RAMESHCHANDRA RASIKAL BHAVSAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment and order dated 08/02/2002 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Vadodara, in Special Case No.13 of 1997 sentencing the appellant to the rigorous imprisonment for five years and seven years respectively for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short "the Act"), with fine of Rs.15,000/- for each of the said offences and sentence in default thereof for simple imprisonment of six months for each of the offences, is sought to be assailed in this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.").

(2.) The appellant was employed as Deputy Engineer with Savli Branch of GEB at the relevant point of time. The informant, at that point of time, was working with R.V.Enterprise which firm was involved in the business of processing on behalf of its customers, electricity connections from GEB; erection of electrical poles and installation of electrical wires. One 'Big Arms' was aspirant for the new electricity connection in its factory situated in Village Poycha, Tal. Savli, Dist: Vadodara. The informant- Kedarbhai Manharbhai Patel was the key person doing above works for R.V.Enterprise. That said 'Big Arms' made the necessary application through the informant on 12/08/1996. It is the case of the informant that in absence of release of the connection until 04/11/1996 he met the appellant about 15 days since the date of FIR when the appellant allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- for its release. Not willing to pay; FIR came to be lodged by him at Exh.29.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that, in absence of the authority with the appellant to release an electric connection, the factum of alleged demand of the gratification other than legal remuneration during the discharge of his duties, in his official capacity for favouring the informant could not be established. It was further contended that, in absence of specific date of the day, month, year or place of demand, as also the contradictory statements in the oral examination-in-chief of PW 1 that the demand was allegedly made, three days before the lodgment of the FIR dated 04/11/1996; being at variance with his version in the FIR stating that the demand was made 15 days before lodging of the FIR, the demand was not proved by clinching evidence. Learned counsel would submit that in the examination-in-chief, the demand is stated to have been made three days prior to the FIR and when the witness was confronted with the fact that before three days i.e. 01/11/1996, the appellant was on tour and not present in the office, he improved the version by stating that he did not meet the appellant on 01/11/1996. Witness thereafter failed to specify the date of meeting and thus the witness was unable to give a specific date for demand of the alleged illegal gratification. It was contended that there was no clinching evidence evidencing the alleged demand by the appellant.