PATEL BABUBHAI ISHWARLAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are arising out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09th September, 1991, passed by the learned Special Judge, Mehsana, at the conclusion of the trial of Special ACB Case No.2 of 1989. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence under challenge is assailed by the orig.accused persons (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') on various grounds as mentioned in paragraph no.4 of the memo of the appeals. Before the learned trial Judge the orig.accused nos.1 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused nos.1 and 3') and orig.accused no.2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused no.2') were defended by different counsel and these accused had placed their defence before the learned Special Judge slightly in a different way. The accused nos.1 and 3 are the appellant of Criminal Appeal No.711 of 1991 and accused no.2 is the appellant of Criminal Appeal No.712 of 1991. The learned trial Judge while appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, keeping in mind the charge Ex.14, held all the three accused guilty of the charge of offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also under Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, the accused no.3 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The amount of fine imposed by the learned trial Judge has been paid by the accused. At present all the accused are on bail.

(2.) I have heard Shri K.B. Anandjiwala, learned counsel appearing for the accused nos.1 and 3, and Shri R.J. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the accused no.2. I have also heard Miss Darshana Pandit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. The learned counsel appearing for the accused have taken me through the oral as well as documentary evidence led during the course of trial and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under challenge. It is the say of the accused that the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge suffers from various infirmities and it based on incorrect appreciation of evidence. The learned trial Judge has failed in appreciating the defence plea taken up and has ignored some relevant documentary evidence and the deposition of Shri J.B. Patel, Deputy Engineer at Ex.7. It is submitted that it was sufficient to record acquittal of all the three accused from the charges levelled against them. For the sake of brevity and convenience, it would be appropriate to state the gist of the charge framed against the accused vide Ex.14, which is read over before this Court, is as under :

(3.) It is submitted by Shri Anandjiwala that in sum and substance, the acceptance of amount of Rs.700/- by the accused no.3, was not seriously disputed by the accused no.3 and it is never admitted by any of the accused indirectly that the muddamal currency notes of Rs.700/- were ever passed to the accused no.3 as the amount of bribe or illegal gratification, and therefore, there was no scope to raise any presumption against any of the accused mainly the accused nos.1 and 2 being the public servants merely on the ground of defence plea taken of acceptance of amount by the accused no.3. It is not a matter of dispute that the accused nos.1 and 3 are the real brothers and the accused no.1 at the relevant point of time was serving in the Account Branch of the office of the Gujarat Electricity Board, City Sub-Division Office, Mehsana. The accused no.2 was the Junior Engineer in the very office. The complainant-Manilal Jethidas, with the assistance and help of his son-Rambhai was running the industry in the name and style of 'Ram Industries' and dealing in fabrication of various materials from metal mainly iron; and this industry was being run on the electricity supplied by the Gujarat Electricity Board and the electric connection was obtained by the complainant in the name of Pashiben Manilal i.e. wife of the complainant-Manilal Jethidas, and she is the mother of PW-Rambhai Manilal as well as PW-Harish Manilal.