STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VASANTRAV CHANGURAV PAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant ­ State of Gujarat has called in question the judgment and order dated 7 th January, 1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Special (Corruption) Case No.8/1995 whereby he has acquitted the respondent of the charges levelled against him under sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) THE complainant ­ Yohanbhai Holiyabhai Gamit who, at the relevant time, was serving as the police constable in the State Reserve Police Force, Group II, Vav, District Surat and was posted at Godhra lodged a complaint with the Anti- Corruption Bureau, Godhra stating that he was serving as a police constable in the aforesaid Group since February, 1992 and was in the 'D' Company. His company was posted at Bharuch for bandobast at which point of time on health grounds, he had remained absent from service and had gone to his village Pipalkuva in Songadh taluka and was accordingly absent from 18th July, 1994 to 4th October, 1994. On 5th October, 1994, he had reported before the Senapati at Vav and was given a relieving order and he reached Godhra late at night on 6th October, 1994 and reported to his Company Commander V.C. Puwar. He talked to his RAW head who was known as Babuji and requested him to pay him his arrears and TA dues, whereupon he sent him to the Company Commander. He approached the said officer and asked him to pay him his Government dues whereupon he had asked him as to what amount he would give him. In response thereto, he has said that his position was bad to which he had said that he should give him Rs.200/- otherwise since he had the habit of remaining absent time and again, he would submit an adverse report against him and since he was only a recruit, he would be sent home. That he had agreed to give him Rs.200/- and the accused had told him that he should first come and pay him Rs.200/- and then he would get his money; that he had arranged for Rs.200/- and come and lodged the complaint since he did not want to give the amount of illegal gratification demanded by the accused. Pursuant to the complaint, a trap was laid by soiling four currency notes of the denomination of Rs.50/- and carrying out the ultraviolet lamp procedure and after which the raiding party proceeded towards the ACB office. The complainant was accompanied by the panch No.1 whereas the other members of the raiding party and the panch No.2 were following behind them. As per the prosecution case, the accused had accepted Rs.200/- from the complainant and in this manner, had accepted illegal gratification and thereby committed the offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Pursuant thereto, investigation came to be carried out and upon conclusion of the investigation; the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet before the concerned court. The case was numbered as Special Case No.8/95(Corruption). The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the respondent and accordingly acquitted him of the charges levelled against him.

(3.) VEHEMENTLY opposing the appeal, Mr. Jayesh Dave, learned advocate for the respondent drew the attention of the court to the deposition of the witnesses. It was pointed out that the complainant in his deposition has stated that he had approached the ACB office on 8th October, 1994 and had introduced himself to P.I. Shri Pandey and had narrated the entire incident to him. That Shri Pandey had identified himself and had taken down his complaint whereas the prosecution has not examined P.I. Pandey as a witness but has examined P.I. Shri N.J. Pathan instead. As per the deposition of P.I. Pathan, the complainant had lodged the complaint with him and it was he who had taken down the complaint. Thus, there is a basic inconsistency in the evidence led by the prosecution which goes to the root of the matter as to who had taken down the complaint and as to who had conducted the trap proceeding. It was submitted that though in the deposition of the complainant, reference is made only to P.I. Pandey having registered the complaint and having conducted the trap proceeding, in the panchnama there is reference to both P.I. Shri Pandey and Shri Pathan whereas according to the deposition of Shri Pandey, he was the main person who had arranged the trap and who had recorded the complaint of the complainant.