NARESHKUMAR HARMANBHAI BRAHMBHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to the present Appeal as they emerges from the judgment of the Sessions Case are that :-

(2.) Accused No. 1 was serving as Police Constable in Crime Branch of Ahmedabad City in the month of July 1984 and his Buckle Number was 5807. His duty at the relevant time was to accompany the members of Cattle Impounding Party of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City is his appointing and removing authority. Accused No. 2, the appellant of Appeal No. 79/85 runs Tea Kettle (described as "Tea Lorry' by the Special Judge) on the footpath near the public road, outside Police Commissioner's office in Shahibag Area, Ahmedabad. The said Kettle, as it emerges from the evidence, belonged to some police official. The complainant of this case Sagarbhai Velabhai Rabari resides in a hut situated in Patel Society, beside New Madhupura Market in Shahibag Area, Ahmedabad and he keeps 8 cows and two buffaloes in his cattle shed which are leathered near his hut and he sells milk. It emerges from the evidence that the complainant Sagarbhai used to take his cattle to river Sabarmati for drinking water on its bank near Naranghat daily between 9.00 and 11.00 a. m. and for that purpose he was required to pass by the road near to the Police Commissioner's office where the kettle of accused No. 2 is situated. It emerges in the evidence that accused No. 1 came to know the complainant Sagarbhai before 4 to 5 days from the date of the trap in which the accused were caught. It is the case of the prosecution that at that time the accused No. 1 was accompanying the Cattle Impounding Party as a member of police. The evidence suggests that the complainant Sagarbhai came to know accused No. 2 for the last 5 to 6 months prior to the aforesaid trap. He was vending tea in the area. It is the case of the prosecution that the members of the Cattle Impounding Party used to catch cattle straying on the public road or streets and used to impound them in the cattle pound. It is the case of the prosecution that prior to the raid which was carried on 11-7-1984, on 9-7-1984, at about 10-30, the complainant Sagarbhai was taking tea on the Kettle of one Mahomedan, which is situated near the kettle of accused No. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No. 1 met the complainant and told him that if he wanted to take the cattle on the public road, then he should pay Rs. 60/- and if the said amount was not paid, his cattle would be impounded. According to the prosecution the complainant Sagarbhai told the accused that he was a poor person and would not be able to pay the amount right then and begged for time of two days whereupon accused No. 1 is said to have told him that as the members of the Cattle Impounding Party daily come near the Police Commissioner's office at about 9-00 o'clock he should pay the amount demanded after two days, meaning thereby on 11-7-1984.

(3.) The complainant Sagarbhai was not inclined to pay the said amount as per his evidence and therefore he inquired about the office of Anti- Corruption Bureau and on the succeeding day, i.e. on 10-7-1984 approached the Authority there. He happened to meet P. I. A. H. Mankodi who is examined as Prosecution Witness No. 3 at Ex. 22 and he acquainted him with the procedure and asked him to come with Rs. 60/-on the next day early in the morning. Accordingly, the complainant met the said Mr. Mankodi at about 6.15 a.m. on 11-7-1984. It is in evidence that thereafter P.I. Mankodi went in search of the Panchas and secured the assistance of one Arvind Maneklal Gajjar, who is examined as P.W. No. 2 at Ex. 18, and one Dhirendra Keshavlal Patel. He processed the raid for the usual method, i.e. applied anthracene powder on the currency notes, prepared a preliminary panchnama at the A.C.B. Office, detailing therein the procedure that was followed and the modus thought of proceeding thereafter. In the panchnama the numbers of the notes which were three in number, were noted to make sure of their passage to the hands of the culprits, if they accept.