SHANKERJI SURJI JOSHIARA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant - original accused has filed this Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. challenging the Judgment and order of conviction dated 30.6.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No.2, Ahmedabad, in Special Case No. 40 of 1990, whereby the learned Special Judge has held the appellant - accused guilty for the offences charged against him.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case is that the complainant - Punambhai Mohanbhai Patni was the rickshaw driver and he was plying rickshaw bearing Registration No. GRS 3874 on rental basis. He had not paid up the fine about 10 traffic cases for the offence pertaining to the traffic rules. The accused, who is Police Constable, Traffic Section, intercepted the rickshaw of the complainant on 6.2.1989 at about 7:30 a.m. near Kalupur Bridge. The accused told the complainant that he is Court Duty Policeman of Traffic Branch, Ahmedabad City and he was having 10 complaints against the complainant and has got warrant against him. Thereafter, he was to be taken along with auto- rickshaw and the accused to the police station. Nr. Kalupur Railway Station, the accused asked the complainant to park his auto-rickshaw in parking plot of the station and then obtained the token issued by the parking Authority. The complainant paid the charge for parking the rickshaw. The accused asked the complainant as to how much money he was having with him and at that time, the complainant replied that he does not have any amount as he has just started plying his rickshaw. The accused also told the complainant that he was having warrant against him and also told that if the complainant wants to pay the fine in the Traffic Offences Court then the complainant will have to incur a large amount as fine. Therefore, he told that he wants to compromise with the accused and the complainant should be prepared to pay Rs.200/-. The accused also told the complainant that if complainant is paid Rs.200/-, the he can see to it that the complaints are disposed of and he would not have difficulty. The complainant was not having enough money to pay the accused and hence, as alleged, he was advised the accused to see him in the noon hours at the Court of Metro Magistrate, 13th Court (Traffic Court), Gheekanta, Ahmedabad. The complainant was also assured that on payment of the amount of Rs.200/- by the complainant, the complaints against him would be destroyed. It is further alleged that the complainant was actually flared up with such kind of the repeated payment of gratification amount as on previous occasions he had paid Rs.164/- and 174/- and therefore, due to this kind of repeated nuisance and harassment by the Traffic Policeman, he approached the A.C.B. Office and lodged the complaint, as the complainant is not willing to pay Rs.200/- to the accused person towards his repeated demand of illegal gratification.

(3.) Thereafter, upon lodging the complaint against the accused on 6.2.1989 and after for arranging the trap against the accused, panch witnesses were summoned and they were briefed of what functions they have to perform and then complainant was asked to produce currency notes in the sum of Rs.200/- which were smeared with anthracene powder and then the same were safely placed in the pocket of wearing apparel of the complainant with instructions not to touch the same till demand is made by the accused. Prior to that the panch witnesses were briefed of the experiment by ultraviolet lamp and its effect on smeared currency notes with the powder. Thereafter, the number of currency notes were noted down in the first part of the trap panchnama prepared in the presence of the panch witnesses and the raid was successfully carried out.