PASABHAI KANABHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were tried before the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad City in Special Case No. 5 of 1982; for offences punishable under section 161 and section 5(2) read with section 5 (l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, on the allegation that they accepted Rs. 70/- as illegal gratification on 17.2.1982 and then Rs. 30/- on 19.2.1982 as illegal gratification from one Shyambhai Bhagwat Prasad Agrawal. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Special Judge, on appreciating the evidence, recorded before him, reached the conclusion that the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of both these appellants and accordingly convicted both of them of the above offences and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default, to rigorous, imprisonment for one month. Being dissatisfied with the order of conviction and sentence recorded against them, original accused No. 1 has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 1983 and original accused No. 2 has filed Criminal Appeal. No. 130 of 1983. Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment recorded by the learned Special Judge and, therefore, we have heard them together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The facts of this case, as alleged by the prosecution, may be briefly stated as follows:

(3.) Now, so far as what transpired on 19.1.1982, 24.1.1981, 25.1.1982 and 17.2.1982 is concerned, we have only the bare word of the informant Shyambhai with no other evidence in support. The evidence of this Shyambhai is required to be closely scrutinized to find out whether his evidence without any other evidence to corroborate his version can be accepted. So far as the story of the informant Shyambhai, Ex. 9, about what transpired on 19.1.1982 is concerned the say of this Shyambhai is that after the two accused visited his shop and demanded the visit-book and license, his brother came and showed the same to the accused. This part of the evidence of this Shyambhai is not even accepted by the learned trial Judge. So far as the allegation of the informant that on 24.1.1982 the accused made a false entry in the visit-book that gram flour was sold to one Bharatbhai for 50 p. is concerned, that part of the evidence of the informant is also not relied upon by the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Judge has discussed this aspect at para's 21 and 22 of his judgment. The learned trial Judge, after discussing the evidence of the informant Shyambbai with regard to these two incidents, reached the conclusion and, in our opinion, rightly, that it was not safe to rely upon Shyambhai when he states that visit-book was shown to the accused on the very day at the spot and that a false entry about sale of gram flour to Bharatbhai was made by the accused. The learned trial Judge has shown how the story of Shyambhai was highly improbable looking to his subsequent conduct. The learned trial Judge has rightly observed that it is difficult to believe that the accused would make such a false entry in the visit-book. It is true that the shop of the informant is situate in Shahibag area while the entry in the visit-book shows that Bharatbhai was residing a Madhupura area. The two localities are different but there is nothing on record to show as to what is the distance between the shop of the informant and residence of Bharatbhai. It cannot be said that the entry made by the accused in the visit-book about Bharatbbai purchasing gram flour from the informant is false, simply because the shop of the informant is situate in Shahibag area, while Bharatbhai resides in Madhupura locality. If the accused wanted to make a false entry, they would have as well stated in the visit-book that the purchaser was residing in Shabibag area. If the accused could make a false entry as stated by the informant, then there was nothing to prevent the accused from making a false entry that Bharatbhai was residing in Shahibag area. It is possible that Bharatbhai might have gone on that side and purchased the gram flour or that the shops in his area might have been closed and, therefore, he might have gone to purchase the gram flour from the shop of the informant. It is difficult to say that the entry is false simply because Bharatbhai resides in a different locality. The learned trial Judge has, in our opinion, rightly reached the conclusion that the say of the informant as regards what happened on 19th and what happened on 24th is not acceptable.