BHANUPRASAD HARIPRASAD DAVE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant No. 1 Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave and appellant No. 2 Rajuji Gambhirji were accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the trial Court. At the relevant time appellant No. 1 (who for convenience will be referred to as accused No. 1 hereinafter) was a Police Sub-Inspector in charge of the Navrangpura Police Station Ahmedabad and appellant No. 2 (who for convenience will be referred to accused No. 2 hereinafter) was his writer constable. The case relates to an alleged offence of acceptance of bribe by the accused No. 1 with the assistance of and through accused No. 2. The accused No. 1 was charged with an offence under sec 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 5(1)(d) read with sec. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 The accused No. 2 was charged with an offence under sec. 161 read with sec. 165A of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 5(1)(d) read with sec. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 Both of them have been found guilty of the offences with which they were charged by the learned Special Judge Ahmedabad who by his judgment and order dated 9th of June 1964 sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years and a fine of Rs. 1000/in default further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Against those convictions and sentences both the accused have come in appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case is set out in detail in the testimony of the principal witness the complainant Ramanlal Ramjibhai Patel (Exh. 19). We shall set out that testimony later on. In brief the prosecution case broadly falls into three stages:-

(3.) The defence case is simple. The first stage of the prosecution story is not seriously disputed. The only part of it which is disputed is the case that the post-card written by Ramanlal to Madhukanta was passed on to the police for further action. The defence suggestion is that the post-card was destroyed. There is also an alternative suggestion viz. that if it was not destroyed it was not passed on to accused No. 1 but to P. S. I. Sisodiya. In the statement of both the accused however they have attempted to plead ignorance about the post-card and about what happened to it. As regards the second stage of the story both the accused have categorically denied the allegations made against them. They have denied that part of the prosecution story which relates to the events of 16th. As regards the third stage of the prosecution story viz. the events of the 18th accused No. 2 pleads alibi saying that he was not present at the police station Navrangpura after 5.00 p.m. as he left the Police Station at that time to go to a cinema and did not return thereafter to the Police Station. Accused No. 1 admits his presence at the Police Station at the time of the incident in question but denies having any knowledge of what happened. He states that he was in P. I.s room all the while whereas the whole incident admittedly took place in the P.S.I.s room. His suggestion appears to be that it must be some other Police Officer who must be concerned with the incident. He does not say who that officer was but he alleges that he has been falsely involved by the complainant at the instance of P.S.I. Sisodiya with whom he is on bad terms. The accused No. 2 states that he has been falsely involved because he was the writer constable of accused No. 1.