1. The appellant – original accused No.2, namely, Durlabhji Danjibhai Vandra of Criminal Appeal No.718 of 1997 has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.7.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, City Civil Court No.10, Ahmedabad, in Special Case No.26 of 1993, whereby, the learned Special Judge has convicted the accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 6 (six) months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.300/, in default, to undergo further R.I. for 15 days. The accused No.2 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/, in default, to undergo further R.I. for 15 days. The learned Judge has ordered that substantive sentences are to run concurrently.
2. The appellant – original accused No.1, namely, Habibbhai Rahimbhai Kureshi of Criminal Appeal No.734 of 1997 has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.7.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, City Civil Court No.10, Ahmedabad, in Special Case No.26 of 1993, whereby, the learned Special Judge has convicted the
and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 6 (six) months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.300/, in default, to undergo further R.I. for 15 days. The accused No.1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/, in default, to undergo further R.I. for 15 days. The learned Judge has ordered that substantive sentences are to run concurrently.
3. As both the appeals arise out of the same Special Case, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
Accordingly the raiding party proceeded on the S.T.Bus Stand. During 1st and 2nd December, 1992 the accused No.1 was working as driver and accused No.2 was working as conductor in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation at Savarkundla Depo. Police Inspector, Mr.K.R.Patel of Anti Corruption Bureau had filed a complaint on 2.12.1992 that he had received a definite information that the conductor and driver of the bus plying between Ahmedabad to Savarkundla via Jesar from S.T. Busstand, Gitamandir, in the early morning keep the bus in a place other than its regular stand and they allow the passengers to travel who had no reservation by taking Rs.10/ or Rs.20/ as a bribe from such passengers. On 2nd December, 1992 the accused No.1 was standing holding the door of the bus bearing No.GJ1Z 1032 at S.T.Bus Depo of Ahmedabad for Saurashtra side at 5:25 in the morning and accused No.2 was sitting on the steps of the bus keeping the door open. At that time, the accused No.2, in collusion with the accused No.1 demanded Rs.5/ each in total Rs.15/ from the complainant and two other persons accompanying the complainant for sitting in bus without reservation. Thereafter, the accused No.2 allowed the complainant and two other persons to sit in the bus near the seat of driver's cabin and closed the door and started the bus and stopped at Ahmedabad Savarkundla Bus Stand, Platform No.3 and at 5:50 hours the accused No.1 from the complainant demanded and accepted Rs.15/ as illegal gratification in addition to legal charges and thereby committed offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and after following the necessary procedure, and on grant of sanction, the chargesheet against the accused came to be submitted before the Court.
3. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the appellants to which the appellants – accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the charge levelled against the appellants accused, the prosecution has examined witnesses and also produced documentary evidence on record of the trial Court.
5. After examining the witnesses, further statement of the appellantsaccused under Sec. 313 of Cr PC was recorded wherein the appellantsaccused have denied the case of the prosecution.
6. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned Special Judge, City Civil Court No.10, Ahmedabad, vide impugned judgment and order dated 21.7.1997, held the appellants – accused guilty of the charge levelled against them and convicted and sentenced them as stated herein above.
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, City Civil Court No.10, Ahmedabad, the present appellants have preferred these appeals.
8. Heard Mr.J.M.Buddhbhatti, learned advocate for the appellant – accused No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.718 of 1997. He has contended that there is no evidence for demand or acceptance of bribe made by the present appellant. The star witness, namely, Kulsinh M. Sainani is declared hostile and has not supported the prosecution case in crossexamination made by the learned APP in relation to demand of the accused No.2.
9. He has read the charge and contended that the learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate that there are four ingredients (i) initial demand (ii) second demand to be made in presence of panch (iii) acceptance and (iv) recovery, which are required to be proved through the evidence of the complainant and there should be corroboration to all those ingredients. He has contended that the prosecution has examined the complainant, panchas, trapping officer, Sanctioning Officer as well as Investigating Officer. From the evidence of all these witnesses and documentary evidence which are produced on record the prosecution has failed to prove the four ingredients of the prosecution case and learned Judge has wrongly convicted the present appellant in the said offence.
10. He has contended that panch, namely, Habibbhai Ayubbhai Pathan at Ex.14 stated that he does not know the present appellant. He has contended that there is not an iota of evidence in evidence of panch witness Habibbhai that after conversation with regard to demand made by the present appellant, the driver accused No.1 and the present appellant met together for the purpose of demand and acceptance of bribe.
11. He has contended that the learned Judge has erred in holding that it is settled legal position to refresh the memory, the panchnama can be read by the panchas and it is not a factor, which can be considered against his evidence. In the evidence of panch, the panch has categorically stated that he has read over the panchnama prior to entering into the witness box. This itself shows that he has crammed the contents of the panchnama before giving evidence before the Court. There is a difference between cramming and refreshing memory. Therefore, when the panch has given evidence before the Court after cramming the contents of the panchnama, evidence of such panch witness cannot be relied upon.
12. He has contended that when the search was carried out, anthracene powder is found from the body of the accused No.1 and not the present appellant. He has contended when the search is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and allegation against the appellant accused is not proved, the learned Judge has wrongly convicted the present appellant. He has read the crossexamination of P.W. No.1 at para6 and contended that it is admitted by this witness that when he entered in the bus at that time accused No.1, driver was not on seat. He has read para7 of the judgment and contended that this witness is tutored witness and is not reliable witness. This witness should be considered as tutored witness and his evidence cannot be considered in favour of the prosecution case. He has also read further crossexamination of this witness and contended that Mr.Sainani is not examined by the prosecution. When he stopped original accused No.2, at that time, other passengers were also present there and the present appellant, conductor has made demand of Rs.15/, but it was not given to him. He has argued that when the initial demand was made by the Conductor accused it was not paid to him and it shows that initial demand is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that the demand is never made by the present appellant accused No.2. He has contended that when recovery creates some doubt then presumption cannot be drawn under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The judgment of the learned Judge is contrary to the provisions of law and present appellant is wrongly convicted and therefore, the judgment and order of conviction is required to be quashed and set aside. He has further contended that when the witness Mr.Sainani is not examined then initial demand as per the evidence of this panch witness is required to be considered as hearsay evidence.
13. He has read Section 59 of the Evidence Act. The same reads as under : “59. Proof of facts by oral evidence – All facts, except the (contents of documents or electronic records), may be proved by oral evidence.”
14. Heard Mr.D.M.Devnani, learned advocate for the appellant – accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.734 of 1997. He has contended that there is no evidence for demand or acceptance of bribe made by the present appellant. The star witness, namely, Kulsinh M. Sainani is declared hostile and has not supported the prosecution case in crossexamination made by the learned APP in relation to demand of the accused No.1.
15. He has read the charge and contended that the learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate that there are four ingredients, namely, (i) initial demand (ii) second demand to be made in presence of panch (iii) acceptance and (iv) recovery, which are required to be proved through the evidence of the complainant and there should be corroboration to all those ingredients. He has contended that the prosecution has examined the complainant, panchas, trapping officer, Sanctioning Officer as well as Investigating Officer. From the evidence of all these witnesses and documentary evidence which are produced on record the prosecution has failed to prove four ingredients of the prosecution case and learned Judge has wrongly convicted the present appellant in the said offence.
16. He has contended that as per the case of the prosecution, the prosecution is unable to prove that the learned Judge has rightly convicted present appellant in connection with the charge framed against him. He has contended that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the demand is never made by present appellant and in light of the decision of the Apex Court when the demand is not proved then simple acceptance or recovery of the trap amount is not sufficient to convict the accused. He has read Sections 7 and 13 of the Act and contended that as per the case of prosecution, the prosecution has failed to prove that present appellant has committed any criminal misconduct. He has contended that it is not proved that the said amount was accepted by him in the form of illegal gratification or bribe. He has contended that it was the duty of the conductor not to allow passenger when the passenger enter into the bus without reservation ticket, therefore, nonawareness of the entry of the member of raiding party in the bus shows that present appellant was innocent and he has not committed any offence as per charge framed against him. Lastly, he has contended that when the demand and acceptance are not proved by the prosecution through witnesses, the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is required to be quashed and set aside.
17. On the other hand, learned APP Mr.L.B.Dabhi has supported the judgment and order of the Special Court and contended that the trial Court has fully appreciated the evidence produced on record by the prosecution and, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. He has read the charge and contended that the demand was made by the appellant – accused No.1 and in the result, demand by the appellant – accused No.2 is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has also read panchnama and contended that the contents of the panchnama are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
18. Mr.Dabhi has read the charge and contended that the person who so ever is booked by the agency for the offence punishable under the provisions of Corruption Act whether they are whitecollar persons, dignitaries of the State or persons like Class3 or Class4, law is equal for everyone. He has contended that looking to the date of the trap, it is 2nd December, and it is the end of the year. Most of the public servants utilize their LTC in the end of the year and the persons who are not entitled to travel in A.C. Train or plane they are traveling in S.T.Bus. In these circumstances, when the bus is booked with reservation tickets, the driver or conductor who allow the passengers to travel without reservation, they should be punished heavily.
19. He has contended that in both these Appeals driver and conductor of the bus are involved in the offence. Simply because they are driver and conductor, they cannot be dealt with leniently. He has read Sections 7 and 13 of the P.C. Act and contended that to get illegal gratification by way of illegal demand and in result of demand and acceptance it should be considered that they have committed criminal misconduct. He has also contended that looking to the facts of the case, presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act is required to be drawn against the present appellants – accused. Section 20 of the P.C. Act reads as under :
“20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration -
(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
(2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under section 12 or under clause (b) of section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7, or as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub- sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption may fairly be drawn.”
20. He has read oral evidence of P.W. No.1 and contended that he is a public servant. He was present with Mr.Sainani when they visited S.T.Bus stand. Prior to that, there was information from the Ahmedabad S.T.Bus stand that a bus is reserved for Savarkundla and in that bus driver and conductor always take illegal gratification in the form of Rs.10/ or Rs.20/. He has contended that both the panchas and Sainani went there and told the conductor that they want to go to Savarkundla but they have no reservation. The bus conductor told him that Rs.15/ will be charged extra. Then Mr.Sainani asked the conductor that this Rs.15/ is for one person, then conductor told that Rs.15/ is for three persons. The conductor allowed this panch and Mr.Sainani to board in the bus and also told them to sit near the seat of driver's cabin, because, other seat numbers from 1 to 40 were reserved seats. Then, the bus plied on the regular busstand. From that busstand the driver told Mr.Sainani to give Rs.15/. Then Mr.Sainani took out one Rs.20/ note from among notes which contained anthracene powder and gave it to the driver who accepted the same by right hand and with the help of left hand he put the same on the right side pocket of his shirt. The driver took out Rs.5/ and returned the same to Mr.Sainani. Mr.Sainani gave agreed signal and ACB people came there. Experiment of ultraviolet lamp was shown on driver's hand and on his fingers, on pocket and on the upper portion of pocket of the driver anthracene powder marks were found.
21. He has read the judgment and order passed by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.97 and 98 of 2012 and contended that the Apex Court has also considered that as per Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, presumption is required to be drawn in such type of cases.
22. He has read the complaint and contended that looking to the contents of the complaint, demand and acceptance of Rs.15/ is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that there is nothing on record to show that complainant had any enmity with the present appellant. He has read Section 8 of the Evidence Act and contended that the act of the present appellants is voluntary. On acceptance of amount, signal was given and members of raiding party rushed to the place and search was carried out and muddamal amount was recovered from the hand of the present appellant accused No.1. Marks of anthracene powder could be seen on fingers, thumb, fingertips and palms on both hands of the present appellant – accused. He has contended that from the hands of the present appellant – accused NO.1 anthracene powder was found and in connection thereof, the appellant accused No.1 has failed to explain in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code as to how the anthracene powder was found on his hand. He has read the oral version of the panch witness and contended that from the oral version of this witness demand made by the present appellant – accused No.2 in their presence is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
23. He has read further statement of the appellants – accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code and contended that presence of anthracene powder found from both the hands of the appellant – accused No.1 is not explained by the appellant accused No.1. It is the duty of the appellants to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision in the case of Balasubramanian Vs. State through Inspector of Police, reported in 2011 (1) GLR 739. He has contended that sufficient opportunity was given to the appellants to explain the evidence against them after the prosecution witnesses are examined and no explanation is given about the trap amount recovered from the possession of the present appellants in their further statement under Section 313 of the Code.
24. I have perused the oral as well as documentary evidence. I have also considered the oral arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for both the sides. Mr.Buddhbhatti and Mr.Devnani, learned counsel for the appellants have vehemently submitted that the learned Judge has committed grave error in convicting the present appellants. It appears from the contents of the charge that the information was received by the Trapping Officer that the bus driver and conductor of Savarkundla bus were collecting money by way of illegal gratification and in the result of that information said trap was carried out. In the evidence of the P.W. No.1 he has disclosed that the conductor has specifically made demand of Rs.15/ from the three passengers to offer to sit in the bus without reservation. I have perused cross examination, wherein probable defence has not been made by the present appellants before the learned Judge. Nonexamination of panch No.2 does not create any deficiency in the evidence of the prosecution because it is a well settled legal position that when independent panch witness is examined, his evidence can be accepted without any corroboration. Nothing was found from the accused No.2, but he is the pioneer of the whole incident. He has demanded Rs.15/ from Mr.Sainani and the panchas. It is the accused No.2 who demanded illegal gratification which resulted into acceptance of the said amount by the accused No.1. So the accused No.2 is the main person involved in the whole incident.
25. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the accused that the prosecution has failed to examine the decoy witness, who is a star witness and without examining the star witness the trial Court has committed an error in holding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is true that the prosecution has not examined the decoy witness, but, by nonexamination of decoy witness it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In this case the prosecution has examined the Panch witness, who is an independent witness – a public servant and he has no grudge or enmity against the appellants – accused and he has no reason to falsely involve the appellants – accused in the case. The panchnama is an essential document in which occurrence of incident, number of notes smeared with anthracene powder, etc. have been clearly mentioned and from the deposition of panch witness the panchnama is proved by the prosecution and the evidence of Panch witness is also relied upon in support of testimony of Trapping Officer and the Investigating Officer. In a decision reported in 1961 (2) GLR 664, it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court that “...A panchnama is essentially a document recording certain things which occur in the presence of panchas and which are seen and heard by them. Panchas are taken to the scene of offence to see and hear certain things and subsequently they are examined at the trial to depose to those things and their evidence is relied upon in support of the testimony of an investigating officer. A panchnama recorded on such an occasion is, in its turn, relied upon in support of the evidence of the panchas as a statement previously made by them under Section 157 of the Evidence Act.”
If it was a case of defence that panchas and the Trapping officer have any enmity with the accused persons and they are falsely involved in a case then the matter would have been different. However, in the present case there is no allegation against the panch witness or the trapping officer about the enmity with the accused.
26. The learned counsel for both the accused have tried to prove that sanctioning authority has given sanction without application of mind. From the evidence of the sanctioning authority, I do not find that the sanction is given without application of mind. The sanction given by the authority is as per provisions of law and sufficient papers are produced before the authority and after perusal of the said papers, sanction is given and therefore, it cannot be said that sanction is given without application of mind. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the present appellants – accused were present at the place of trap when the demand of Rs.15/ was made and in the result accepted by accused No.1 in the form of illegal gratification. I have perused Section 8 of the Evidence Act. So far as conduct of the present appellants is concerned, at the time of trap they were on duty and they were present at the place of trap. I have perused Section 35 of the Evidence Act. Section 35 of the Act reads as under : “35. Relevancy of entry in public (record or an electronic record) made in performance of duty. - An entry in any public or other official book, register or (record or an electronic record), stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register, or (record or an electronic record) is kept, is itself a relevant fact.”
So far as presence of the appellants at the place of offence is concerned, as per Section 35 of the Act presence of the appellants is proved at the place of offence. I have perused further statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the appellants have disclosed their presence in the same. In the further statement and written statement, the appellants have tried to prove the defence version beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant No.1 has failed to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession and as to how light blue fluorescent marks of anthracene powder were found on his hands. The appellant has failed to rebut the said presumption by leading probable defence. Thus, when the demand and acceptance are proved and when the appellants have failed to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, I am of the opinion that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. I have perused the oral evidence of Trapping Officer. The defence has not produced any evidence to suggest that the Trapping Officer is biased or that he has committed any illegality. The Trapping Officer is an independent witness and he is not having any illintention to implicate the appellants falsely in the offence. He has supported the case of the prosecution. The defence has failed to prove the probable defence. I have not found anything to accept the defence version of the appellants. I am of the opinion that the learned Special Judge has passed the judgment and order after appreciating all the aspects of the matter.
27. The Apex Court in case of Narendra Champaklal Trivedi Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2012 SC 2263, held that the demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is the sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act. It is also settled law that there is a statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act which can be dislodged by the accused by bringing on record some evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that money was accepted by him other than the motive or reward as stipulated under Section 7 of the Act. The Apex Court further held that it is obligatory on the part of the court to consider the explanation offered by the accused under Section 20 of the Act and the consideration of the explanation has to be on the anvil of preponderance of probability. It was further held that it is not to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and it is necessary to state here that the prosecution is bound to establish that there was an illegal offer of bribe and acceptance thereof. The same has to be founded on facts. The Apex Court referred to the decision in the case of M.Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. reported in (2001) 1 SCC 691 wherein a threeJudge Bench referred to Section 20 of the Act and stated that the only condition for drawing the legal presumption under Section 20 is that during trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its only requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept the gratification. Thereafter, the Apex Court reproduced a passage from the decision in the case of Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2000) 8 SCC 571 with approval. It reads as follows: “The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted ‘as motive or reward’ for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word ‘gratification’ need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like ‘gratification or any valuable thing’. If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word ‘gratification’ must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it.”
28. In Raj Rajendra Singh Seth v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in AIR 2008 SC 3212, the principle laid down in Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi (supra) was reiterated.
29. In State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, reported in JT 2009(12) SC 516, it has been held that to arrive at the conclusion that there had been a demand of illegal gratification, it is the duty of the court to take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on record in their entirety and for the said purpose, undisputedly, the presumptive evidence as laid down in Section 20 of the Act must also be taken into consideration.
30. In C.M. Girish Babu v. C.B.I., Cochin, High Court of Kerala reported in AIR 2009 SC 2022, after referring to the decisions in M.Narsinga Rao (supra) and Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi (supra), this Court has held thus: “19. It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn under Section 20 is not an inviolable one. The accused charged with the offence could rebut it either through the crossexamination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence. If the accused fails to disprove the presumption the same would stick and then it can be held by the Court that the prosecution has proved that the accused received the amount towards gratification.”
31. In the case on hand, the money was admittedly demanded by the original accused No.2 and recovered from the original accused No.1 and therefore, a presumption under Section 20 of the Act becomes obligatory. It is a presumption of law and it casts an obligation on the court to apply it in every case brought under Section 7 of the Act. The said presumption is a rebuttable one. In the present case, the explanation offered by the accusedappellants has not been accepted and there is no evidence on the basis of which it can be said that the presumption has been rebutted.
32. The learned counsel for the appellants have vehemently submitted that admittedly there has been no demand or acceptance. To bolster the said aspect, they have drawn inspiration from the statement of the complainant in his examinationinchief. The said statement, in my considered opinion, is not to be read out of context. He has clarified as regards the demand and acceptance at various places in his examinationinchief as well as in the crossexamination. The witness has clearly stated that there was demand of bribe and giving of the same. Nothing has been brought on record to doubt the presence of the shadow witness. He had given the signal after which the trapping party arrived and did the needful. The witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. The currency notes were recovered from the possession of the appellant – accused No.1. In the crossexamination nothing has really been elicited to doubt his presence and veracity of the testimony. The appellants in their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have made an adroit effort to explain their stand but I have no hesitation in holding that they have miserably failed to dislodge the presumption. Thus, analysed and understood, there remains no shadow of doubt that the accusedappellants had demanded the bribe and accepted the same. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge does not warrant any interference.
33. Looking to the facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants accused, being public servants, demanded the bribe amount and also accepted the bribe amount from the complainant. The accused have not discharged their burden of rebutting the statutory presumption of guilt against them. From the facts and evidence on record it is clearly established beyond reasonable doubt that the amount by way of bribe was demanded by the accused No.2 and in the result accepted by the accused No.1 voluntarily as an illegal gratification.
34. In view of above, I am in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and I am of the view that no other conclusion except the one reached by the trial Court is possible in the instant case as the evidence on record stands. Therefore, there is no valid reason or justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence.
35. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.7.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, City Civil Court No.10, Ahmedabad, in Special Case No.26 of 1993 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial court forthwith. The appellants – accused are directed to surrender before the Jail Authority within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, failing which the concerned Sessions Court shall issue non bailable warrant to effect the arrest of the appellants – original accused.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks