2008(2) Supreme 209
Supreme Court of india
(From Gujarat High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & J.M. Panchal, JJ.
Bechaarbhai S. Prajapati — Petitioner
versus
State of Gujarat — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 408 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6213 of 2007)
Decided on : 29-02-2008
(b)Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7(2) – In view of the occurrence being seven years old, the appellant having suffered custody for six months and the minimum sentence prescribed being six months, period of sentence reduced to the period already undergone. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
1.On 12.12.1990, at around 6.00 or 6.15 a.m. the appellant-accused stopped a luxury bus carrying a marriage party and demanded the documents relating to the luxury bus and kept these papers with them. A receipt of the papers was also given to the complainant.
2.The appellant-accused, then demanded Rs.250/-in the name of entry fee which was refused by the complainant. In view of the bus carrying a marriage party it was allowed to proceed with the instruction to collect the papers later by paying Rs.250/-.
3.The owner of the bus and the complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau and a trap was laid.
4.The accused was caught red-handed demanding and accepting Rs.200/-.
5.Learned Special Judge convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section 7(2) of the Act and Section 161 IPC.
6.The appeal before the High Court was dismissed.
Findings of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the findings of the Courts below and hence no interference is required.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
judgment
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.
3.Challenge before the High Court was to the judgment and order dated 5.11.1993 passed by learned Sub-Judge, Bhavnagar, in Special Case No.9 of 1991 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year in respect of offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and for offence punishable under Section 7(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the ‘Act’), he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in respect of each of the offence and fine with default stipulation.
4.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :
On 12.12.1990, one Luxury Bus bearing No. GTS-9919 was hired by Ramnikdas Hargovindas from Bharat Travels Company for carrying a marriage party from Mahuva to Selana. According to the complainant-Ghelabhai Jasabhai, the Mehtaji of Bharat Travels who was present in the bus, at around 6.00 or 6.15 a.m. of that day when the bus reached Aasarana Chokadi, the appellant-accused stopped the luxury bus and demanded the documents relating to the luxury bus whereupon the complainant had shown the permit and otherpapers. However, the police staff kept these papers with them. The appellant-accused, then demanded Rs.250/-in the name of entry fee. The complainant, then requested the appellant - accused who was P.S.I. at the relevant time to let them go as the bus was carrying a marriage party. However, the appellant accused demanded Rs.250/- to which the complainant refused as instructed by the owner of the bus. It is further the case of the prosecution that the appellant-accused then told the complainant that Rs.225/- be paid and the papers be collected from that spot where the bus was intercepted by 10.00 O’clock, and in case the complainant is late, the amount be paid at Khuntvada Police Station. So saying, the appellant accused issued a receipt in token of having taken away the permit and other papers which was received by Bhagwanbhai Ranchhodbhai, the driver of the luxury bus. The driver was then allowed to run the bus towards village Selana. The complainant thereafter, returned to Mahuva and narrated the incident to the owner/proprietor of the luxury bus. On hearing this, the owner of the luxury bus was against giving any illegal gratification as all the documents relating to the luxury bus were genuine. Therefore, the owner decided to approach the Anti Corruption Bureau, Bhavnagar. Accordingly, the complainant, the owner of the luxury bus and one Ramjibhai who happens to be the elder brother of the owner of the luxury bus went to the Office of the Anti Corruption Bureau, Bhavnagar, met Mr. Bhatt, P.I, of Anti Corruption Bureau, Bhavnagar, apprised him of the matter and lodged the complaint. It is further the case of the prosecution that two Panchas were called and they were told the purpose for which they have been called, the complaint was read over to them and they agreed to be Panch Witnesess. They were also explained the purpose and use of anthracene powder. Thereafter, the complainant gave two currency notes in the denomination of Rs.100/-each and one currency note in the denomination of Rs.50/- aggregating Rs.250/-. These currency notes as also the hands of the complainant, Panchas and other staff were observed in ordinary light and nothing significant appeared. Thereafter, a bottle containing anthracene powder was taken from the cupboard, some anthracene powder was put in a blank paper, these currency notes were smeared with anthracene powder and when they were again observed in ordinary light no visible marks were seen. These currency notes were again tested under ultra-violet lamp and glowing marks of bluish powder were seen. These currency notes were then put into the shirt pocket of the complainant after ensuring tha
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.