STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MANHARBHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th November, 1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No.12, Ahmedabad in Special Case No.22/1992 whereby he has acquitted the respondents (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") for the charges levelled against them under section 7 and section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) THE charge against the accused is to the effect that at the relevant time, viz., in October, 1991, and more particularly on 12th October, 1991, both the accused were holding posts of Police Constable and were discharging duties as such and were, therefore, public servants. On 12 th October, 1991, both the accused were discharging duties in connection with the anti-reservation agitation near New Era School at Shah-Alam Roza Road in Ahmedabad city at which point of time accused No.1 ­ Manharbhai Bhikhabhai Patel under the guise of entry fee, demanded illegal gratification from driver Kanubha Mahobbatsinh of Tractor No.GUH-7364. The accused No.2 had abetted the accused No.1 and in connivance with him, demanded Rs.20/- by way of illegal gratification and the same had been accepted by the accused No.1. In this manner, they had committed the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Similarly, by accepting Rs.20/- by way of illegal gratification, they had also committed the offence punishable under section 13(1)(d)(1) and (2) as well as section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) MR . K.P. Rawal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor took the court through the depositions of the witnesses as well as the record of the case. It was submitted that though the driver Kanubha had turned hostile, the prosecution had established its case through the evidence of the panch witness and the Investigating Officer whose evidence was not shaken by the prosecution even during the course of cross- examination. It was pointed out that anthracene marks were found both on the note which was recovered from the accused No.1 as well as on the newspaper where the note was kept. It was submitted that from the evidence of the panch and the Investigating Officer, the factum of demand, acceptance and recovery stand established and are corroborated by the panchnama. Hence, the incident has been duly proved by the prosecution. Referring to the deposition of the panch witnesses, it was pointed out that the panch No.2- Prakashchandra Shankarlal has deposed regarding the demand of Rs.20/- made for the purpose of entry and the acceptance and recovery thereof which finds corroboration in the deposition of Mr. Pathan, the Investigating Officer who, in his deposition, has stated that he had also witnessed the incident as he was standing close by. It was submitted that thus the fact regarding demand, acceptance and recovery of the illegal gratification stands established through the testimony of the two eye-witnesses both of whom are independent witnesses and have no interest in falsely implicating the accused. Under the circumstances, the learned Judge was not justified in not accepting the evidence led by these two witnesses.