SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 710

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan B. Lokur, Nagappan, JJ.
Somabhai Gopalbhai Patel - Appellant
versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1864 OF 2011
Decided on: 24-09-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Illegal gratification—Accused is bound to rebut statutory presumption operating against him.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Sections 7 and 13(d)(i)(ii)(iii) read with Sections 13(2) and 20—Illegal gratification—Demand and acceptance—Presumption—Primary requisite of offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act is proof of demand or request of a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from public servant— Complainant has fully supported case of prosecution by testifying about demand of illegal gratification made by accused to him and acceptance of same—Shadow witness has clearly stated in his testimony about demand of bribe and giving of same to accused—His testimony fully corroborates testimony of complainant—Prosecution has established demand and acceptance of amount by accused as illegal gratification—Accused miserably failed to dislodge presumption under Section 20—Conviction recorded by trial judge which has been affirmed by Single Judge of High Court does not warrant any interference. (Paras 6, 8 and 9)

       (2009) 6 SCC 587 ; (2011) 6 SCC 450 ; (2010) 4 SCC 450 ; 2014 (4) SCALE 81 ; (2012) 7 SCC 80—Discussed.

       (B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Sections 7 and 13(d)(i)(ii)(iii) read with Sections 13(2)—Illegal gratification—Sentence—Reduction—Appellant is said to be 60 years old and suffering from heart disease, facial nerve palsy and speech disorder—Imposition of minimum sentence prescribed for offences for which conviction is made would meet ends of justice—Sentence under different sections modified. (Paras 10 and 11)

       Facts of case—

       Case of illegal gratification. Trial court found accused guilty of charges and convicted and sentenced him. Accused preferred appeal and High Court dismissed the same by impugned judgment.

       Findings of court—

       There remains no shadow of doubt that appellant-accused had demanded bribe and accepted the same to provide the documents sought for by the complainant. Therefore, conviction recorded by learned trial judge which has been affirmed by single Judge of High Court does not warrant any interference.

       

JUDGMENT

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 14.2.2011 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad whereby it has confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.3.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Banaskandha at Palampur in Special Case No.215 of 1992, wherein the Special Judge had convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and further convicted him under Section 13(d)(i)(ii)(iii) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1500, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with stipulation that the sentences would run concurrently.

2. Briefly the facts are stated thus: PW1 Girishbhai is the son of PW2 Ranchhodbhai and they owned 28 bighas of agricultural land in village Ratanpur. There was a borewell in the said land fitted with 10 HP motor and it was not bailing out sufficient water and hence they planned to replace it with 15 HP motor. In order to submit an application for the said purpose to the Electricity Board, they needed documents like village form No.7, 12, 8-A, map from revenue record and certificate regarding sufficiency of the water in the borewell, and therefore, PW1 Girishbhai approached the appellant/accused Somabhai Gopalbhai Patel who was Talati-cum-Mantri at Ratanpur village and requested for issuance of documents and the accused asked PW1 Girishbhai to come with money and meet him in his office at Ratanpur. When PW1 inquired the accused as to how much money he has to bring, the accused told him to pay the amount as per his desire. PW1 Girishbhai lodged Exh.12 complaint in the office of Anti-Corruption Bureau at Palanpur against the accused. The Investigation Officer on receiving the complaint on 20.11.1991 sought assistance of two Panch witnesses who were government servants and made them to understand the case and thereafter experiment of U.V. lamp was carried out with the help of anthrecene powder. Thereafter the complainant produced currency notes of Rs.300 comprising of two notes of Rs.100 denomination and two notes of Rs.50 deomination and a preliminary part of Panchnama was drawn and signature of Panchas were taken and anthracene powder was applied to the said notes in the presence of Panch witnesses. PW1 Girishbhai took the said currency notes in his shirt pocket and alongwith PW3 Ismailbhai went in his scooter to the office of the Ratanpur Panchayat. The accused was sitting in his chair in the office and both of them occupied chairs in front of the accused. PW1 Girishbhai told the accused that as per the earlier talk he had come to take the documents and the accused handed over the documents and PW1 Girishbhai asked the accused as to what is the amount he should give for it and the accused told him to pay whatever he wants to give. PW1 Girishbhai gave Rs.250/-and the accused put the same in his left side shirt pocket. On giving signal, the raiding party came there and the experiment of U.V. lamp was carried out on the hands and shirt pocket of the accused and light blue fluorescent marks of anthrecene were found on the right hand thumb and the pocket also. Pancha No.2 took out the currency notes from the left side pocket of the accused and on those currency notes light blue florescent marks of anthrecene powder were found and the numbers tallied with the numbers mentioned on the first part of the Panchnama. The second copy of the panchnama was prepared and the Investigation Officer carried out further investigation and after obtaining requisite sanction, laid the chargesheet against the accused.

3. The learned trial judge framed the charges in respect of the offences mentioned hereinbef














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top