DILIPSINH UMEDSINH JADEJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted by the learned Special Judge of Jamnagar by judgment and order passed in Special Case No.5 of 1997 dated 27.7.1998 for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment which to undergo S.I. for further three months. The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for further three months. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The order, which is impugned in this present Appeal.

(2.) Prosecution version is in brief that the complainant received some information that some local police constables were accepting and also asking for bribe by way of illegal gratification at Subhash Market, Jamnagar, from the drivers of the tempos and trucks, under the pretext of entry fee and they were demanding Rs.20/- by way of bribe from the driver. Therefore, the complainant being Police Inspector, ACB, to ascertain the truth and genuineness about this information, decided to lay a trap. The complainant arranged to call two panchas, Government servants and the complainant contacted the Fisheries Department for providing two persons as panchas and thereafter, two officers from Fisheries Department came to the ACB Office, Rajkot. After giving a fair idea to the panchas, the complainant and two panchass along with other members of the ACB team reached at Hapa Patia. The complainant and other members of raiding party stopped one truck bearing No.GJ-10U-6565. The driver of the said truck named Ranchhodbhai Arjanbhai Chopda was explained about the trap and in turn said driver Ranchhodbhai agreed to play the role of decoy witness and he was handed over two currency notes of the denomination of Rs.10/- each. They were explained as to how anthracene powder was applied on the currency notes and they were also explained as to how the anthracene powder is used in detecting as to whether the bribe has been accepted by the public servant or not. The panch witness No.1 sat in the truck along with decoy witness and proceeded to Subhash Market and other members of raiding party followed them by jeep. At about 6:40 morning hours, the accused, Police Constable, came near the truck and demanded Rs.20/- from the driver of the truck and the driver gave Rs.20/-, smeared with anthracene powder, to the accused. No sooner the accused accepted Rs.20/- towards illegal gratification and put the said currency notes in the pocket of his jacket, the complainant and other members of raiding party rushed at that particular spot and cornered the accused. Thereafter, the currency notes were taken out from pocket of jacket, which the accused put on at that time. Necessary panchnama was drawn and other required formalities were completed. On the strength of this complaint, an offence against the accused under the Act, was registered at Jamnagar ACB Office. The investigating Officer took over the investigation. Necessary statements of the witnesses were recorded. On 31.12.1996, sanction to prosecute the accused was prayed for and the District Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar accorded sanction on 27.12.1997 to prosecute the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) After investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted the charge-sheet. During the trial, prosecution examined the witnesses and got exhibited large number of documents. The witnesses examined by the prosecution viz. PW-1, Neelkanthbhai Bhaishanker Pandya, Panch witness, Exhibit 8, PW-2, Sahdevsingh Donubhai Zala, Exhibit 10, PW-3, Ranchhodbhia Arjanbhai Chopda at Exhibit 16, the truck driver and decoy witness, P.W.4 Mahendrarai Jayashanker Dave, complainant, Exhibit 17, P.W.5 Ajaykumar Tomar Exhibit 20, the sanctioning Authority and P.W. 6 Bhikhubha Balubha Jadeja, Exhibit 29, Investing Officer. Thereafter, the documentary evidence viz. list of Muddamal at Exhibit 37, panchnama at Exhibit 9, Copy of list in the town book at Exhibit 14, FIR at Exhibit 19, Seizure memo at Exhibit 19, sanction letter at Exhibit 22, Office orders at Exhibit 24 to 26, letters at Exhibit 27 and 28, Copy of the order at Exhibit 32. During recording of the further statement under Section 313 of Code Criminal Procedure, the accused stated that he had no knowledge about case and denied demand of the amount.