PRAFULCHANDRA SOMALAL VASANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 236 of 1983 is filed by Prafulchandra Somalal Vasani original accused No. 1 against the order of conviction for the offence punishable under sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and further for the conviction for the offence punishable under sec. 5(1)(d) read with sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months passed by the learned Special Judge Bhavnagar District on 9/02/1983 in Special Case No. 1 of 1982. The State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 1983 against appellant Prafulchandra Somalal Vasani under sec. 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code for enhancement of the sentence on the ground that on Special reason is made out by the learned Special Judge for awarding lesser sentence. In Special Case No. 1 of 1982 original accused No. 2 was one Purshottam Sukha. He was also charged for the offence punishable under sec. 5(2) read with sec. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also for the offence punishable under secs. 161 and 165A of the Indian Penal Code. However the learned Special Judge has found him not guilty and therefore acquitted him of the said charges levelled against him. The State has filed Criminal Appeal No 344 of 1983 against the acquittal or original accused No. 2 Purshottam Sukha. ... . ... ... ... ...................... ................. ..................................

(2.) Mr. N. N. Gandhi the learned advocate appearing for the appellant - (accused No. 1) submits that the evidence led by the prosecution in the case for the purpose of proving the technique of the anthracene powder alleged to have been applied on the currency notes and thereafter alleged to have been found from the person of the accused and the complainant cannot be accepted in view of the decisions of this Court. Mr. Gandhi further submits that the Panch witnesses are not independent and therefore their evidence cannot be relied upon. Mr. Gandhi submits that the evidence of the complainant also cannot be relied upon particularly when it is not corroborated by other substantive evidence. Mr. Gandhi also submits that the evidence of P. I. Chauhan is the evidence of an interested witness and therefore that evidence also cannot be relied upon without corroboration. According to Mr. Gandhi the material witnesses are not examined and they are dropped by purshis exh. 24 are according to him witnesses Mohan and Dharamshi were material witnesses and as the material witnesses are not examined according to him an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. For the purpose of the aforesaid submission Mr. Gandhi has relied upon certain authorities.

(3.) It may be stated at the outset that Mr. Gandhi the learned advocate for the appellant (original accused No. 1) has first submitted on the point of the appreciation of evidence particularly that of the complainant bribe giver that his evidence is that of an accomplice and in support of his submission he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi V. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court page 1191. In the said case in paragraph 8 it has been observed as under: