CHHAGANLAL NAROTTAMDAS RAVAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant-accused against the order his conviction and sentence dated 21st October 1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa, in Special Case No.1 of 1990, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellant accused for offences punishable under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default to undergo further RI for three months on each count. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant-accused at the relevant time was working as a Circle Officer in Revenue Department and attached to Mamlaidar's Office at Silvassa. One Gajendrasingh Anupsinh Surma (P.W.1) was doing the business in transport of building materials. Likewise, P.W.3 Uttambhai Patel, one Pravinchandra, the brother of P.W.6 Prakashchandra and one Ibrahim Qureshi also deal in the business of transport and all of them owned goods trucks. According to the prosecution all these four truck owners applied for royalty permit on 27-8-1987 to the Mamlatdar, Silvassa, for the purpose of transporting sand from the bed of river Damanganga at village Rakholi, but no such permit was granted. However, the truck owners, according to the prosecution on 28-8-1987 loaded their trucks with sand and were living to take the trucks with sand without any permit. At that time, it is alleged that the appellant accused asked for permit and stopped them from taking the trucks out of the bed of the river. At that time it is alleged that the appellant accused demanded Rs.300/- from each truck owner for allowing the same to go. It is further alleged that P.W.1 Gajendrasingh in respect of his truck and on behalf of the other three truck owners agreed to pay Rs.1200/- as a bribe to the appellant accused. It reveals from the evidence of P.W.1 Gajendrasinh that both the appellant and one Ghumare, who was working as a clerk in the Mamlatdar's office and who was issuing permit demanded Rs.300/- from each of the truck owners. It is alleged that P.W.1 collected in all Rs.1200/- and went to the office of Anti-Corruption Bureau and lodged a complaint against the appellant alone. After recording the complaint of P.W.1 a raid was arranged. The complainant was given marked currency notes in all of Rs.1200/- were given to the complainant (P.W.1). Thereafter the raiding party went to Dan Hotel at about 9.50 p.m. It is the prosecution case that at that time the appellant-accused was taking dinner in the company of other persons and he asked the complainant. P.W.1 to wait till he finishes his dinner. Accordingly, P.W.1 waited there. After the appellant-accused finished his dinner and came out, P.W.1 inserted the currency notes in all of Rs.1200/- in the pant pocket of the appellant-accused. Thereafter, on giving signal, P.S.O. Rathod apprehended the appellant accused and made a search of his pocket in the presence of one panch witness and took out the currency notes in all of Rs.1200/- from his pocket and anthracene powder was found on the said currency notes. A panchanama was drawn to that effect. Investigation commenced. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation. Charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Sessions. Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa, against the appellant-accused for offences punishable under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) IT has been submitted by Mr.Mohite, learned Counsel for the appellant-accused that the conviction of the appellant accused is unsustainable on the face of the prosecution case. He has vehemently submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 was full of infirmities and contradictions and does not support the prosecution case. It has been pointed out from the evidence that P.W.1 was in the company of the other three truck owners, out of whom only one truck owner Uttambhai Patil (P.W.3) was examined by the prosecution. This witness does not support the say of P.W.1 that the appellant accused demanded bribe from the said truck owners for releasing their trucks. Further, it has been pointed out that the trucks in question have been allowed to goat about 4 p.m. learned Counsel submitted that there is no corroborative evidence about the demand of bribe by the appellant from P.W.1 and the other truck owners including P.W.3. Further it has been submitted that acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant-accused is also not supported by P.W.1 himself. In his evidence P.W.1 has deposed that he was called with money by the appellant-accused at 6.00 p.m. to Dan Hotel. Accordingly, he went there at 6-30 p.m. He further deposed that he left Dam Hotel at about 6.45 p.m. or 7.00 p.m. According to the prosecution, the raid was carried out by P.S.I. Rathod (P.W.8) at about 9.50 p.m. at Dam Hotel. The panch witness P.W.1 Natwarsinh, who is the brother-in-law of the complainant, P.W.1, has not supported the prosecution case. As per the evidence of P.W.8 Rathod, a raid was carried carried out at 9.50 p.m. at Dan Hotel and a Panchanama was drawn to that effect. These are the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.W.1 It has submitted that there is ulterior motive behind carrying out the raid by P.S.I. Rathod and to involve the appellant accused in such a serious crime. Learned Counsel has submitted that though the raid was carried out in Dan Hotel, P.S.I. Rathod has not chosen to record the statement of any customer in the hotel as an independent witness to the incident. The manager of the Hotel Lakhabhai (P.W.7) has been examined by the prosecution but he does not support the prosecution case on the point of accepting the bribe and taking out the money from the pocket of the appellant-accused. 4.Mr.Mohta, learned Counsel for respondent no.1.has supported the findings and reasonings of the learned Judge and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant-accused. He has submitted that though the panch witness (P.W.4) has been declared hostile there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.S.I. Rathod who conducted the raid in which the money in question was found from the pant pocket of the appellant accused.