GUJARAT HIGH COURT (DB)
Y.B. Bhatt and B.J. Shethna, JJ.
 Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat- Respondent
Cri Appeal No. 1189 of 1986
Decided on 16/17.4.1993
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellant- K.B. Anandjiwala.
For the Respondent - S.R. Divetia.

IMPORTANT POINT
Even if the complainant and the panch turn hostile and do not support prosecution case of demand and acceptance of bribery, conviction can still be based on the sole testimony of Investigating Officer.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 391- Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 161 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Section 5(2) - Conviction under - Appeal- Permission to lead additional evidence - Documents on record on which he wants to rely in support of his defense could have been brought on record by the accused before the trial court - Application for leading additional evidence filed only with a view to further delay the hearing of the case- It is required to be rejected. (Para 10)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 161 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Section 5(2) - Conviction under - Appeal- No material discrepancies in the evidence of the complainant and the panch on the point of demand and acceptance - Evidence of complainant and panch witness duly corroborated by the evidence of I.O. - Conviction sustainable - Sentence of 2 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 15,000/confirmed.

       Held, that the accused has submitted his written defense by way of written statement Exh. 72 and as per his defense statement he has denied the demand made by him on the night of 2.4.1983 when he came with the complainant in his car from Surat to Bharuch. As per his defense on the day of incident the complainant came with Rs. 20,000/- and told him that his talk regarding deposit of Rs. 20,000/- with Kumar Saheb was right and, therefore, he brought that amount of deposit. In the cross-examination of the complainant it is only suggested that the complainant had talked about Rs. 20,000/- and, therefore, he brought it. His further defense is that when he told the complainant to deposit that amount, but he does not press for the same, the complainant took out one bundle of notes wrapped in one paper and put it on the table and as soon as he put the same on the table, some persons entered his office and told him that they are A.C.B. men and though he had disclosed true facts, but they have filed this case Thus, as per the defense in the written statement Exh. 72 he had not even touched those notes. If he had not touched the bundle, then he would not get marks of anthracene powder on his left hand fingers, thumb and palm and also on right hand fingers. The suggestion put to the prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination is not consistent with the defense put forward by the accused in his written statement. As stated earlier, the defense put forward to the complainant was itself inconsistent with his defense statement. A suggestion- was made that the accused kept the money as it is. Immediately next suggestion was made that the accused counted that money. It was not even the case of the prosecution that the accused counted money and put it. One more suggestion was made to the complainant that when the accused raised shouts to call the cashier at that time people of A.C.B. came in the office. This is not the case in his defense statement Presence of the panch at the time of demand and acceptance of Rs. 20,000/- by the accused has not at all been challenged neither in the cross examination of the panch witness nor in his defense statement. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the explanation offered by the accused is not true and probable. It is false. Therefore, the learned Judge has rightly rejected the same and convicted the accused after accepting the prosecution case.(Para 12)

       Further held: To impose sentence is the discretion of the court and there cannot be any binding decision on the point of sentence. It is equally true that this court in some unreported cases, which were cited by Mr. Anandjiwala, has taken lenient view on the medical ground. But it depends upon the facts of each case. In this case the accused was Divisional Accountant-Class III servant. He accepted Rs. 20,000/- bribe from the complainant and that too in the year 1983 when the value of rupee was much more. When he was convicted by the learned Special Judge on 20.9.1986 and ordered to pay Rs. 15,000/- immediately on that very day, he deposited the said amount from his salary, which was hardly Rs. 2,400/- when he was under suspension. What does it show? Any further comment is required? There is a delay of 10 years in disposing of this appeal after the commission of the offence, which took place on 4.4.1983. This circumstances is also considered along with other circumstances by this court in other cases for reducing the sentence. But in our opinion, this fact alone would never be a ground to reduce the sentence. This is the hierarchy of our judicial system that the appeals are heard after a pretty long time. It may be stated that corruption is rampant in our country and it is a social evil and hardly there would be any walk of life where there is no corruption. Therefore, to curb corruption heavy sentence of imprisonment is a dire need of the hour. The minimum sentence prescribed under the Act is of one year and maximum is seven years. The learned Spl. Judge after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, thought fit to impose the sentence of 2 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/-. Therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the sentence imposed by the learned Judge is in any way harsh, which call for reduction by the hands of this court. (Para 17)

       Result: Appeal dismissed.