RAJNIKANT MOTIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) judgment and order dated 27.11.2000 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Court No.8, Ahmedabad in Special Case No. 22 of 1997 convicting and sentencing original accused no. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under sections 13(1)(d), (1)(2)(3) and 13(2) as also sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (For short 'the Act') is sought to be assailed under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The accused were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 250/- and sentence of imprisonment for 15 days in default of fine for the offence punishable under sections 7 and 12 of the Act and for section 13(1)(d),(1)(2)(3) and 13(2) read with section 12, accused were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and three months with fine of Rs. 500/- and a sentence of imprisonment for one month in default of the said fine. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) At the out set, it is required to be noted that during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2001. appellant Mahammadali Akbarali Saiyed has expired and he is being represented by his heirs/legal representatives.

(3.) The facts of the case would indicate that deceased Mahammadali Akbarali Saiyed was employed as Health Supervisor with Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and accused no.2 Rajnikant Motibhai Patel was discharging his duty as Sanitary Inspector with the Corporation. The Sanitary Department of the Corporation received an application dated 02.01.1997 Exh. 22 making a complaint against illegal construction of the latrine in the office premise of the informant, who is practicing Advocate and was tenant of one Mr. Mithaiwala in the said premises. His office was sought to be visited by some of the members of the Corporation including Mr. Saiyed and P.W. 4 on 10.01.1997. The Informant however allowed only Mr. Saiyed to visit the premises and after visit, the informant was allegedly instructed by the officers to meet them in the office on the next date i.e. 11.01.1997, which was Saturday. The informant claims to have met the original accused on the said day in their office. During the conversation, they allegedly demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1000/- for not demolishing the latrine. The informant however was not inclined to oblige the accused and therefore, lodged an FIR on 13.01.1997 with Anti Corruption Bureau, Ahmedabad, produced at Exh. 19. It is the prosecution case that when trap was arranged two panchas were requisition and entire procedure was explained to the panchas and informant. Demonstration was done to show how the anthracene powder can be detected under ultraviolet lamp. Informant produced ten currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- each, which were smeared with the anthracene powder and were placed in the pocket of the informant. He was told that he may part with the said tainted money in favour of the accused only when demanded and panch witness 2 was asked to oversee the entire procedure. Before leaving for trap, all the concerned persons which formed the trap party as also the informant and two panchas were checked to ensure that none of them have the incriminating material like anthracene powder. The first part of the panchnama was thus drawn and then the trap party proceeded to the scene of offence. Informant and panch witness 1 were asked to go to the scene of offence and rest of the members of the trap party waited in hiding for the signal from the informant, if demand was made by the accused and paid to them.