State Of Gujarat ­ Opponents

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 316 of 2002

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 question of 4 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 ?

======================================

NARESHKUMAR DUDHABHAI VAGHELA ­ Appellant(s)

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT ­ Opponent(s)

====================================== Appearance :

MR KJ SHETHNA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR HL JANI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Opponent(s) : 1, ======================================

CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED

Date : 04/07/2012

CAV JUDGMENT

1. The appellant has filed this Appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Mehsana in Special (ACB) Case No.12 of 1995 dated 8.2.2002, by which the appellant – accused is convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 7,13(1)(d),1,2,3 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant ­ accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and awarded sentence to the appellant to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/­, i/d, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months, whereas the appellant was ordered to suffer two years simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) & 13(1) (d),1,2,3 of the Act and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/­, i/d. to suffer two months simple imprisonment. The learned Special Judge has ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the complainant namely Prahladbhai Ambalal Prajapati, having his factory at Mehsana GIDC, is the manufacturer of agricultural instruments and some wooden articles. The complainant applied with requisite documents for issuance of sale tax number on 30.1.1994 before the Sales Tax Office, Mehsana, where the accused was working as Sales Tax Officer being public servant. On 23.1.1995, the complainant reached the office of the Sales Tax and met the accused. The showed the files of his factory to the accused and drew the attention to the application made on 30.12.1994. After verifying the file of the complainant, the accused for bribe of Rs.500/­ to sign the papers. The complainant told that he is not having money, therefore, the accused asked him to bring money on 30.1.1995. The complainant did not want to give money towards illegal gratification to the accused and therefore, he approached the ACB office, Mehsana for lodging the complaint against the accused. After completing necessary formalities, one preliminary panchnama was prepared in the presence of panchas and trap was arranged. Thereafter, the ACB personnel and complainant went to the office of the accused and the complainant gave the amount of bribe to the accused. Thereafter, panchnama was prepared and sanction was obtained from the competent authority for proceeding ahead against the accused.

3. 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, Prahladbhai Ambaram Prajapati, complainant at Exhibit 15, PW­2, Mahmudbhai Ahmadbhai Kureshi, Panch at Exhibit 22, PW­3, Devendrakumar Ishwarlal Chaudhari, Panch at Exhibit 24, P.W.4 – Manuji Gulabji Chawda, witness at Exhibit 25, P.W.5 Punampuri Ganeshpuri, witness at Exhibit 26, P.W. 6 – Tukaram Johru Thakore, I.O. at Exhibit 28, P.W. 7 Dahyalal Chelram Joshi, P.I. ACB, at Exhibit 37. Thereafter, documentary evidence viz. complaint at Exhibit 16, partnership deed at Exhibit 17, Power of Attorney deed at Exhibit 18, letter issued to the complainant asking to remain present before the office of Sales Tax Office at Exhibit 19, Application Form No.1 for Registration at Exhibit 20, xerox copy of form 15 as per Section 60 at Exhibit 21, Panchnama at Exhibit 23, Yadi for calling panch at Exhibit 29, seizure memo reflecting the recovery of articles from the table of the accused at Exhibit 30, seizure memo about recovery of trap amount at Exhibit 31, Form G at Exhibit 32, service book of the accused at Exhibit 33, transfer order of accused at Exhibit 34, Sanction order at Exhibit 38 has been produced.

4. 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, the trial Court has also considered the defence version and rejected the same. Accordingly the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above by the trial court.

5. Learned senior advocate Mr. K.J. Sethna appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the judgment and order is bad in law, illegal and unwarranted. He further submitted that learned Sessions Judge has seriously erred in convicting the accused without properly appreciating the evidence. He also submitted that the charge and the statement of the accused U/s. 313 of the Code are not in conformity with the provisions of the Code. He read the charge at Exhibit 11 and submitted that looking to the contents of the charge, originally demand of Rs.500/­ was shown to have been made, but it is not proved through the prosecution witness No.1 Prahaladbhai Ambaram Prajapati, complainant, at Exhibit 15. He submitted that from the evidence of this witness, the important aspect of demand is not proved and even as per the evidence of this witness, he was instructed by the accused to go outside the chamber and after his going out of the chamber, the ACB personnel entered into the chamber of the accused, therefore, this witness has no knowledge about what happened inside the chamber of the accused. As per this witness, the currency notes were kept in the file and thereafter, during the experiment of ultraviolet lamp, the stains were found on the hand of the complainant as well as accused. Therefore, it appears that there are contradictions in the evidence of this witness. He also submitted that the words as alleged to have been told by the accused to the complainant are that “have you brought as per previous talk?” Even from the cross­ examination of this witness, nothing has come out, which establishes the demand on the part of the accused. Even there was no animosity between the complainant and accused. He further submitted that probable defence of he accused is established during the cross­ examination of the complainant, but learned Special Judge has not considered the probable defence of the accused. Therefore, as per the submission of learned senior advocate and looking to the evidence of witness complainant, no demand is proved. The accused has never made any demand from the complainant and the complainant himself inserted Rs.250/­ into file, which was on the table of the accused. Learned senior advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that nothing is recovered from the possession of present applicant. The pen, which was used by the present appellant – accused, was not recovered by the Investigating Officer. Learned senior advocate further submitted that looking to the contents of complaint, Exhibit 16, and his oral evidence, it is clear that both are contradictory. He also submitted that present appellant is wrongly booked by the complainant in the offence under the provisions of the Anti­Corruption Act. Learned senior advocate read para 2 of cross­ examination of this witness and submitted that this witness deposed before the lower Court as per instruction given to him. The words used by the accused are not stated in the statement recorded before the Trapping Officer by the complainant. The trap amount, which was lying on the table, was inserted by the present appellant in the file but in the statement of the complainant, it is stated that the amount was inserted with the help of pen by the present appellant. He further submitted that the evidence of the complainant is not supported by the version in the complaint. Learned senior advocate Mr. Shetha submitted that when the material aspects like demand and acceptance are not proved, it can be said that the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused. He submitted that sufficient defence has been made out by the accused, but the learned Special Judge has not considered the same in favour of the accused. Learned senior advocate Mr. Shetha submitted that looking to the evidence of P.W.2 Kureshi Mahmudbhai Ahmadbhai at Exhibit 22, the demand and acceptance on the part of the accused are not established. He also read the cross­examination of this witness and submitted that this witness is known to Mr. Mehta and under his influence, this witness was called as panch and therefore, this witness is interested witness and his evidence is doubtful. He read the cross­examination of this witness and submitted that this witness has no knowledge about the use of pen by the accused. He further submitted that from the evidence of this witness P.W.2, nothing is coming out against the accused, which can prove that the accused has committed the offence under the Act. Learned senior advocate further submitted that the evidence of this witness cannot be said to be cogent evidence in support of version of this panch witness. He read the contents of panchnama at Exhibit 23 and submitted that even the contents of the panchnama are not proved through evidence of this panch witness. He submitted that the probable defence made by the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required to be accepted by the learned Special Judge. Learned senior advocate read the oral evidence of P.W.3 Devendra Ishwarlal Chaudhari at Exhibit 24, who is panch in this case. This witness stated in his evidence that he had no knowledge when the complainant and panch entered into the chamber of the accused. It is also reflected from the evidence of this witness that the trap amount was put in the file. Therefore, it can be said that the accused had not taken the trap amount by himself and, therefore, the question of acceptance of the trap amount cannot arise, and in result, the conviction awarded by the learned Special Judge can be said to be without appreciating any evidence on record and learned Special Judge considered the evidence of the prosecution only. He further submitted that looking to overall contents of evidence of this witness, the demand and acceptance are not proved. Learned senior advocate drew the attention to the evidence of P.W.4 ­ Manuji Gulabji Chavda at Exhibit 25 and submitted that from the evidence of this witness, the demand is not proved. He also submitted that from evidence of this witness, demand towards illegal gratification or the offence as alleged under the Act is not said to be committed by the accused. Learned senior advocate also drew the attention towards the oral evidence of P.W.5 Punampuri Ganeshpura Goswami, who was ASI at ACB office. In his evidence, he stated that he knew Krishnakant, who was journalist and said Krishnakant was not present in the ACB office when the FIR was registered and panchas arrived. Learned senior advocate further submitted that, at the time of trap, no other files were lying on the table except the file of Ganesh Wooden Industries on which the experiment was done. Therefore, from the evidence of this witness, the case against the accused is not proved. As per the submissions of learned senior advocate, the evidence of P.W. 6 Tukaram Johru Thakur, Investigating Officer, revealed that this witness admitted in his cross­ examination that said Krishakant gave the names of the panchas, who were selected as panchas. The said Investigating Officer himself admitted that he has no knowledge about the pen which was used by the accused, upon which the stains of anthracene powder were found or not. Therefore, his evidence is not said to be believable. Learned senior advocate submitted that sanction which was given by P.W.7, Dahyalal Chelaram Joshi, was not proper. The panchnama and compliant do not inspire any confidence for the alleged offence. He also submitted that further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge. In his further statement, the accused has denied the allegations levelled against him. The accused did not plead guilty to the charge. The defence of the accused was that one Krishnakant Mehta was publishing “Uttar Gujarat Express” of which he was the editor, and sub­editor namely Kalpanaben was partner with the complainant in the firm. Said Shri Krishnakant was having enmity with the accused and, therefore, false case was made against the accused at the instance of Krishnakant Mehta whose invisible hands operated to the prejudice of the accused. Therefore, he lastly prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, the appeal is required to be allowed.

6. Learned senior advocate Mr. Shethna relied upon the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Kavaran Ramchandra reported in 1979(2) GLR 208 and submitted that in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Reading over of statement of witness before his examination does not make it inadmissible. He submitted that the ratio of said decision is totally applicable and evidence of the witness must be discarded. He also relied upon the case of Nathu Manchhu Vs. State of Gujarat reported in GLR 1977 1041, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if the evidence of a witness who has read his police statement is soon led, then its probative value may be affected. As per his submission, in the instant case, it is so, more particularly, when Krishanakant was present and he was responsible for the trap. Learned senior advocate also relied on one another case namely Navinchandra Dungrashi Doshi Vs. The State of Gujarat reported in 1964­65 REPORTS 93 in which it is held that whether the Panchas connected with the Investigating Officer, a serious infirmity in the prosecution evidence. He further submitted that in the present case, the panchas were selected by Krushnakant Mehta and under his influence, the panchas were called to carrying out trap and they had given their respective evidence as per the instruction of said Shri Mehta. He lastly submitted that considering all these circumstances and the aspects of the demand and acceptance are not proved by the prosecution, the appellant – accused is required to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him by allowing the appeal.

7. Learned APP Mr. H.L. Jani for the State, vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned senior advocate Mr. Shethna. As per his submission, the evidence of witnesses examined, cannot be rejected in toto. Learned APP also read further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that the accused has not explained properly the incident and the case of the accused is not believable, and he is involved in serious offence under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act. He also submitted that learned Special Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence produced on record and rightly held the appellant guilty for the alleged offence. He read the contents of evidence of P.W.1 – Prahladbhai Ambaram Prajapati, complainant and submitted that the said witness stated in evidence that the accused told him (complainant) that if the complainant does not give Rs.500/­, the accused would not finish the work. This witness also admitted in his evidence that the accused demanded the money and same was given to the accused and therefore, marks of anthracene powder were found on the hand of the accused. The contents of his evidence and the contents of complaint and panchnama are corroborated wholly and, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had not made demand by way of illegal gratification from the complainant. If the evidence of P.W.2 – Kureshi Mahmudbhai Ahmadbhai, panch, is carefully scrutinized, the demand on the part of the accused is very well proved, as the accused demanded Rs.250/­ from the complainant and the complainant gave the same by his right hand and the accused told the complainant to put the amount into the file, which was of Ganesh Wooden Industries. This witness also stated that the stains of anthracene powder were found on the right hand of the accused. Even the said witness admitted that he was not called as per the instructions of Shri Mehta. The recovery of the amount is not denied in any way because the amount which was given towards bribe was found from the table of the accused and, therefore, it cannot be said that the amount was not recovered from the accused and if no demand is made how the amount was found on the table of the accused which was smeared with anthracene powder. He also read the contents of panchnama and complaint. Learned APP Mr. Jani has also read the evidence of P.W.3 – Devendrakuar Chadhary, who was panch, and who stated same story as stated and averred by the P.W.1 and P.W.2. He submitted that, in short, the witnesses examined during the course of trial, stated in their respective evidence that the amount was recovered from the table of the accused and the stains of anthracene powder were found on the hand of the accused. The accused had not explained his defence properly in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even the sanction to prosecute the case against the accused was just and proper. Therefore, on the aspect of sanction, it cannot be said that the complaint was filed wrongly against the accused because the competent Authority after verifying the papers, accorded sanction to prosecute the case against the person, who is involved in such kind of offence. Therefore, it is established that the accused was very well involved in the offence by considering other aspects of case like evidence, complaint and panchnama. He also submitted that the evidence on record is against the accused and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. Hence, the appeal may be dismissed.

8. Heard the parties and perused the record. It appears from the judgment that learned Sessions Judge has specifically made attempt to frame the charge in connection with demand and acceptance.

9. I have perused the record as well as judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. From evidence of P.W.1 – Prahladbhai Ambaram, it appears that the complainant approached the accused for obtaining sales tax number for running his factory namely Ganesh Wooden Industries. At that time, the accused told the complainant to give him Rs.500/­ for doing such work of the complainant and the complainant showed his inability to give such amount at that time. Therefore, the accused told the accused to come on next date and bring the amount of Rs.500/­. The complainant did not want to give the said amount to the accused and therefore, he approached the ACB office, Mehsana and lodged the complaint against the accused. After completing necessary formalities of procedure, the ACB persons including the complainant and panchas decided to carry out trap at the office of the accused. Therefore, the ACB team had reached at the office of the accused, where the accused was present in his chamber and the complainant and panch No.1 went into office of the accused. The accused verified the papers and asked the complainant 'have you (complainant) brought as per previous talk'. The complainant told the accused about Rs.200/­, but the accused insisted for Rs.250/­ and the accused instructed the complainant to keep the same into the file, which was on the table of the accused. Here one thing is required to be considered that when the accused told the complainant that have you brought as per previous talk and in response to the same, the complainant gave Rs.250/­. It is clearly established that previously the accused told the complainant about amount of illegal gratification and if accused had not demanded the amount, why the complainant on his own would hand over the money. Therefore, the say of the accused that he had not demand the money towards illegal gratification, is not believable at all. It can be inferred that without previous talk or conversation, a person cannot give money to any person. Secondly, as per the oral evidence of this witness, the stains of the anthracene powder were found on the finger of the accused and also on the pen. If the say of the accused is believed, for a moment, then how the currency notes smeared with anthracene powder, were found from the file, which was on the table of the accused. The file which was on the table of the accused was of the complainant's factory namely Ganesh Wooden Industries. Therefore, it is established fact that previously the accused made demand from the complainant and in response to the same, at the office of the accused, as per instruction of the accused, the amount was kept by complainant in the file and after that stains of anthracene powder were found on the finger of right hand of the accused. Looking to the oral evidence of P.W.2 Kuresi Mahmudbhai, panch No.1, this witness and the complainant met the accused in the chamber of the accused and during conversation, the accused demanded Rs.250/­ from the complainant for doing his work. As per this witness, the marks of anthracene powder were found on the finger of right hand of the accused. This witness denied that he was called as per the instructions of Krishnakant Mehta. In his cross­examination, this witness denied about stains of the anthracene powder found from right hand of the accused. As per evidence of P.W.3 – Devendrakumar Ishwarlal Chaudhary, who was also a panch, it is revealed that when the ACB officer asked the accused, after the prearranged signal made by panch No.1, the accused was frightened and the trap amount was found in the file, which was on the table of the accused. Therefore, it can be said that the evidence of this witness is corroborated with the evidence of the P.W.1 and P.W.2 as well as with the complaint and panchnama. As per P.W.4 Manuji Gulabji Chavda, the stains of anthracene powder were found on the right hand of the accused. The file from which the trap amount was found, was of factory of the complainant. I have perused the oral evidence of P.W.5, Punampuri, who had carried out experiment of ultraviolet lamp. I have also perused the evidence of P.W.6 Tukaram Johru Thakur, I.O. and P.W.7 Dahyalal Chelaram Joshi. I have perused the complaint and panchnama and the contents stated therein are corroborated with the evidence of the witnesses recorded during the trial.

10. I have also perused the complaint and panchnama and they are corroborated with the evidence led by the witnesses. Therefore, it is established that the accused demanded bribe money from the complainant for doing the work and after arranging the trap, the recovery was made from the possession of the accused and therefore, the aspect of the acceptance is also proved. The stains of anthracene powder were found on the hands of the accused as well as on the pant of the accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had not demanded the bribe money and had not accepted the same.

11. Looking to the evidence on record, in my opinion, the appellant has failed to prove his probable defence and he has not explained as to how anthracene powder was found from the person of appellant – accused. 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. The Apex Court in case of Narendra Champaklal Trivedi Vs. State of Gujarat (Supra), 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. 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.”

13. In Raj Rajendra Singh Seth v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. the principle laid down in Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi (supra) was reiterated.

14. 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.

15. 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), it is 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.”

16. I have also perused further statement recorded under Section 313 of the accused, but the accused has failed to tender proper explanation in connection of his involvement in commission of the offence.

17. From the perusal of the evidence, it is found that present appellant is a public servant and he, in his own capacity, had accepted the bribe amount from the complainant. So the conduct of the present appellant is proved by documentary as well as oral evidence. When he made demand of illegal gratification and when he accepted the same, then it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has committed criminal misconduct. The aspects of demand and acceptance on the part of the appellant ­ accused are very well proved by the prosecution.

18. The contention raised by the learned advocate that the panchas are selected as per the instruction of Shri Krushnakant Mehta, but the contents of complaint, panchnama and evidence of the witnesses examined before the lower Court are corroborated to each other and therefore, the contention of the learned senior advocate is not acceptable. I have minutely perused the cases cited by learned senior advocate, but the facts of those cases are not applicable to the present case.

19. Even As per Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the conduct of the accused is required to be considered. From the record it is clearly established that at the place of occurrence, the accused was found and from his possession the trap amount was recovered in presence of panch witness and hence conduct of the accused suggests that there was motive of the accused to commit the offence to get some illegal gratification. The trial Judge has rightly held the appellant – accused guilty for the aforesaid offences. Therefore, contention of the appellant – accused that the accused was wrongly involved in the commission of offence is not believable.

20. In view of the above observation, I do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. The judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge (A.C.B.), Mehsana passed in Special ACB Case No.12 of 1995 dated 8.2.2002 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. The appellant – accused is 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 non­bailable warrant to effect the arrest of the appellant – original accused. R & P to be sent back to the trial court forthwith.

(Z.K. SAIYED,J.) ynvyas