STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KANJIBHAI CHIMANBHAI PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the common judgment and order dated 30.05.2000, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Court No.6, Ahmedabad City, in Special Case No.34 of 1996 and Special Case No.7 of 1999.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that one Baldevbhai Vishabhai Desai lodged a complaint with the Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau ("ACB" for short), on 26.09.1989, against the original accused, who are alleged to have demanded and accepted illegal gratification. As per the complaint, the complainant was serving as a Teacher in Meghraj Primary School. As his son was an agriculturist, the complainant also helped him in doing agricultural work. There were no facilities for irrigation in the village of the complainant, therefore, the fields were irrigated through water from Wells. However, as drought conditions had prevailed for the past many years, the Wells no longer had any water. Viramgam Taluka, where the village of the complainant was situated, was declared as a drought affected area. A cooperative society named Shri Jay Ranchhod Piyat Sahakari Mandali ("the Society" for short), was formed with a view to obtain loans and subsidies for the purpose of digging Borewells, by 54 members, in the year 1987. The said Society made a proposal to the Gujarat Water Resources Development Board, Gandhinagar, for digging Borewells, which was sanctioned. In anticipation of sanction from the Director of District Rural Development Agency, the Society started the work of the Borewell even before it obtained registration, on 01.07.1988. The work was handed over to a private company and the Borewell was ready on 12.09.1988. However, the sanction for the Borewell was not received from the District Rural Development Agency. It is further stated in the compliant that the Society had spent Rs.1 lakh for the work and the proposal was made for Rs.2,62,295/ with the recommendation of the Taluka Development Officer, who had forwarded it to the District Panchayat, through the Executive Engineer. In spite of efforts, the proposal was not sanctioned on account of some defect, which was removed by the Society. The proposal was resent by the Taluka Development Officer to the District Rural Development Agency on 03.07.1989. After about one month, the members of the society met one Mr.Mahendrakumar Manshankar Mehta, Director of the District Rural Development Agency (original accused No.2), who is purported to have informed that "in such a big work, you have to understand some transaction". He told them that they should see one Mr.Kanjibhai Chimanbhai Parmar (respondent accused No.1), working as Workcharge Clerk, who sat in the Construction Branch of the City Taluka Panchayat Office and their work would be done. The complainant, therefore, approached accused No.1 who is purported to have told them that they are taking amounts at the rate of 10% of the proposal, and, accordingly, for the present proposal, the amount would come to Rs.20,000/. However, they would take Rs.15,000/ only. The respondent is purported to have further told the complainant that the loan would be given in three installments and he would have to pay Rs.5,000/ at the time of each installment, which he would then hand over to Mr.Mehta, original accused No.2. The complainant told accused No.1 that he would arrange the money and come on 25.09.1989. As per the case of the complainant, he approached accused No.1 with Rs.2,000/ but he refused to take this amount and told the complainant that he should come with Rs.5,000/ on 26.09.1989 during office hours. The complainant did not want to give the illegal gratification, hence, a complaint was filed by him with the ACB. The Police Inspector of ACB, Mr.Jayeshkumar Hiralal Solanki (PW3), called the Panch witnesses and made the arrangements for laying of trap. After following the necessary procedure, a Panchnama was drawn at the spot. The accused were arrested and investigation commenced. Due sanction was obtained for prosecution of the accused from the sanctioning authority and after investigation, the chargesheet was submitted against both the accused. The case against accused No.1 ­ Kanjibhai Chimanbhai Parmar (respondent herein) was registered as Special Case No.34 of 1996 whereas case against accused No.2 ­ Mahendrakumar Manshankar Mehta was registered as Special Case No.7 of 1999. The charges were framed against the accused in both cases which were read over and explained to them. Both the accused persons pleaded "not guilty" and claimed to be tried. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses was over, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. They pleaded not guilty of the charges against them and both accused have filed further written explanations in their defence. As both cases arose from the same incident, common evidence was recorded. Having appreciated and evaluated the evidence on record, the Trial Court recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused, giving rise to the filing of the present appeal.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor then submits that in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short), there is a strong presumption regarding demand of the illegal gratification by the accused. The acceptance thereof is proved by the Seizure Memo as well as the testimonies of PW2 and PW3. Therefore, as demand and acceptance have been proved, the Trial Court ought not to have recorded a finding of acquittal.