STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAMNIKLAL AMRUTLAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th November, 1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Surendranagar in Special Case No.31 of 1991, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent of the offences punishable under section 7 read with sections 12, 13(1)(d and 13(2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Lalitchandra Ichchhashankar Joshi was working as a cook in the Government circuit house at Limbdi. One Ujiben was working as a daily wager at the same circuit house. Ujiben's son Mansukh was residing separately but their ration card was a joint one. Ujiben, therefore, requested the complainant to go to the Mamlatdar Office and get the ration card bifurcated. Accordingly, on 1st and 2nd May, 1990, the complainant went to the office of the Mamlatdar, Limbdi, where he met the accused who was working as a clerk in the said department. The accused told him to bring the ration card of Dalabhai Jesabhai as well as the certificate of Hareshbhai, son of Mansukhbhai, whose name was also to be inserted. He also told him to bring Rs.70/- by way of expenses for himself and the Deputy Mamlatdar (Civil Supplies), hence, he (the complainant had told the accused that on the next day, he would give him the ration card and the certificate. On 2nd May, 1990 in the afternoon, he met the accused at his office and gave him the ration card as well as the certificate of Mansukhbhai's son, whereupon the accused asked him for Rs.70/- by way of a bribe. Whereupon, he had asked him whether the amount was common for himself as well as the Mamlatdar, to which the accused had replied in the affirmative. The complainant had, then, told him that he did not have Rs.70/- with him and that on the next day, that is, on 3rd May, 1990, he would bring the money and had told him to prepare the card and keep it with him, in response to which, the accused told him that he should first pay the amount, after which, the work would be done. He had, therefore, told the accused that he would come on the next day in the afternoon. Since the complainant did not want to pay the amount by way of illegal gratification, on 3rd May, 1990, he went to the A.C.B. Office at Surendranagar and lodged the complaint. Thereafter, he had handed over Rs.70/- at the A.C.B. Office, after which, two panchas were summoned and anthracene powder was applied on the said notes and the necessary procedure regarding ultraviolet lamp came to be followed. Thereafter, the raiding party proceeded towards Limbdi, where the complainant went to the Civil Supplies Office and met the accused, who demanded illegal gratification from the complainant. After the complainant handed over the amount to the accused, he accepted the same and put it in a ration card. At this point of time, the complainant gave the predetermined signal, whereupon the raiding party entered the premises. The amount was recovered and the ultraviolet lamp procedure was followed and the remaining part of the panchnama was drawn. Thereafter, investigation came to be carried out and charge-sheet came to be submitted before the concerned court. The charge came to be framed against the accused for the offences under section 7 and/or under section 7 read with sections 12, 13(1)(d and 13(2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(3.) MR . H. K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, assailed the impugned judgment and order by submitting that the order of acquittal is contrary to law and the evidence on record. It was submitted that the prosecution, through the deposition of the complainant, which finds corroboration in the panchnama, has duly proved the demand, acceptance and illegal gratification. Through the deposition of the Investigating Officer, complainant and other witnesses, the prosecution had also duly established recovery of such amount. However, the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective and has held that the charges levelled against the accused have not been established.