STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ASHOKKUMAR CHHABILDAS MISTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15th October, 1993 passed by the learned Special Judge in Special Case No.24 of 1991 whereby, she has acquitted the respondents (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") of the charges levelled against them.

(2.) THE facts of the present case are that one Ibrahimbhai Mustakbhai Shaikh, resident of Bungalow No.124, Mustak Society, Vatva, Ahmedabad, lodged a complaint stating that his society does not have sewerage lines and hence maintains cesspools. Upon the cesspools getting filled up, the same were got cleaned by the employees of the Sanitary Department of the Municipal Corporation. There was a common cesspool between seven bungalows. Shri Wasimbhai Siddiki, resident of Bungalow No.122 of their society, on 18.8.1990, got a complaint registered with the office of the Sanitary Department of the Municipal Corporation for cleaning up the said cesspool; however, the same was not being cleaned. Wasimbhai Siddiki had time and again gone to the said office but there was no response thereto. Hence, he himself had gone to the said office for such purpose but to no avail. Then on the previous day, that is, on 13.9.1990, he had sent his friend Shri Nazir Nabubhai Ajmeri (hereinafter referred to as "Ajmeri"), resident of Delhi Chakla, Ahmedabad between 12.00 to 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon to visit the concerned office for the purpose of cleaning of the cesspool, at that time, the officers sitting there, whose names he did not know, one was a heavily built and dark person and the other person whose name was Bipin, were sitting there, and both the said persons had told Ajmeri that for the purpose of getting the work done, he would have to understand. Upon asking them what he was required to understand, they had said that if he wanted the cesspool to be cleaned expeditiously, he would be required to pay them Rs.50/- and it was only after such money was received that the work would be done, otherwise the work would not be done. Ajmeri had told the said officers that he had not brought such amount with him, whereupon they had told him that he should come and pay such amount by the evening of 14.9.1990, after which his work would be done. The aforesaid facts were narrated to the complainant by Ajmeri. Since the complainant did not want to pay any amount by way illegal gratification for getting his legal work done, he approached the Anti Corruption Bureau for taking necessary action in this regard. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, preparations were made for laying a trap by the ACB after which, necessary procedure was followed. Subsequently, the complaint came to be registered and investigation came to be carried out. After obtaining sanction to prosecute the respondents, the charge-sheet against the accused came to be submitted on 22.8.1991. After framing the charge, evidence was recorded and upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the court found that the prosecution had not proved its case against the accused and acquitted them of all the charges levelled against them.

(3.) REFERRING to the impugned judgement and order, it was submitted that the learned Judge has misdirected herself in doubting the motive of the complainant in not acting as the decoy witness himself and instead sending Ajmeri. It was submitted that it was Ajmeri from whom the demand had been made, and as such as a necessary corollary it was he who was required to be made a decoy witness.