STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DHIRAJLAL MAGANLAL GOHIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.4.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhavnagar in Special Case No.5 of 1988, whereby, the learned trial Judge acquitted the original accused the respondent herein, of the charges for the offence punishable under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sec. 161 of IPC.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused was serving in 1987 at Sihor in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board at Bhyavnagar District. He was serving as a public servant on the post of Deputy Executive engineer. That there was a contract given to one Maganbhai Bhimjibhai Patel at village Dhankankuda for digging well and for construction. That the work was approximately of Rs. 1 lac. The complainant had prepared the bills. His first four bills were passed and sanctioned by the Dy. Executive Engineer one Sayani of Sihor Sub -Division, but on his transfer, the present accused was posted at Sihor. The fifth bill was checked and the present accused demanded Rs. 600/ - from the complainant. The complainant paid Rs. 600/ - to him because he though that he might harass him in future. It is the case of the prosecution that when sixth bill was prepared, again accused demanded Rs. 501/ - and told the complainant that Diwali Festivals are approaching and payment may be made accordingly. The complainant had agreed, but he did not want to pay further amount. That the accused told him that on 21.9.1987, around 9 O'clock he will be in the office and the amount be paid in office. The complainant did not want to pay the amount and hence approached ACB Office at Ahmedabad. He gave his complaint. He was called on 21.9.87 in the early morning at ACB Office at Ahmedabad. Panchas were called. The complainant produced five currency notes of Rs. 100/ - each and one currency note of rupee one. Panchas were introduced to complainant. Head Constable Jentibhai explained the anthracene powder treatment properly and working of Ultra violet lamp. Thereafter, after following necessary procedure, the Raiding party started at 3.00am from Ahmedabad. Complainant, panch no. 1 accompanied the complainant to go to the office of the accused. Panch no. 2 remained with the raiding staff. Accused was present in his office. Accused was asked as to who is accompanying him. The complainant replied that it is his relative and is also doing contract work and is eager to keep contract of this site. The complainant told him that he has brought the amount as per the talk. The accused told him to keep it on table. The complainant brought out the amount which were treated with anthracene powder and kept on the table. The accused kept his hand first on notes and also the file. The complainant then went out of th office and gave signal which was earlier decided and was instructed to show. On seeing the signal, the raiding party rushed and in presence of panchas, search was carried out but nothing was found. Panch no. 2 removed the file and the purse from the table and from below that Rs. 501/ - were found. All these notes were shown in the lamp light which showed shining bluish powder. The portfolio and the file also showed the powder marks in the lamp light. The clothes of the accused did not show any powder marks. The hands of the complainant and hands of panch no. 2 when seen in lamp, showed anthracene powder marks. Detailed panchnama was drawn. The currency notes numbers were tallied with first part of the panchnama. These notes were signed by the panchas. Detailed panchnama was signed by the panchas there and also by the Investigating Officer. The currency notes portfolio and other papers were attached. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, the offence was registered and further investigation was carried out by the Bhavnagar ACB. During the course of investigation, respondent was arrested and, ultimately, charge -sheet was filed against him, which was numbered as Special Case No. 5 of 1988. The trial was initiated against the respondent.

(3.) TO prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.