MANILAL HARCHAND MEHTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Manilal Harchand Mehta who was the accused in the lower Court was charged before the Special Judge Kutch (Mr. S. H. Sanghvi) with offences under sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and sec. 161 I.P.C. THE charge was that on or about 22nd August 1964 at about 10-30 A.M. at Bhuj in Kutch district the appellant was a public servant working as Revenue Circle Inspector in Bhuj Taluka and he directly accepted Rs. 400/- from Naran Karsan of village Anandsar as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive for doing an official act and thereby committed the offence of criminal misconduct in discharge of his duty punishable under sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under sec. 161 Indian Penal Code. He was as we just stated convicted under both these counts. On the first count he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default of payment of which to undergo further R.I. for three months and on the second count he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year. THE substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against those convictions and sentences he has come in appeal.

(2.) THE last argument of Mr. Mankad as regards the evidence as a whole is that the three witnesses are partisan witnesses and their evidence cannot be accepted without corroboration. It is necessary therefore to consider this part of the argument and also to see whether if corroboration is necessary the same is available in this case. THEre is no doubt that complainant Naran and the P.S.I. would be partisan witnesses. THE same cannot however be said as a matter of course in respect of Panch Pratapsinh. Mr. Mankads argument is that Pratapsingh is in fact an interested witness and even if he is not found in fact to be an interested witness be must be deemed to be an interested witness having regard to the fact that he was acting as a panch in a raiding party. We shall first examine the submission that Pratapsingh was in fact an interested witness. Mr. Mankad relies on three circumstances. He states that Pratapsingh and the P.S.I. are from the same community. He then states that Pratapsingh does not belong to the same locality where the P.S.I.s office is situated and where the initial panchnama was made and therefore his evidence is suspect. He lastly urges that Pratapsingh is under the influence of the P.S.I. because Pratapsingh while in school was staying in a boarding house of which the Superintendent was the brother of the P.S.I. Jadeja. THEre is no evidence in support of the first part of the argument. THEre is nothing to show that Pratapsingh and the P.S.I. Jadeja belong to the same community. THE whole argument is based on the admission of the P.S.I. in cross-examination that Pratapsingh is Jadeja by surname. Mr. Mankad argues that Pratapsinghs surname is Jadeja and the surname of P.S.I. is also Jadeja and therefore they belong to the same community. Mere similarity of surnames is not sufficient to justify that inference. If that was the case the defence could have put it either to Pratapsingh or to the P.S.I. As for the argument that he came from a locality other than the locality where the panchnama was made there is again no evidence. THE only evidence is that he resides in the locality at Bhuj known as the Upli Pol whereas the P.S.I.s office is in the Santosh Society. THEre is nothing to show that Upli Pol is at a distance from Santosh Society. As for the last argument namely that the P.S.I.s brother was the Superintendent of the boarding house in which the panch resided at the time of his schooling it is difficult to see how that can give the P.S.I. any influence over Pratapsingh. Pratapsingh is serving in the Taluka Panchayat Office and he is also studying in the Pre-University Class. It is not shown that either by reason of his occupation or by reason of his status he was amenable to the influence of or pressure from the P.S.I. Jadeja. It is not alleged that he is interested in the complainant or inimical towards the appellant. It is not alleged or shown that by reason of his position financial or otherwise he is susceptible to pressures from the complainant or the police. He appears therefore to be an independent witness. THE contention that he was in fact an interested witness cannot be accepted. Mr. Mankad however argues that even so the mere fact that Pratapsingh acted as a panch witness in connection with a raid was sufficient to class him as a partisan or an interested witness. In support of that proposition Mr. Mankad invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vidh. Pra. (A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 322). In that case the raiding party consisted of three persons namely the police officer an executive officer of the rank of the Deputy Secretary who was concerned with corruption cases and the additional District Magistrate who accompanied the two. THE Supreme Court did not find it possible to rely on the evidence of these witnesses without corroboration as in the view of the Court they were partisan witnesses. THE Supreme Court however found corroboration in certain documents and in the testimony of the panch witness who was called after the raid. Mr. Mankad invites our attention to the following observations in that case (at page 328) :