SUMANLAL SHIVLAL GHEEWALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the first accused in Special Case No. 1 of the court of Assisttant Judge Broach in which he is convicted for the offences under see. 161 I.P.C. and sec 5(2) read with sec. 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act He is sentenced to suffer R.I. of one year and to the payment of fine of Rs. 200.00 in default of which he is ordered to undergo further R.I. of 2 months for the offence under see. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act The learned trial Judge has not recorded any separate sentence for offence under sec. 161 I.P.C.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the appellant-accused was serving as a clerk in the office of the Mamlatdar Broach in the month of December 1972 Original accused no. 2 one Ambalal Kesurji Desai who has been acquitted by the learned trial Judge was at that time serving as the Mamlatdar.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Usmangani Gulam Rasul Mansury whose deposition appears at ex. 11 and his brother Mohmedhusain Gulam Rasul whose deposition appears at ex. 39 were required to file affidavits regarding the birth dates of their children before the school authorities. Since these affidavits were to be sworn in presence of the Taluka Magistrate (i.e. the Mamlatdar) they visited the office where both the accused persons were working on 27th December 1972 They first approached the present appellant who was working as a clerk to the Mamlatdar. The appellant accused thereupon directed them to Mamlatdar-accused no. 2. Both these persons thereupon approached the accused no. 2. for the purpose of making their affidavits. The accused no. 1 however informed them that their identification would be necessary This identification was supplied by the complainant and his brother by calling one Umerji Ismail Valibhai who was working at that time as Police Patel of Dehgam. Thereafter accused. no. 2 initialled the application with dates and directed the complainant and his brother to approach the present appellant for further formalities. The complainant and his brother thereupon approached the appellant and handed over the papers to him. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant however put the papers aside on his table and engrossed himself in some other work. The complainant and his brother thus waited for 10 to 15 minutes and thereafter requested the appellant to attend to their work. They also asked the appellant whether Umerji Ismail Valibhai who had supplied the identification should go. The appellant allowed said Umerji to go but kept the complainant and his brother waiting without attending to their work. After 10 to 15 minutes the complainant again requested the appellant to attend to his work. It is said that at this stage the appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 20.00 explaining that he and the Mamlatdar would require Rs. 5.00 each for every affidavit as Chah Pani. According to the prosecution the appellant thus demanded total illegal gratification of Rs. 20.00 as there were two affidavits to be done. It is said that the complainant told the appellant that he had no money with him. The complainant and his brother therefore left the office of the appellant.