STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. A V RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this Criminal Revision Application preferred under section 397 read with section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure is to the impugned order dated 7.7.2007, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Special Case No. 14/2006, whereby, the respondent herein, who was original accused no. 2 in said special case, came to be discharged under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) AS per the prosecution case, there were, in all, three accused persons including the respondent herein, and out of them, original accused no. 1 Mr. Bamniya, who was serving as Superintendent in the Excise Department in Service Tax Branch, at Vadodara, demanded illegal gratification, initially, in the sum of Rs. 1000/-, and thereafter, settled to Rs. 500/- from the original complainant Kiransinh Fatehsinh Parmar, but the said amount allegedly came to be accepted on 21.11.2005 by the original accused no. 3 Mr. R.V. Solanki, who was serving as a Sipohy in the Excise Department. So far as the respondent ? original accused no. 2 Mr. A.V. Ramesh, who was at the relevant time, serving as Inspector in the said department is concerned, the case is to the effect that he relegated the complainant Kiransinh Fatehsinh Parmar to the original accused no. 3 - R.V. Solanki for the purpose of payment. In the impugned order, the Sessions Court, examining the FIR and the relevant police papers, came to the conclusion that so far as the charge regarding demand of illegal gratification was concerned, the same was qua original accused no. 1 - Mr. Bamniya and at the time of alleged raid, original accused no. 3 - Mr. Solanki accepted the currency notes. It was, therefore, observed that so far as the opponent - original accused no. 2 is concerned, he neither demanded illegal gratification from the complainant nor accepted the gratification at the time of raid. The Sessions Court further observed by examining the papers that so far as role attributed to the opponent ? original accused no. 2 that he told the complainant to go to the original accused no. 3, does not make himself an offender as provided either under section 7 or section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, as none of the ingredients regarding demanding or accepting gratification for himself or on behalf of other would apply to the opponent ? original accused no. 2.

(3.) I have examined the impugned order rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, regarding discharge of the respondent ? original accused no. 2, so also, the relevant papers annexed with this revision application. Admittedly, there is no dispute that so far as accused no. 2 is concerned, he neither demanded any gratification from the complainant nor at the time of alleged raid, he accepted the same. As per the prosecution case, the demand was made by original accused no. 1 - Mr. Bamniya, but at the time of raid, the gratification amount was accepted by the original accused no. 3 - Mr. Solanki on behalf of original accused no. 1 - Mr. Bamniya. The prosecution alleged that the opponent ? original accused no. 2 told the complainant to go before the accused no. 3 and to pay the money as directed by original accused no. 1 - Mr. Bamniya. Under such circumstances, so far as the position of respondent- original accused no. 2 is concerned, he neither demanded gratification amount nor accepted the same. It is not the prosecution case that the original accused no. 3 - Mr. Solanki accepted the amount of gratification either on behalf of opponent ? original accused no. 2 or on behalf of both the accused, namely, original accused no. 1 and 2. From the very beginning, the prosecution case is that the gratification amount was demanded by accused no. 1, which came to be accepted by the accused no. 3 on behalf of accused no. 1. It is true that after the discharge of accused no. 2, the special case came to be tried against original accused no. 1 and 3 and vide judgment and order dated 14.5.2008, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, recorded acquittal of those two accused persons. There is also no dispute that the said acquittal order is under challenge before this Court. However, the important aspect is that, in para-23 in the said judgment and order, relying upon the documentary evidence, so far as accused no. 2 is concerned, the trial court came to the conclusion that the accused no. 2 was not present in the room where trap was made, but he was available at different place, called 'control room' in the office. In the wake of above situation, so far as the presence of accused no. 2, at the time of raid, itself can be said to be in dispute. However, as a matter of fact, so far as role attributed to accused no. 2 is concerned, he is not much concerned whether remaining two persons are acquitted or convicted, but so far as his role is concerned, as well as considering the required ingredients contained under section 7 or under section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are considered, it clearly transpires that the accused no. 2 was not the person who had accepted or who had obtained or had agreed to accept, either for himself or for any other persons, any gratification.