PRAVINCHANDRA RAMNARAYAN BHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Special Judge at Ahmedabad convicting the appellant under sec. 161 Indian Penal Code and under secs. 5(1)(d) read with sec. 6(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for both the offences for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) In November 1962 the appellant was an employee of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and was serving as a Conservancy Sub-Inspector in the Ward known as Khokhra-Mehmdabad. His duty at that time was to take roll-call of sweepers and other members of the conservancy staff in that Ward at the office located there. Fakirbhai Maganbhai and Shankerbhai Ashabhai were amongst those sweepers who were posted to do the work in that Ward. These two persons have been referred to by the learned Judge as the complainants in his judgment and for conveniences sake we shall also refer to them accordingly. These two persons before they were posted to work as sweepers in the above Ward sometime in October 1962 were working as night-soil workers and they alleged that the appellant was their immediate superior at that time also. He used to harass them in various ways such as fining them when they were a little late for works by ignoring their presence at the time of the roll call and marking them absent and they were asked to go home and were not allowed to resume duties for two or three days thereafter. He wrongly refused to give them leave used to assign to them more onerous work etc. It was the allegation of the complainants that two or three days before November 14 1962 the appellant demanded monthly payment of illegal gratification in order to show favour to these two persons in respect of matter regarding which they used to be harassed. The appellant had demanded Rs. 10.00 per month from Fakir while from Shanker he had first demanded Rs. 20.00 but on his appeal on the ground of poverty the appellant agreed to accept Rs. 10.00 per month from him also. Both those complainants however were not agreeable to give such gratification and therefore on the 14th of November 1962 at about 2-30 p. m. they approached the Anti Corruption Branch and lodged their complaints which were separately recorded by P. S. I. Erulkar. As Dy. S. P. Medh of that Branch was not in Ahmedabad and was not available for investigation he obtained the requisite permission to investigate from the City Magistrate of the 4th Court. On November 15 1962 at about 1 p. m. both the complainants were called and arrangements were made to lay a trap. Each of the complainants was asked to bring two currency notes of Rs. 5.00 each on which the usual experiment with the anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp was carried out in the presence of panchas and after going through the required formalities of preparing the panchnama the said notes were placed in the pockets of the respective complainants. Both were instructed not to touch the notes till the time they were given to the appellant on his demand. They were further instructed to go to the Maninagar office in company with the panch wit- ness Zahiruddin and hand over the amount to the appellant if he demanded the same. Witness Zahiruddin was instructed to try and see and also hear what happens at that juncture. The complainants were further instructed to give the signal if the accused accepted the money. Constable Rasiklal was also asked to remain with Panch Zahiruddin. As per instruc- tions the complainants Panch Zahiruddin and Rasiklal proceeded to Maninagar Conservancy Office. P. S. I. Erulkar himself the other panch and some police constables followed them. Roll-calls at the said office were being taken twice a day once in the morning at six and again in the afternoon at 3. The trap was arranged to work out at the time of the second roll-call on that day. It was the prosecution case that the appellant on seeing Fakir while he was taking the roll-call called him inside the office room and asked him if he had brought the amount. Fakir is alleged to have replied in the affirmative and then he was asked by the appellant to wait outside near the gate of the office and give him the money when he came out of the office. After some time the accused did go out and went near a pan-shop with Fakir but he returned back to the office. Then he again came out and went near the pan-shop. Then he left the pan-shop and went near the bicycle stand where he had kept his own bicycle and there he is alleged to have accepted the money from both the complainants. The panch witness Zahiruddin claimed to have seen what happened between the complainants and the appellant and also heard the demand by the appellant of the money from the complainants. P. S. I. Erulkar also alleged that he had also seen the payment of money from some distance. As soon as the amounts were paid to the appellant he put them in his left side pocket of the pant and when he was about to start on his cycle he was stopped by the P. S. I. and others and was taken to a nearby shop. There on demand by the P. S. I. he produced the four five-rupee currency notes in question. His hands were examined in the ultra-violet light and the shine of the powder was noticed on his palm and the four fingers of his left hand. The shine was also noticed in the pocket of his pant one coin of 5 nP. and wrapper of a bundle of pan from that pocket when demonstrated under the ultra-violet light. A panchnama was then made and the usual procedure of the investigation was gone through. The requisite sanction was obtained to prosecute the accused and the charge-sheet was submitted on October 22 1963 The appellant was charged as aforesaid on the above facts.

(3.) The appellants defence was that he had not accepted any illegal gratification. His case was that each of the complainants owed to him Rs. 10.00 which he had advanced to them sometime in October 1962 a few days before the Diwali of that year. His case was that both these persons had approached him with a request to give them a loan of Rs. 10.00 each and had assured him that the amounts would be repaid when they received their next pay which would be due to them on the 14th of November 1962 or thereabout. The appellant supported his version by entering in the box and also examining another witness H. B. Trivedi who was the Conservancy Inspector and his immediate superior in the period prior to the 1st of November 1962.