to keep three currency notes having anthracene powder in the left side pocket of his bush shirt and was instructed not to touch the same until the demand was made by the respondent and was further instructed to give a signal after the acceptance of money by lighting a bidi. The raiding party thereafter went to Mangrol in Government jeep and reached Kosamba town. From there, they went to Mangrol by train. The complainant and panch no.1 met the respondent at the bus stand in the bazar of Mangrol at about 10.30 a.m.when he was talking with some other persons. On seeing the complainant, the respondent asked the other persons to go. Thereafter, the complainant, the panch no.1 and the respondent entered a nearby restaurant. The respondent entered the restaurant first and sat on a bench at the corner wall of the restaurant and the complainant sat on his right side on the same bench. The panch no.1 stood near the table. The complainant asked the respondent as to whether they would complete the transaction of payment to which the respondent said "Yes" and asked to give and also raised his hand. Thereafter, the complainant took out the notes from his pocket and placed them in the hand of the respondent. The respondent by closing the palm kept the notes in the right hip pocket of his pant. The complainant, thereafter gave a signal by lighting a bidi. Immediately, the raiding party entered and instructed the respondent to stand up. The panch no.1, atthe instance of the Police Inspector, took out the currency notes from the hip pocket of the respondent. Three notes of Rs. 100.00 each were recovered. The numbers of the notes were tallied with the numbers of the notes mentioned in the first part of the panchanama. Police Sub Inspector Puwar thereafter started experiment of anthracene powder with ultra violet lamp and noticed emission of light blue fluorescent on the right hand finger tips and palm as well as on the right hip pocket of the pant as well as back side of the right side corner of safari suit put up by the respondent. Similar emission of light blue fluorescent was noticed on the right hand finger tips of the complainant as well as panch no.1. Similar experiment was carried out on the members of raiding party. However,nothing was noticed. The second part of the panchanama was prepared there and there after recovering safari suit as well as muddamal notes under panchanama. Police Inspector Mahendrakar, after recording the statements of witnesses and obtaining permission from the Competent Authority, arrested the respondent and filed chargesheet against the respondent. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge Ex. 3 against the respondent accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In fact, the respondent filed written statement Ex. 13 wherein he has admitted that at the relevant time, he was serving as Extension Officer in Taluka Panchayat, Mangrol and as a part of his duty, he was required to go for inspection of the construction work of well. He has also admitted that for the purpose of maintaining the quality of work, he was required to scold the complainant often. According to him, because of the same, the complainant was bearing a grudge against him. According to him, he had no authority to sanction the amount as it was within the power of the Taluka Development Officer. According to him, there was no reason for him to demand the amount as the work of construction of well was already over. He has further stated that even it was within the knowledge of the complainant that all the work was over and there was no reason for the complainant to pay any amount which is clear from the fact that even the complainant has not filed any complaint against him regarding the demand of bribe amount. He has stated that he used to commute from Mandvi to Mangrol and the complainant was knowing that fact very well. According to him, he had never demanded any amount on 23.4.1984 outside the chamber of the President of Taluka Panchayat, Mangrol. He has also denied that he had written the figure of Rs. 1000.00 on the piece of paper and thereafter torned it off and, therefore, the story of payment of Rs. 300.00 by way of instalment is false and concocted. In substance,he has stated that he has been falsely involved in the last stage of his service career. Regarding the incident in question which has taken place on 24.4.1984, he has admitted that when the complainant came alone, he was at bus stand at 10.30 a.m. talking with some persons. He has stated that he accepted the invitation of the complainant for a cup of tea and both went to the nearby restaurant and when they were talking casually, he started feeling that something is moving on the hip pocket of his pant and he, therefore, immediately stood up and placed his hand on the hip pocket. The complainant was trying to thrust something in his pocket and when he was trying to take out the same, a police man came and caught hold of him and asked him to sit after taking out his hand from the hip pocket. According to the respondent, he came to know for the first time that the complainant, by inviting him for a cup of tea and while talking with him, was trying to insert folded notes of Rs. 300.00 in his hip pocket. According to him, he had neither demanded Rs. 300.00 nor raised his hand for accepting the amount nor the notes were recovered from his pocket. According to him, the emission of light blue fluorescent noticed on his finger tips as well as on the palm was because of the fact that the complainant wanted to insert notes in his hip pocket and he prevented the complainant from doing so. He has further stated that he had stated the said fact when his statement was recorded by the Police Inspector. Even though he had told the Police Inspector Mahendrakar to carry out the experiment of anthracene powder with ultra violet lamp on the panch as well as the table of the restaurant and inside of his hip pocket, however, no such test was carried out and, therefore, he has been falsely involved.Regarding the selection of panchas, the respondent has stated that the Police Inspector has selected the panchas from a particular department and, therefore, they are interested witnesses. Finally, he has stated that he was about to retire when the incident had taken place and, therefore, he wanted to live peaceful retired life with his wife and he had no immoveable properties nor any bank balance and in spite of serving honestly for the entire career, he and his wife are ruined.

(3.) After considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as the written statement of the respondent, the learned Special Judge has recorded findings that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge levelled against the respondent and he, therefore, acquitted the respondent. The State of Gujarat has challenged the said judgment and order of acquittal by way of this appeal.