STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MAGANBHAI JETHABHAI VAGHELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution case is that the respondent at the relevant time was serving as police constable at Mandal Police station in Viramgam Taluka. P. W. 1 Jehaji Ajuji was the resident of Mandal. According to the prosecution case the respondent-accused approached Jehaji and told him that he was dealing in illicit liquor and therefore should pay him an instalment of Rs. 100.00 per month. On this demand being made P. W. 1 Jehaji told the accused that he was a poor person and was not dealing in liquor and therefore it was not proper for him to pay him anything. Thereafter on that very day the complaint under sec. 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act was filed against the complainant He was werested and released on bail. The accused had also asked the complainant as to when he would pay him the amount and he had ultimately told him that he would pay the amount within a day or two. The accused told him to keep the amount ready and that he would collect it from his house at 8-0 P. M. Thereafter according to the prosecution case after taking advise of one Bhagwandas the complainant filed a complaint at Ahmedabad with Anti-Corruption Bureau (A. C. B ) office which complaint was recorded at Exh. 23 by P. W. 3 Police Inspector Vaghela. An amount of Rs. 75.00 was produced by the complainant before Police Inspector Vaghela and two panchas were brought. The panchas were apprised of the facts of the complaint and the currency notes were treated with anthracene powder. Necessary instructions were given to two panchas the complainant and the member of the raiding party. After completing the necessary formalities the required preliminary panchnama was completed at the A. C. B. office. At about 4-30 P. M. the members of the raiding party started to go to village Mandal in a jeep They went to the house of the complainant. Thereafter the prosecution case is that the complainant and panch no. 1 sat on a cot just near the house of the complainant. At about 10-15 P. M. the accused came and there was some talk. The accused left the place and he went on the road and he called the complainant there. Panch no. 1 followed the complainant on the road. The accused accepted the currency notes and placed the currency notes in the back pocket of his pant. The complainant gave agreed signal by lighting a bidi and the members of the raiding party rushed to the spot where the accused was caught by two constables by both of his hands and ultimately he was taken to police station where the currency notes were recovered from the pocket of his pant and with the help of ultra violet lamp the pocket of the pant of the accused the currency notes and his hands were seen and it was found that they were all stained with anthracene powder. The panchnama was completed. The numbers of the currency notes tallied with the numbers noted in the preliminary panchnama. A yadi was prepared in regard to the articles seized from the accused and the signatures of the panchas were obtained and the copy of the yadi was given to the accused. The statements of the members of the raiding party were recorded. The statement of the accused was also recorded and after obtaining the sanction the charge-sheet was filed against the accused and one another police constable. Ultimately at the trial three witnesses were examined; P. W. 1 Jehaji the complainant at Exh. 22 panch no. 1 Ranjising was examined as P. W. 2 at exh. 24 and Police Inspector Vaghela was examined as prosecution witness no. 3 at exh. 26.

(2.) The learned Public Prosecutor Shri Mehta read before as the entire evidence of the three witnesses. He strenuously urged before us that in this case panch witness Ranjising was an independent and respectable witness. In his presence the accused accepted the amount and the money ultimately was recovered from him. Police Inspector Vaghela who was present during the raid also testified in regard to the fact that the money was recovered from the back pocket of the pant of the accused. The complainant Jehaji supported the prosecution case in examination-in-chief while in corss-examination he deposed in an entirely different manner and gave a complete contradictory version. On the basis of the above evidence the learned Public Prosecutor Shri Mehta submitted that when the evidence of the panch was such on which reliance could be placed the prosecution did establish the case that the accused accepted the amount and once it was established that the accused accepted the amount the presumption under sec. 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act would arise. The learned Public Prosecutor Shri Mehta submitted that the learned Special Judge misread the two rulings referred to in his judgment and he thought that the corroboration was necessary to the evidence of the panch witness and therefore he recorded the acquittal. It was submitted that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is not sustainable and it was not at all a possible view. ... ... ... ...

(3.) Having gone through the judgment what we find is that the learned Special Judge thought that as the version given by the complainant differed with the version given by the panch witness the entire evidence was required to be thrown away and the learned Special Judge went to the extent of coming to the conclusion that unless there was corroboration in regard to the evidence of the panch witness his evidence cannot be accepted. ... ... ... ... ... [His Lordship after discussing the evidence further observed: ]