State Of Gujarat ­ Opponents

1. The present appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.10.2003 passed by the learned Second Fast Track Judge, Amreli in Special Case No.4 of 1991, whereby, the learned Judge has held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short “P.C. Act”) and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for 12 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/­ i/d to further undergo S.I. for six months and for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the appellant was ordered to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/­ i/d to further undergo S.I. for three months. Learned Judge held that all the sentences shall run concurrently. Against the said judgment and order, this Appeal is filed by the appellant.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:

It is the case of the prosecution that on 6.12.1989, the nephew of the complainant – Dineshkumar Bhagvanji Popat met with an accident and during the course of medical treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, for getting compensation, one MACP case was filed before the Amreli Court. In the said claim case, the complainant engaged one advocate named Smt. Kokilaben and for filing such MACP case, the Post Mortum report was required to be produced in such proceedings and therefore, the said advocate contacted the Dr. Anilkumar Damodarbhai Asar working in the Government Hospital. As per the case of the prosecution, the said Doctor, appellant herein demanded Rs.75/­ towards illegal gratification, for providing Post Mortum report, from the complainant. The complainant had no money at that time and he informed the appellant that he would give Rs.75/­ in the after noon. As the complainant was not wiling to give the amount as demanded by the appellant – accused and therefore, the complainant approached the ACB office. The concerned ACB Officer called two panchas for carrying out raid. After completing necessary formalities, the raiding party including the complainant reached at the Civil Hospital, Amreli and the complainant and panch No.1 entered into the chamber of appellant. The appellant had handed over the Post Mortum report to the complainant and in the blank paper, he got signature about receipt of the said Post Mortum note. Thereafter, the appellant demanded Rs.75/­ towards illegal gratification, from the complainant and the complainant gave said amount to the appellant and after counting the amount, the appellant put the same in the drawer of the table. As per prearranged signal, the members of raiding party rushed to the appellant.

3. Thereafter, the complaint was registered against the appellant. Statement of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded. Necessary sanction was obtained from the concerned Authority and after the investigation was over, the charge­sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 7 and 13(2) of P.C. Act.

4. In order to bring home the charge levelled against the appellant­ accused, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and also relied upon the documentary evidence. The witness like P.W. 1 – Bharatbhai Nathabhai at Exhibit 10, P.W.2 – Dipakbhai Babubhai at Exhibit 12, P.W.3 complainant – Dineshbhai Bhagvanjibhai Popat at Exhibit 19, P.W.4 – Jayvantray Marutirav Dhone, Lamp Operator at Exhibit 21 and P.W. 5 – Prahladbhai Dhuljibhia Patel, Dy. Secretary, Health and Family Department at Exhibit 24. The documentary evidence like panchanma at Exhibit 11, service book of appellant at Exhibit 13, transfer order of the appellant at Exhibit 15, case registered at Amreli Civil Hospital at Exhibit 16, Application dated 13.4.1989 for P.M. report made by the complainant at exhibit 18, complaint at Exhibit 20, Seizure memo at Exhibit 22, sanctioned order at Exhibit 25. From the defence side, D.W.1 Kokilaben Vasantbhai was examined at Exhibit 29.

5. Thereafter, after examining the witnesses, further statement of the appellant­accused under sec. 313 of Cr PC was recorded in which the appellant­accused has denied the case of the prosecution.

6. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.10.2003 held the appellant – accused guilty to the charge levelled against him and convicted and sentenced the appellant accused, as stated above.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Second Fast Track Judge, Amreli, the present appellant has preferred this appeal.

8. Heard Mr. Gondaliya learned advocate and Mr. H.L. Jani, learned APP for the respondent­State.

9. Mr Gondaliya, learned advocate, appearing for the appellant submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge is erroneous, without appreciating the facts and evidence on record. Even there was no specific demand on the part of the accused and the acceptance of money was not proved by the prosecution as per the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The complainant himself has not supported the case of the prosecution. He read the oral evidence of P.W.1 – Bharatbhai Nathabhai at Exhibit 10, wherein he has specifically mentioned who is Doctor of the Civil Hospital and in his presence, some one has taken money from the complainant. This witness also stated that in his presence, the P.M. Note was not handed over to the complainant. In his cross­examination, he admitted that the appellant has not accepted the money and the experiment of ultraviolet lamp was not carried out to show the stains on the fingers of the appellant. Learned advocate further submitted that looking to the contents of the oral evidence of this witness, the demand is not at all proved beyond reasonable doubt on the part of the appellant. He drew attention to the oral evidence of P.W.2 Dipakbhai Babubhai. This witness stated in his oral evidence that he has not visited ACB office and even he has not visited with the ACB person to the hospital. He read the oral evidence of the complainant P.W.3– Dineshbhai Bhagwanji Popat at Exhibit 19 wherein he stated that he met the appellant but he did not know his name. The complainant also stated in his evidence that he has no knowledge about the demand and acceptance on the part of the appellant. This complainant turned hostile. He drew the attention to the oral evidence of P.W.4 – Jayvantrav Marutirav Dhone, Panch witness at Exhibit 21. This witness also stated that the name of the appellant is not in the FIR but it is only mentioned in the Panchnama. From the oral evidence of this witness, the aspect of the demand and acceptance are not proved. As per his submission, from the evidence of P.W.5 Prahaladray Dhuljibhai Patel at Exhibit 24, nothing is come out as he is sanctioning authority and there is no dispute about sanction. He read the contents of complaint and panchnama and he submitted that the contents of complaint are not corroborated with the documentary as well as oral evidence. He also read the oral evidence of D.W.1 – Kokilaben Vasantbhai Ashar and submitted that this witness stated that Dr. Ashar – appellant was not met her, but some other Doctor met her. Learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya submitted that looking to the evidence produced on the record, there is not a single iota of evidence which links with the case raised by the complainant about the demand towards illegal gratification was made by the appellant and the acceptance on the part of the appellant.

10. Learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya submitted that the very basic allegations of demand and acceptance of the amount by the accused have remained unproved and the very aspect of identity and involvement of the accused in the incident is also not proved. As per his submission, the question of raising any presumption, therefore, would not survive in the present case. He also submitted that the complainant turned hostile to the case of the prosecution but during the course of cross­examination by the public prosecutor the complaint was read out and it was tried to be elicited that the prosecution has given the said complaint in form in which it was written. The very evidence of the complainant in his chief examination and in his cross­examination is found completely inconsistent and contradictory. Even the panch witnesses selected by the prosecution were the private panchas and both the panch witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. From the evidence, P.W.1 was even unable to say who was the doctor. Even the present appellant was not identified before the lower Court. In view of the above submission, the learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya prayed to allow this Appeal by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence.

11. As against this, Mr. Jani, learned APP appearing for the respondent – State has supported the Judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge. He has contended that the learned Judge has not committed any error in holding the appellant guilty of the charges levelled against him. He has contended that looking to the evidence of the complainant, Panch witness and the Trapping Officer, the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused and recovery thereof is proved and, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. He has contended that the learned Judge has considered each and every aspect of the matter and has passed absolutely just and proper judgment and order of conviction. No doubt, the complainant turned hostile, but the evidence of other panch witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore also, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge requires to be confirmed.

12. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge and oral as well as documentary evidence produced on the record. I have read the oral evidence of prosecution witness­complainant and also perused the charge framed against the appellant. I have also considered the submissions advanced by the parties.

13. It appears from the judgment and order that the learned Judge has considered that the complainant has proved the charges against the appellant, though the complainant was declared hostile. I have perused the oral evidence of P.W.1 Bharatbhai Nathabhai at Exhibit 10, panch witness. He stated that in his presence, someone demanded money, but he has not stated that the appellant has demanded money from the complainant towards illegal gratification. He was unable to say that who was that Doctor, who demanded money. He also stated that in his presence, the sum of Rs.75/­ was given to the Doctor, but he has not said anything about present appellant. In his cross­examination, this witness has not admitted that he has not given any statement before the police that the appellant demanded sum of Rs.75/­ from the complainant and that amount was accepted by the appellant by his right hand and after counting the notes, the appellant put the same on the table. From the evidence of P.W.2 Dipakbahi Babubhai at Exhibit 12, it appears that he is a panch and he was doing the business of diamond in the year 1989. He stated in his oral evidence that he has not gone to the Civil Hospital or ACB Office. He also admitted in his cross­examination that he has not stated in his statement before the police that the appellant – Dr. Ashar took the money of Rs.75/­ from the complainant and thereafter, the experiment of regarding stains of anthracene power was carried out. Therefore, in short, this witness has no knowledge about the incident, more particularly about the appellant's involvement in the offence. This witness has been declared hostile. Therefore, it can be said that this witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Now, looking to the oral evidence of the complainant – Dineshbhai Bhagvanjibhai Popat at Exhibit 19, it appears that this witness having no knowledge about name of the appellant and he has given only identification of the person and he has not stated about the demand and acceptance on the part of the appellant. This witness i.e. complainant himself, was declared hostile. Even the complainant was unable to identify the Doctor, who demanded and accepted the money. The complainant has given description of the person, but he was not sure about the appellant, to whom he has given Rs.75/­ towards illegal gratification. Therefore, the complainant himself has not supported the case against the appellant. The evidence of P.W.4 Jayvantrav Marutirav Dhone, who is panch, has stated in his evidence the narration of incident on the basis of the complaint, which was given by the complainant. He also stated that the stains of anthracene powder were found on the fingers of right hand of appellant and complainant during the experiment of anthrance powder. In the cross­examination, this witness admitted that the name of the appellant is not stated in the complaint and in the panchnama, the name of the appellant is very well reflected. He has not seen the Post Mortum note. As per the complaint, the Post Mortum note was given to the complainant. In short, this witness was not in a position to say about the allegations levelled against the appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. I have perused the oral evidence of P.W.5 Prahladray Dhuljibhai Patel at Exhibit 34, who was sanctioning Authority to proceed against the appellant under the Act. I have perused the oral evidence of D.W.1 – Kokilaben Vasantbhai Ashar at Exhibit 29, who is advocate. As per her evidence, one MACP case was filed and in that case, P.M. note was required to be placed in the proceedings. For obtaining such P.M. note, she paid Rs.16/­ before the Civil Hospital. She stated that she has not met the appellant for obtaining P.M. Note. She has not specifically stated that the appellant has made demand of Rs.75/­ towards bribe. Therefore, in short, she is not sure about the appellant, who has made demand of Rs.75/­ from her. Therefore, looking to the oral evidences of the witnesses, the aspects demand and acceptance are not proved against the appellant and so far the recovery aspect is concerned, the same was recovered from the table. The complaint and panchnama are not corroborating with the evidences of the witnesses.

14. I have perused the statement of the appellant – accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the probable defence is established by the present appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the complainant himself turned hostile and therefore, the demand aspect is not very well established. In the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Banarsi Das Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2010 SC 1589, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that mere proof of recovery of bribe money from accused is not sufficient to prove the offence. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that so far as the offence of bribery is concerned, the demand and acceptance of bribe is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and mere proof of recovery of bribe money from accused is not sufficient to prove the offence and to hold the person guilty. Presumption cannot be raised when demand is not proved in this case. Therefore, in absence of any evidence regarding the demand, mere alleged recovery is not sufficient to convict the present appellant and hence, this appeal deserves to be allowed. The ratio laid down in this case is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case because in the case on hand, the demand is not proved and the complainant had not stated about the first demand made by the accused and therefore, mere alleged recovery is not sufficient to prove the case against the appellant accused. Therefore, evidence is not reliable. Therefore, the appeal is required to be allowed.

15. Present appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.10.2003 passed by the learned Second Fast Track Judge, Amreli in Special Case No.4 of 1991 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged. Since the appellant is on bail, no order in respect to setting him at liberty is passed. The appellant is hereby acquitted from the charges levelled against him in the present Special Case. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the appellant. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.

ynvyas (Z.K.SAIYED, J.)