JITENDRAKUMAR JAYANTILAL DHRUVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the original accused/convict of Special Case No.5 of 1984 tried by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar, for the offences punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code r/w. Sections 5(1)(A), 5(1)(D) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Judge imposed different penalties on conviction i.e.under Section 5(1)(D) r/w. 5(2) of the Act rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.500/- and six months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Special Judge has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 5(1)(A) r/w. 5(2) of the Act.

(2.) To appreciate the rival contentions placed before the Court, it will be necessary to have a close look on the case of the prosecution.

(3.) It is the say of the prosecution that thereafter the complainant and panch no.1 returned to Mr.Sarvaiya, Police Inspector, and informed him about the same. Thereafter, again at about 08-45 p.m. both these prosecution witnesses went to the residence of the appellant-accused and by that time, the appellant-accused had returned home. The appellant-accused had put on 'Lungi' and 'Banyan' and on seeing the complainant, the appellant asked him as to when he had come and the complainant explained that he had come earlier but as he was not present, he had come again. It is the say of the prosecution that the appellant in turn replied that he returned home at about 08-30 p.m. as he was out of station. The appellant thereafter took both of them to the room on the first floor and both set on a cot lying in the room. The appellant asked the complainant about the panch no.1 and the complainant as decided told that the said person is his cousin brother (Masi's son). It is alleged that then a positive demand was made by the appellant and the complainant was asked as to whether he had brought the amount and if he had brought the same then he should give it to him and thereafter alleged to have said that the appellant had taken a lot of trouble in getting the permission and thereupon he demanded money. The complainant thereafter took out the smeared muddamal currency notes from the left side pocket of the shirt with his right hand and the appellant accepted the amount with his right hand. It is the say of the prosecution that then the appellant counted the currency notes with both the hands and put the said notes in a file lying on the books in the cupboard. Thereafter, the complainant came out of the entrance room popularly known as 'Dehli' on excuse of replying for natural call and spread his left hand on the head and thereby gave a signal. It is contended by the prosecution that on the signal, the Police Inspector Mr.Sarvaiya of the raiding party and other members rushed to the room on the first floor and carried out the trap. On gathering instructions from the appellant, the Police Inspector Mr.Sarvaiya found that the muddamal currency notes are lying in the file and it was there in the cupboard, which was there in the room. Then the experiment by using U.V.(ultraviolet) lamp was carried out. It is the say of the prosecution that while examining the hands of the appellant, both the hands including the finger tips were found with fluorescent blue colour indicating presence of anthracene powder. In the same way, the clothes put on by the appellant were also found with fluorescent marks on certain places. Thereafter, on instructions from the Police Inspector Mr.Sarvaiya, the panch no.1 took out the currency notes from the file and according to panch no.1 who took out the currency notes, were also examined under U.V. lamp and when ultimately it was found that the said notes are the very notes which were smeared with anthracene powder and described in the panchnama and thereafter the second part of panchnama was drawn.