BIMAL AMTHAGIRI GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BIMAL Amthagiri Goswami, the appellant original accused of Criminal Appeal has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.11.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No.9, Ahmedabad City, in Special Case No.13 of 1993, whereby, the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/,in default, to undergo further R.I. for one month. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/,in default, to undergo further R.I. for one month. The learned Judge has ordered the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The accused No.2 is acquitted from the charges.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: On 17.2.1991 complainant Nadim Salman Saiyad has lodged a complaint before A.C.B. at Ahmedabad. He had one friend named Sunil Champaklal Dixit, who had married to one Rachna who was studying with him, he having love affair with her. After the marriage, Sunil and Rachna were residing with the complainant at the house of the complainant. In June 1990, Sunil went to America leaving Rachna at Gandhinagar with his parents. But Rachna had no good terms with her motherinlaw and brotherinlaw as they were torturing her and so she had left her husband's place and came to reside with the complainant. She got job as designer in Gujarat Handloom and Handicraft Corporation in October, 1990 and was posted at Bhuj but she was frequently visiting Ahmedabad and at that time she was staying at the complainant's place. Meanwhile Sunil returned from America and quarrel took place between Sunil and Rachna. On 15.2.1991, Rachna was alone at the house of complainant and Sunil had gone to Gandhinagar. At about 11:00 a.m. complainant went out of the house for his business and Rachna was alone at his place. He returned his home at about 1:00 p.m. but the door of his house was closed. He pushed the door and opened it and found Rachna lying on the floor and her Dupatta was hanging from the ceiling fan. As Rachna was dead, the complainant informed Satellite Police Station. The postmortem was also carried out on the dead body of Rachna at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and at that time, the complainant, Sunil and Sunil's brother were taken to FSL where during the recess time i.e. on 16.2.1991 at about 14:30 hours one person met him who gave him address of doctor who performed the postmortem and also told him to meet Dr.Goswami at the above address and that his work will be done nicely and that Dr.Goswami will help him. However, he did not go there at that time. He went to Police Station i.e. Satellite Police Station at night time at about 9:15 p.m. with his brother where the person who had met him in FSL office told him to go to Dr.Goswami's place, he met him there again and inquired about his meeting with Dr.Goswami but he told that he did not meet the doctor. Then he insisted him to meet Dr.Goswami and recommended that Dr.Goswami is a good man and that he will help him. Thereafter, the complainant, his brother and his friend went to Dr.Goswami's place at 9:30 p.m. Dr. Goswami welcomed them and asked them to sit in the room. As soon as the complainant gave his name, the doctor immediately told that Rachna's case is complicated one and that he will be put in difficulty and in that case his decision will be final and with a view to meet him, he has not given his final report in the matter. By giving this consolation, he took the brother of the complainant at some distance and told him to finish whole work in favour of complainant and he demanded Rs.50,000/.Salim conveyed the same to the complainant that he will have to pay Rs.50,000/. Thereupon, the complainant and Salim both requested Dr. Goswami and after some persuasion Dr. Goswami agreed to accept Rs.9,000/and demanded Rs.9,000/and he agreed to give report in favour of the complainant if Rs.9,000/is paid to him. The complainant agreed to pay the said amount and promised to pay the same by evening on 17.2.1991. They returned home. He had no wish to give this bribe amount and consequently, the complainant approached office of the Anti Corruption Bureau. After receipt of complaint, panchas were called, bribe amount was given by the complainant, anthracene powder was applied on the currency notes produced by the complainant. After performing all the formalities and drawing preliminary panchnama they carried out the raid by giving appropriate instructions to the panchas, complainant and other members of the raiding party, raid was successfully carried out. Dr.Goswami was found with currency notes which were recovered from the floor of his house, which he had brought on the floor after the raid of A.C.B. party. Panchnama was completed at Vejalpur police chowky, neighbours of Dr.Goswami assembled there. So after the raid was carried out, panchnama was completed and after due investigation chargesheet was submitted before the Court.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the charge was framed against the appellant to which the appellant accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.