RATILAL GOVINDJI NAYAK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Code') in order to challenge the judgment and conviction order dated 20.7.1987 in Special Case No.2 of 1983 under which the learned Special Judge, Surat convicted the present appellant for offence punishable under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for three months. The trial court also directed the appellant to pay fine of Rupees two hundred. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further R.I. for 15 days. The appellant was also convicted for an offence punishable under section 161 of Indian Penal Code. However, no separate sentence was imposed on him for that offence.

(2.) The facts of the case of the prosecution before the trial court may be briefly stated as follows: In September, 1981, the present appellant was functioning as Talati-cum-Mantri, Group Gram Panchayat in Palsana Taluka of Surat District and as such he was a public servant. The informant had filed a FIR before the concerned police station on 22.9.1981. It seems that about 3-4 months prior to the date of filing of FIR, the informant Dayaram Zaverbhai Mistry was required to have mutation of entries of agricultural land in his name on the basis of a will executed by his father. It seems that the said informant approached the appellant for the said purpose and, therefore, the appellant prepared certain notices and other documents and handed over the same to the said informant. Thereafter, the petitioner also required certified copies of the mutation entries made in his name. The informant approached the appellant and at that time, the appellant told him that the will did not contain the signature of the father of the informant and the informant was, therefore, required to spend some amount for the said mutation purpose. On enquiry, the appellant made it clear that the informant would be required to pay a sum of Rs. 400.00 for making entry and Rs.100.00 for supplying copies of Village form VII - VII A, XII etc. Therefore, the appellant in all demanded Rs.500/from the informant. At that stage, the informant told him that he did not have money with him and, therefore, he would pay the same afterwards. This episode took place, according to the case of the prosecution, on 22.9.1981. Thereafter the informant, according to the case of the prosecution, consulted his friends and he was given to understand that if money was not paid, the work would not be done and since the informant was a resident of U.K., it would not be possible for the informant to again come to India for the said purpose. Ultimately, the informant approached the Police Inspector of Anti Corruption Bureau and filed his FIR which was reduced into writing and the informant was told to come to the ACB office on the next morning. Accordingly the informant went to the said office on 23.9.1981. The ACB Police Officer had already invited two persons as panchas from the office of the Sales Tax Commissioner. They were introduced to the informant and the informant was introduced to the panchas.

(3.) At the instance of the police officer, the informant had given details of his grievance to the panchas in a brief manner and then the FIR filed by the informant was also read over to the panchas and their signatures were obtained thereon. Thereafter, Police Sub-Inspector Puwar brought anthracene powder and explained ultra violet lamp and showed experiment with respect to the use of ultra violet lamp and anthracene powder and the characteristics thereof. Thereafter, the informant supplied currency notes of Rs.500.00 (Five notes of Rs.100.00 each). Anthracene powder was applied on those currency notes and when they were seen under the ultraviolet lamp, it was noticed that light blue fluorescence was visible on those notes. Thereafter, the said currency notes were placed in the upper pocket of the T-shirt of the informant and he was told not to touch them till the demand was made by the appellant. The first panch was told to accompany the informant and witness what may happen in his presence. Preliminary panchnama was drawn and thereafter two panchas, informant and the police officers and other police personnel started to go to the office of the appellant. They reached the said office and the informant and panch no.1 were required to enter the office of the appellant whereas panch no.2 and the Police Inspector and other police personnel occupied their position outside the office.