NURUDIN RAJABALI VINDHANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant, accused has challenged judgment and order dated 17.11.2003 passed by learned Special Judge, Amreli, in Special Case No.8 of 2000 whereby he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and ordered to pay fine of Rs.10,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment of six months was imposed.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that Muljibhai Laxmanbhai is resident of village -Chamardi. He is claiming to be a social worker and leading person who was keeping a jeep for removing sick persons to the hospital. Jivanbhai, who happens to be the husband of Dayaben, PW -4, is his neighbour. Dayaben was suffering from the disease of kidney. As there was pain in the stomach of Dayaben, Jivanbhai requested Muljibhai to accompany him to doctor at Babara. Since Dr.Vindhani, the accused herein, was known to Muljibhai, they went to his residence, who examined Dayaben and gave medicine to her at the cost of Rs.20/ -. After ten days, Dayaben again fall sick, therefore, Jivanbhai went to Muljibhai and told him that his wife is not keeping well but it is not fair on the part of the doctor to take money and, therefore, they decided to lodge a complaint against the accused before Dayaben could be taken to the doctor for treatment. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged before ACB Police Station. The panchas were called and a trap was arranged. Thereafter, they went to the residence of the accused, he examined Dayaben and asked to admit her. He also gave medicines to Dayaben and injection was also administered to her by the accused. Thereafter, they went to the house of the accused and asked as to how much fees is required to be paid. At this juncture, the accused demanded Rs.80/ - in lieu of administering injection and finger blackter solution. Thereupon, notes smeared with anthrecene powder were given to the accused and trap was successfully completed. After obtaining necessary sanction under Section 19 of the Act, prosecution was launched against the accused for offence under Sections 7, 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act. When the accused was summoned by the Special Judge, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, he was tried by the learned Special Judge and the prosecution has examined five witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution also relied on five documents in support of its case. At the conclusion of the trial, the appellant came to be convicted by the learned trial Judge. The appellant has challenged his conviction by filing present appeal. Para 3 to 5 XXX XXX XXX

(3.) Considering the aforesaid provision of the Act, the prosecution as to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. I have gone through the materials on record. From the evidence on record it is clear that the accused had given medicine and injection to Dayaben and he was trying to save her life since the medicines were not available in the hospital. It is also clear that the amount which was demanded by him was for replacement of the injections, for which he was entitled to. Oral testimony of Muljibhai go to show that it was Jivan, who told him that the doctor had asked for replacement money. It was clearly told by the accused that the money was for the injections which were administered by him to the patient from his own medical box. Therefore, can it be said that the accused had demanded money for illegal gratification. Even while going through the evidence of the complainant, it cannot be said that there was demand of illegal gratification. Therefore, it goes to show that there is no demand on the part of the present appellant. I fail to understand how can this be said to be demand on the part of the present appellant. The learned trial Judge in his lengthy judgment has brushed aside the submissions made on behalf of the present appellant. Present appellant was asking for the amount of injections which were administered by him, therefore, it cannot be said that he had demanded illegal gratification. The term illegal gratification has been explained in catena of decisions by the Apex Court. In the present case, the accused had treated Dayaben and he has asked for the charges of medicines and injections, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any demand of illegal gratification on the part of the present appellant. The prosecution case falls to the ground on the cardinal principles that demand, acceptance and recovery are not proved. Therefore, in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. In the case of C.Sukumaran v. State of Kerala reported in 2015 (1) Crimes 130 (SC), the Honourable Apex Court observed as under: -