CHANDRASINH ISHWARBAVA RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was put on trial for the commission of the offences under Section 7 and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred ?the Act?). THE learned Additional Special Judge, Vadodara, in Special Case No.26 of 1993 passed judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.11.2000, whereby the learned Special Judge was pleased to convict the appellant-accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and awarded sentence to the appellant to suffer R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to further undergo S.I. for one year. For the offence punishable under Section 13 of the Act, the appellant was ordered to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, i/d, to further undergo S.I. for 1 year. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, at the relevant time, the appellant ? accused was serving as Head Constable at Sankheda Police Station and was investigating officer in one complaint lodged against Balwantsinh Hamirsinh, who is complainant in this case. During the course of investigation, the appellant ? accused had demanded Rs.1000/- as bribe from the complainant and finally the deal was fixed at Rs.700/-. Therefore, the complainant approached the ACB office. Thereafter, as per the plan of the ACB Office to carry out trap, the complainant, his father-in-law and panch witness had gone to Sankehda Police Station, but on that day i.e. 9.6.1993, the accused was not available and therefore, the trap could not be successful. Therefore, the complainant, his father-in-law and panch witness again went to Sankehda Police on 10.6.1993 and the complainant gave Rs.700/- smeared with anthracene powder to the accused as illegal gratification and the accused accepted the said amount and thereby the accused has committed offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Harnish V. Darji, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the judgment and order is bad in law and against the evidence on record. Even framing of charge and examination of the accused are not in conformity with the provisions of the Code. He further submitted that presumption cannot be drawn against the appellant because on mere receipt of the money and it must be further proved that the money was received by way of bribe. The complainant had stated in his evidence that the appellant had not made any demand of bribe amount from him, but it was the money lent by the original accused which was repaid by the complainant. He further submitted that the offence cannot be said to have been proved without proof of acceptance of money as bribe. He further submitted that the prosecution has not furnished any explanation for not using Phenolphthalein Powder and when currency notes are not treated with anthracene powder, scientific proof is not available. He further submitted that the evidence of the complainant and panch witness and other police witnesses are contradictory to each other in material particular and hence, it is fatal the case of prosecution. The panch witnesses and other members of the raiding party are interested witnesses and even their depositions do not inspire any confidence. He further submitted that it is not proved that the appellant had accepted any illegal gratification and that it was as a motive or reward for doing or forbidding to do any official act or for showing any favour in the exercise of official function. Mr. Darji, learned advocate submitted that the investigation carried out and sanction granted, were without any authority of law and without application of mind. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not followed the provisions under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in true letter and spirit.