IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 284 of 1998
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
===================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial
4 question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
===================================
RAJNIKANT KANTILAL DAVE & 1 Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT Opponent(s)
=================================== Appearance :
MR HN JOSHI FOR M/S THAKKAR ASSOC. for Appellant(s) : 1 2.
MS JIRGA JHAVERI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Opponent(s) : 1, ===================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date : 07/09/2012 CAV JUDGMENT
1. The appellants were put on trial for the commission of the offences under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Special Judge, Navsari, in Special Case No.2 of 1992 passed judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.3.1998, whereby the learned Special Judge was pleased to convict the appellantsaccused and awarded sentence to the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.2500/, i/d, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months, for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge has not awarded separate sentence for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act.
2. The broad essential facts of the prosecution are that the complainant – Mahyar Navroji Fatakiya was holding pistol licence for all India, which was going to expire on 31.12.1989. Therefore, on 6.12.1989, the complainant approached the office of Collector, Valsad, where he met the appellant No.2 accused No.2, who was working as clerk in the Licence Branch for renewal of the pistol licence. The accused No.2 told the complainant about the change of Act for renewal licence and therefore, the licence may be cancelled. In response to the say of the accused No.2, the complainant also told as to whether the licence would be available for State only instead of all over the country and therefore, the accused No.2 told the complainant that the complainant would not got the licence perhaps even for Valsad District. Thereafter, the accused No.2 told the complainant to approach appellant No.1 – accused No.1, who had charge of RDC Mr. Shah, only upto next Monday and therefore, the work of complainant would be done by the appellant No.1. The complainant also told the accused to meet the appellant No.1 when the accused No.1 was alone. Therefore, the complainant as per the say of accused No.2, met the accused No.1, who was alone in the office and talked about renewal of the licence. The accused No.1 told the complainant about the change of Act for renewal of licence, therefore, the complainant asked to see the said Act and in reply to the same, the accused No.1 said that he was unable to show the said changed Act, as the same being confidential. Complainant also asked the accused No.1 as to whether in this matter, there was need to engage advocate or not ? The accused No.1 referred one case of Sanjay Gupta and asked what was expanses for engagement of advocate in that matter ? The accused No.1 threatened complainant about the consequence, as the complainant talked about law and told the complainant to become practical and to spend some money for doing such work. The complainant asked about expenses and in reply to the same, the accused No.1 answered that if the complainant gives Rs.10,000/, his work would be done and there is no need to go to the advocate. Thereafter, the complainant met the accused No.2 and they went in a corner in the hall and he told the complainant to give Rs.10,000/ for renewal of licence as per talk with accused No.1. The accused No.2 also told the complainant to come on the next day with Rs.5000/ in cover and remaining amount of Rs.5000/ was asked to be paid after completion of the work. Thereafter, the accused No.2 gave form of renewal of licence to the complainant and the accused No.2 told one Mr.Rana working as Clerk in Licence Branch to fill up the Challan No.124 dated 6.12.1989 and application was made in the writing of said Mr. Rana and necessary charge was paid by the complainant. The complainant made his signature in application and the application along with challan and original arm licence were sent to the Office of Collector.
3. As complainant did not want to give any amount towards illegal gratification to the accused, he approached ACB Office, Valsad, on 7.12.1989 at 11:00 a.m. and lodged the complaint against the accused. After following necessary formalities, the ACB officer along with panchas went to the office of the accused, where the complainant and panch No.1 met the peon of the office and inquired about accused No.2. The peon replied that the accused No.2 was not in the office. Thereafter, complainant also inquired about accused No.1, but the complainant was replied by the peon that accused No.1 went on visit. The ACB raiding party went to office of the accused at 15:40 Hrs., where the complainant met the accused No.1 in his office. The panch No.1 was prevented by the peon of the accused No.1. After some conversation between the complainant and accused No.1, the complainant made prearranged signal to the ACB persons and the ACB persons rushed to the spot, where they found cover containing currency notes, on the table of the accused. Thereafter, marks of anthracene powder were found on both the hands of accused during the experiment of the ultraviolet lamp. The Investigating Officer carried out further investigation, recorded the panchnama and obtained requisite sanction.
4. After usual investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted the chargesheet. In order to bring home the charge, prosecution had examined the witnesses and got exhibited a large number of documents. The witnesses examined by the prosecution viz. PW1, Mahyar Navroji Fatakia at Exhibit 12, PW2, Girishbhai Tuljaram Rana at Exhibit 30, PW3, Sureshbhai Jaysingbhai Patel at Exhibit 32, P.W.4 – Govindbhai Becharbhai Parmar at Exhibit 34, P.W. 5 Gunvantrai Maganlal Naik Exhibit 48, P.W. No.6 – Amarsinh Mohanlal Yadav Exhibit 50, P.W.7 Vinayak Govind Risbood at Exhibit 57 and P.W.8 Oravi Obanaik at Exhibit 63. The appellant was put on trial, where he denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
5. The accused – appellants in their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure disputed the charges that they had demanded the amount towards illegal gratification but did want to adduce evidence in their defence.
6. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. While doing so it considered the defence version and rejected the same. Accordingly, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as narrated above by the trial court.
7. Learned advocate Mr. H.N. Joshi appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the judgment and order is bad in law and against weight of evidence. Even charge and examination of the accused are not in conformity with the provisions of the Code. He further submitted that in the corruption cases, there are four stages i.e. (i) Initial Demand (ii) Second demand 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 the four stages from independent evidence. He also submitted that in the bribery case, the demand is the most vital part of the prosecution and in this case, no demand by the appellants has been proved. No demand is proved through any independent evidence by the prosecution as neither the panch No.1 nor any other member of the raiding partyhas has seen the alleged incident of giving and taking of the bribe amount. The panch No.1 Sureshchandra Patel, categorically stated in his deposition that when the complainant went inside the office of the appellants, he was stopped by the peon of the office and therefore, he remained outside the offence at the time of the incident of giving and taking the alleged bribe amount. For the panch No.1, it was absolutely impossible to see and hear the conversation that took place between the appellant No.1 and complainant. He also submitted that the currency notes were not recovered from the actual or even conscious possession of the appellant No.1. He also submitted that learned Special Judge ought to have given the benefit of doubt to the present appellants in the circumstances where neither first demand nor second demand by the appellants is proved through any independent evidence. There is no corroboration whatsoever of the evidence of the complainant who is considered to be an accomplish witness and the law demands that the evidence of an accomplish witness has to be corroborated on the most material part. He also submitted that the sanction accorded by the Authority is not just and proper. He also submitted that the defence of the appellants in the statement recorded under Section 313 was not considered by the learned trial Judge while passing the judgment and order of conviction.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi for the appellants read the charge at Exhibit 8 and looking to the allegations levelled in the said charge, the aspects of demand is not proved or the conduct on the part of the accused with regard to involvement in the offence or conspiracy of the accused is also not proved. He submitted that the oral evidence of P.W.1 complainant – Mahyar Naroji Fatakia at Exhibit 12 has not properly supported the case of the prosecution. The complainant approached the office of the accused for renewal of his arm licence, but the story narrated by the complainant in his evidence does not reflect the demand, which is prescribed under the Act. The complainant shown his inability to state as to what kind of instructions issued by the ACB officer with regard to the trap. He further submitted that for a moment, even if it is believed that the accused had accepted the money, at that time, only the complainant was present in the chamber of accused, therefore, his evidence cannot be relied. The panch No.1 was stopped by the peon of the accused at the entrance of the chamber of accused and complainant only entered into the chamber of the accused. Thereafter, ACB team rushed into the chamber of the accused and the ACB persons found the cover containing the currency notes over the table of the accused. Therefore, it can be said that the accused had not accepted the amount of bribe and the complainant on his own put the said cover on the table of the accused. He also submitted that in the crossexamination, this witness denied the story narrated in complaint. This witness even had shown his inability to state what is stated in the complaint by himself. In cross examination, this witness had not properly narrated the incident and same is contrary to what is stated in his evidence and complaint. Learned advocate further stated that looking to the over all contents of the evidence of the complainant, P.W.1, the main material aspect of demand on the part of the accused is not established. Therefore, it can be said that the accused had not committed any offence, which falls under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned advocate further submitted that the P.W.2 Girishbhai Tuljaram Rana, Exhibit 30, who is panch, serving as a Clerk in the office of Collector in the year 1989 and accused No.1 was working as Deputy Collector in Midday Meal branch. At the time of incident, the accused No.1 was in the charge of RDC, which was originally with one Mr. P.H. Shah. From the evidence of this witness, nothing is reflected about demand made by the accused. Learned advocate read the oral evidence of P.W 3 Sureshchandra Jaysingbhai Patel at Exhibit 32, Panch No.1, who was working as Clerk in the office of Deputy Executive Engineer at Dharampur in the year 1989. This witness went with the complainant when the accused No.1 came into his chamber. But this witness was prevented to go inside the chamber of the accused and he was outside the chamber. Neither this panch had seen the exchange of currency note nor had listened the conversation took place between the complainant and appellant. It was absolutely impossible to see and hear the conversation that took place between the appellant and complainant inside the chamber. Even this witness stated in his evidence that when he along with ACB persons entered into the chamber of the accused, the cover of trap amount was found on the table of the accused. Therefore, this witness had not seen anything with regard to the acceptance on the part of the accused. Even this witness during the course of his evidence, gave answer slowly and after thinking. Therefore, the evidence of this witness cannot be said to be reliable one. Even in the crossexamination, this witness showed his ignorance about the time, place and writer of panchnama. Learned advocate further stated that the trial Court questioned during the crossexamination of this witness, but this witness had not answered properly. This witness unable to show as to what happened in the chamber of the accused at the time of trap. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi stated that the evidence of P.W.4 Govindbhai Becharbhai Parmar at Exhibit 34, who was performing his duty as Assistant in Revenue Department, Sachivalaya and this witness stated that one Deputy Secretary Mr. V.G. Risbood accorded sanction to prosecute the matter against the accused. Learned advocate further submitted that if the evidence of this witness is carefully scrutinized, it appears that the sanction, which was granted by the competent Authority is not just and proper and without looking into the documents produced before him, accorded sanction. The learned advocate further stated that the evidence of P.W.5 Gunvantray Maganlal Nayak at Exhibit 48 has not supported the facts about the sanction. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi drew the attention towards the oral evidence of P.W.6 Amrsinh Mohanlal Yadav, Trapping Officer, at Exhibit 50 and submitted that in the evidence of this witness, he narrated the incident but the demand aspect is not reflected anywhere and when the demand is not proved, then the question of acceptance or recovery cannot arise and therefore, the conviction is required to be set aside. This witness, after getting signal from the complainant, who was already in the chamber of the accused, rushed to the spot and found the cover containing currency notes on the table. The said cover was at that time, not in the hands of the accused nor in the pocket of the accused and even from the cloths of the accused, no marks of anthracene powder were found. No doubt while performing duty of Trapping Officer, he complied the formalities as prescribed under the law. Even from the crossexamination of this witness, the alleged demand on the part of the appellants accused is established.
He also read the oral evidence of P.W.7 Vinayak Govind Risbood and P.W.8 Orvi Obanaik and submitted that sanction is not just and proper and without properly studying the papers, the same was granted to prosecute against the appellants – accused.
9. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi read the provisions of Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Penal Code. He also submitted that there is no definition for abetment or conspiracy so far as the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is concocted. He further stated that so far as criminal conspiracy on the part of accused is concerned, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence which links the appellants into commission of the offence alleged. He also submitted that the evidence recorded are not corroborated and complainant filed wrong complaint without any base under the Act and thereby, he wrongly involved the accused in the commission of the offence. He also submitted that the panch No.1 was specially selected by the Investigating Officer and his evidence was not true and trustworthy as the said panch witness was under impression and compulsion that he had to give the deposition as per the panchnama. He also submitted that in case of bribery, mere recovery of money, is not sufficient to convict the accused, when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. As per the Act, the aspect of demand is required to be proved. Here in this case, the same is not proved and there was conversation only between the complainant and the accused and panch No.1 was outside the chamber and he did not hear or see anything that happened in the chamber. He further submitted that the attitude of the panch witness is required to be taken into consideration at the time of recording his evidence.
10. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the State, vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned advocate Mr. Joshi. She read the charge at Exhibit 8, wherein it appears that the complainant approached the office of the accused for renewal of arm licence No.305/1980, which was having validity upto 31.12.1989. At that time, the accused No.1 in collusion with accused No.2, demanded Rs.10,000/ on 6.12.1989. On 7.12.1989, the accused No.2 instructed the complainant to give the amount of Rs.5000/ in cover and Rs.5000/ was to be paid after completion of the work. From the charge, it also appears that on 7.12.1989, when the complainant met the accused No.1, the accused No.1 told him that it was good, if the amount of Rs.5000/ would be given to the accused No.2. Therefore, it is clearly established that the accused demanded money for doing legal work, other than legal renumeration and accused persons being public servants, have no right to demand or take amount towards illegal gratification. Therefore, she stated that from the charge itself, it is clearly established that the accused demanded money and they accepted the same. She further stated that from the statement recorded under Section 313, the accused had not properly explained the incident and they could not make their defence. She read the evidence of P.W.1 Mahyar Navrojji Fatakiya and submitted that the complainant met the accused No.2 when he approached the office of collector at first time and the accused No.2 instructed to meet the accused No.1. She submitted that the accused No.1 explained the complainant about renewal of the licence without engaging the advocate. In such a manner, the accused No.1 demanded Rs.10000/ for doing such work. Thereafter, the complainant came out from the chamber of accused No.1, immediately, the accused No.2 met the complainant and passed instructions how to give the money and also specifically, he instructed the complainant that amount towards bribe should be kept in cover and the said cover should be handed over to the accused. The complainant showed his inability for such a huge amount and therefore, later on, it was final that Rs.5000/ would be given before doing work and remaining Rs.5000/ would be given after completing such work. Thereafter, as the complainant did not want to give such amount of bribe to the accused, he approached ACB office and lodged the complaint by narrating the whole incident. The trap was arranged by the ACB office and ACB team reached at the office of accused. In the chamber of the accused No.1, the complainant met him and as per demand made by accused, the complainant gave the amount of bribe in cover and the accused No.1 accepted the same with his right hand. The accused also counted the amount and thereafter, he put the same in the cover and put the same near the phone on the table with his left hand. During the course of experiment of ultraviolet lamp, the marks of anthracene powder were found on both the hands of the accused No.1. The complainant also stated that for giving such amount, he had withdrawn the amount from the State Bank of India. The same thing was admitted by the complainant in his crossexamination. She read the oral evidence of P.W.2 Girishbhai Tuljaram Rana. She also read the evidence P.W.3 Sureshchandra Jaysingh Patel and submitted that said witness was going with the complainant in the office of accused. This witness also stated that he was prevented by the peon of accused No.1 from entering into the chamber of the accused No.1. This witness also stated that marks of anthracene powder were found on tip of fingers of the accused No.1 during the experiment of ultraviolet lamp. Therefore, the contents stated in the charge, complaint and panchnama are corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1 and 2. She also read the evidence of P.W. 4 Govindbhai Becharbhai Parmar, P.W.5 Gunvantray Maganlal Nayak. She also read the evidence of P.W.6 Amarsinh Mohanlal Yadav, Investigating Officer of the incident, where this witness stated about the marks of anthracene powder on the hands of accused No.1 and he supported the version stated in the complaint and evidence of P.W.1 and 2. She further stated that the P.W. 7 Vinayak Govind Risbud, Deputy Secretary in the Revenue Department and P.W.8 Oravi Obanaik, Collector, Valsad, supported the sanction order to prosecute against the accused No.1. She also read the complaint and submitted that the complaint is supported by the oral evidence recorded during the trial and therefore, it cannot be said the accused had not committed the alleged offence.
11. She submitted 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 appellant – 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 subsection (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 subsection (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said subsections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption may fairly be drawn.”
12. Learned APP read 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 held that as per Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act presumption is required to be drawn in such type of cases.
13. She has read further statement of the appellant – accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code and contended that presence of the anthracene powder found from both the hands of the appellant is not explained by the appellant No.1. It is the duty of the appellant to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
14. In support of her submission, learned APP Ms. Jhaveri relied upon the case of Syed Ahmed Vs. State of Karnataka decided in Criminal Appeal No.1323 of 2007 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the provisions of Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and confirmed the order of conviction passed by the High Court, though the trial Court acquitted the accused of the charges. She submitted that in that case, the hands of accused smeared with powder.
15. Learned APP Ms. Jhaveri relied on the decision in the case of Balasubramanian Vs. State through Inspector of Police, reported in 2011 (1) GLR 739. She submitted 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 appellant No.1 in further statement under Section 313 of the Code.
16. I have examined the record and proceedings in context with the submissions made by the rival sides. It appears from the judgment that learned Sessions Judge has specifically made attempt to frame the charge in connection of the demand and acceptance. I have perused the oral as well as documentary evidence. I have also considered the oral arguments advanced by learned advocates appearing for both the sides. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned Judge has committed grave error in convicting the present appellant. He has 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. I have perused oral evidence of the P.W. No.1 and complaint in connection with the first demand made by the present appellant of Rs.10000/ and in result, demand of Rs.5000/ is made by the present appellant and he agreed to accept remaining amount of Rs.5000/ after completion of the work as illegal gratification. In connection with said demand, panchnama was carried out by the Trapping Officer P.W. No.6 and the raiding party reached to the place of complainant and panch witness was present with the complainant. I have perused the oral evidence of P.W.1 complainant, wherein it is stated by this witness that he went to the office of accused for renewal of his licence, where he met the accused No.2. The accused No.2 instructed the complainant to meet the accused, who was in the charge of RDC. As the Acts with regard to renewal of licence were changed, the complainant wanted to peruse the change Act. At that time, the accused No.1 told him that the same was confidential and therefore, he was unable to show the same and he also told that he would do such work, if the complainant would pay Rs.10,000/ to him. No doubt, the complainant showed his inability to pay such huge amount. Then, he came out from the chamber of the accused No.1 and immediately, the accused No.2 met the complainant. The accused No.2 persuaded how to give such amount of illegal gratification to the accused. The complainant reiterated in his crossexamination such story averred in his evidence. In line of the same, I have perused the evidence of P.W. 3 Sureshchandra Jaysingh Patel, who was panch and was along with the complainant at the time of trap. No doubt, he was prevented by the peon of the accused No.1 to enter into chamber and therefore, he was outside the chamber. Even he had no knowledge what happened inside the chamber of the accused No.1. But this witness very well supported the version of the complainant as narrated in the oral evidence of the complainant as well as in the complaint. Even the contents of panchnama are supported the complaint. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the complainant met the accused No.2 for renewal of his arm licence and at that time, the accused No.2 told about change of Act for renewal. Thereafter, the complainant met the accused No.1 as per instruction of the accused No.2 and the accused No.1 found out way about renewal of arm licence of complainant by making demand of Rs.10,000/. At that time, the change of Act was not come in the way of renewal of licence and the accused persons were ready to do work by taking amount of Rs.10,000/ towards illegal gratification. That shows that the accused wanted the amount of bribe from the complainant by illegal way and they being public servants have no right to demand money from the complainant for doing legal work. Thereafter, the stains of anthracene powder were found on the hands of the accused No.1 and therefore, it cannot be believed that the accused had not demanded money towards the bribe and it cannot also not believed that the accused had not accepted the same. No doubt, the amount of bribe as per instruction of accused No.2, was given by putting the same in cover, but the accused No.1 after opening the cover, counted the same and thereafter, he put the same into said cover on his table. After indication from the complainant, ACB team rushed to the spot, where they found the cover containing currency notes. The fact about the stains of anthracene powder on cover was established. Therefore, the complainant had very well corroborated the narration made in the complaint as well as with the evidence of P.W.2, panch, who was with him at the time of trap. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the prosecution.
17. I have perused further statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the appellants have tried to prove the defence version beyond reasonable doubt. While giving an explanation under Section 313 of the Code, the appellants, more particularly the appellant No.1, had not given any such explanation with regard to the receipt of amount. I have carefully gone through the said statement but I could not find such an explanation given by the appellants, and therefore, at this stage, I cannot accept the submission made by the learned advocate for the appellants. In light of this, I have perused the decision of Balasubramanian Vs. State through Inspector of Police, reported in 2011 (1) GLR 739, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :
“Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) – Secs. 7, 13(1)(d) & 13(2) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974) – Sec. 313 – Explanation of incriminating facts/evidence, held, if not made by accused at the first available opportunity under Sec. 313 cannot be accepted – Conviction confirmed.”
18. The Apex Court in case of Narendra Champaklal Trivedi Vs.
State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2012 Supreme Court, 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 in 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.
19. I have also perused decision of the Apex Court 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. The 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.”
20. In State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, 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.
21. In C.M. Girish Babu v. C.B.I., Cochin, High Court of Kerala, 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.”
22. In the case on hand, the money was admittedly recovered from the table of the accusedappellant and therefore a presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn against the appellants. 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 accusedappellant has not been accepted and there is no evidence on the basis of which it can be said that the presumption has been rebutted.
23. So far as accused No.2 is concerned, he had played active role in the commission of such offence. He gave instruction to the complainant for giving such amount of illegal gratification to the accused No.1. He told the complainant to keep the currency notes in a cover and said cover would be handed over to the accused No.1 in his chamber, when the accused No.1 was alone. The said fact is corroborated with the complaint and other evidence of witnesses examined during the course of trial. It is true that at the time of trap, the accused No.2 was not present in the office. Even as per the say of the accused No.1, the said amount was to be given to the accused No.2, but due nonavailability of him in the office, the accused No.1 accepted the said cover containing amount of bribe from the complainant. Said accused No.2 had not explained in his statement recorded under Section 313 about his noninvolvement in the offence.
24. Looking to the contents of the complaint, it is reflected that the complainant approached office of accused for the purpose of renewal of licence and he met first the accused No.2 and the accused No.2 told the complainant about the change of the Act with regard to renewal of licence and, therefore, it would not be possible to renew the same and probably, the licence would be cancelled, having validity throughout the country. Thereafter, he instructed to meet the accused No.1, who was in the charge of RDC at that time upto next Monday. From the complaint, it also appears that the accused No.2 told the complainant that when the accused No.1 was alone in the chamber, the complainant would meet him. Therefore, it appears that the accused No.2 in collusion with the accused No.1, made practice for obtaining the amount other than legal renumeration. Even the accused No.2 told the complainant that since the accused No.1 is having charge of RDC, the work of the complainant would be completed. Thereafter, when the complainant came back from the chamber of the accused No.1, the accused No.2 immediately contacted the complainant and passed certain instructions about how to give the bribe amount to them. Therefore, the conduct of the accused No.2 is required to be considered. The accused No.2 abetted the accused No.1 in commission of the offence alleged and his role so far abetment on his part is required to be seriouly viewed.
25. So far as abetment is concerned, the provisions of Section 107 and 108 of the Indian Penal Code is required to be considered here for the abetment in commission of offence is concerned. Section 107 and 108 read as under :
“107 : Abetment of a thing – A person abets the doing of a thing, who First – Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly _ Engages with one or other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly _ Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
108 : Abettor
A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.”
26. In view of the above provisions, role on the part of the accused No.2 in obtaining personal gain is proved by documentary as well as oral evidence produced on record.
27. At this stage also, Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is required to be referred, which is as under :
“12 : Punishment for abetment of offences defined in Section 7 or 11 :
Whoever abets any offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may to five years and shall also be liable to fine.”
28. Here in this case, the agreement on the part of the accused No.2 is very well reflected from the complaint, panchnama and oral evidence recorded during the course of trial. The said accused with a view to obtain his personal gain with the accused No.1, by way of abetting him in commission of the offence, committed criminal misconduct. Therefore, it cannot be believed that the accused No.2 has not committed offence as alleged.
29. Looking to the facts of the case, I am of the 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 explained by discharging 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 and they accepted the same voluntarily as an illegal gratification.
30. In the instant case, there is no contradiction in the deposition of the witnesses. There could be no reason/motive for the complainant to falsely enrope the appellants in the case.
31. 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.
32. During the course of arguments, learned advocate Mr. Joshi for the appellants submitted that if this Court may decline to allow the Appeal, then the aspect of sentence may kindly be considered in favour of the appellants. The appellants are old aged persons and they are passing through the critical stage of the life so far as therir economic factor is concerned. Therefore, some lenient view may be considered in favour of the appellants. On a perusal of Section 7(1) of the Act, it is perceptible that when an offence is proved under the said section, the public servant shall be punished with imprisonment which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 13(2) of the Act postulates that any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. The learned trial Court has imposed the minimum sentence i.e. for two rigorous imprisonment. Therefore, submission of the learned advocate is hereby rejected.
33. The appellant No.1 was Deputy Collector and appellant No.2 was Clerk were working at Collector Office and they were enjoying the posts as public servants, therefore, it is expected that they would not indulge themselves in such type of offences of corruption. The society is having high expectations from the public servants and therefore, I am of the view, that the accused being public servants, indulged themselves in such corrupt practice, are not entitled to even benefit of doubt and therefore, learned Special Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants.
34. Keeping in mind the evidence adduced by the prosecution on record, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence. There is no reason whatsoever for this Court to interfere with either the reasonings assigned by the trial Court while appreciating the evidence on record or to interfere with the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the trial Court on the basis of the appreciation of evidence on record adduced by the prosecution. When such is the situation, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of any merits and deserves dismissal.
35. All the submissions made on behalf of the appellants being devoid of any substance, I do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. The judgment and order dated 24.3.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Navsari, in Special Case No.2 of 1992 is confirmed. Appellants are on bail and in view of dismissal of appeal, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the Jail Authority within four weeks from the date of this order, failing which, the concerned Court shall issue nonbailable warrant against the appellants – accused to effect their arrest. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) ynvyas