KALUBHAI DANABHAI PATEL vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(Guj) 570

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :J.R.Vora
KALUBHAI DANABHAI PATEL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 491 Of 1994
Decided On : 09/07/2006

Headnote:
Criminal Act – Appeal is preferred by the appellant-accused under Section 374 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and is directed against the judgment and order dated delivered by Special Judge Case appellant of Criminal Appeal came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Section 161 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year for each of the above two offences and to pay fine of for each of the two offences, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month impugned judgment and order, it is directed that both the sentences to run concurrently leading to the prosecution against the appellant of Criminal Appeal can shortly be depicted as complainant originally resident of village joined in service as teacher in Primary Section at village month of February, 1986, he was required to appear in examination of Hindi and, therefore, he had to go to his native town. According to him, he obtained leave for that purpose on he over stayed and could not join the duty till During that period accused Patel, who was serving as an Area Inspector, during relevant juncture – Education Department, visited inspection at the school where the complainant was serving – It is of complainant that the accused signed his Register and he met with his About the absence of the complainant from the school informed the accused that the complainant had been of station. When complainant returned from his native town, his landlord informed him that accused had visited and had directed the complainant to meet the accused – Held, An attempt is not made even in the deposition of PI as to disclose the original prosecution case in respect of what actually transpired while trap was led in District Office compound creditworthiness of complainant in this particular case is examined as aforesaid and it is found that this is not a mere case of contradictions here and there, but this is a case where the complainant attempted to depose falsity and against the established fact and attending circumstances clearly emerging from the case. Placing reliance upon such witnesses to base conviction is unsafe in serious cases like this one. The decisions submitted by learned advocate for the appellant-accused, are the decisions on the facts of those cases. What is material is as above said whether important part of the prosecution case inspires confidence. In some cases acceptance of bribe by the accused, demand could be inferred without any hesitation and it is not required in such cases to even prove in any clear term demand of bribery. This is the law as it stands today. What appears in this case is acceptance of envelope by the accused and as aforesaid, the culpable state of mind which is known on part of accused could not be established by credible evidence. It is found that there is no hesitation on the part of the accused to admit that he had accepted that envelope from the complainant, but understanding the same to be a census report. In this view of the matter, it is felt that when the prosecution is not able to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and when the evidence puts the Court in dilemma, benefit of doubt must go to the accused and probability of the may not be required to be discussed circumstances emerging from the evidence of the prosecution particularly of complainant leads to uncertainty – No Court can ever afford to ignore the other side of the coin that for the purpose which can be from the record and circumstances of the case, susceptible view also emerges that whether the trap led is to finish the carrier of a Government employee – Application is dismissed.

( 14 ) P. W. 6 - Dinkar Mangesh Rangdekar, the captain of the teem, who conducted the raid is examined at Ex. 32. He stated that in the year 1986, he was serving as Police Inspector, ACB at Godhra. On 1st May, 1986, Shri Jitendrakumar Nathalal Raval had come to ACB Police Station and offered his complaint against the Area Inspector Shri K. D. Patel for demanding bribe of Rs. 100/- for the purpose of making good remarks for the complainant. The witness stated that he reduced the complaint in writing as stated by the complainant which he produced at Ex. 21. He identified his own signature as well as the signature of the complainant on complaint. The witness further stated that while he was recording the complaint, PSI Shri Joshi had come to the Police Station. He stated that he instructed PSI Shri Joshi to bring two panchas from Mamlatdar Office. He stated that Shri Joshi at about 11. 15 a. m. brought the panch - Khumansinh who was Government employee. He stated that the second panch was not found and, therefore, he was sent to Prant Office for second panch. The witness further stated that Shri Joshi brought Gammatsinh at 11. 25 a. m. , as panch. The witness further stated that he introduced complainant to the panchas and panchas to the complainant. He stated that complainant read over his complaint to the panchas. The witness further stated that the complainant presented Rs. 100/- for offering in bribe. The witness stated that number of the said note was recorded in panchnama. He stated that thereafter, this note was handed over to Police Sub-Inspector Shri Joshi. He stated that PSI Shri Joshi explained the utility of anthracene powder and ultra violet lamp and he was instructed to execute experiment. The witness stated that thereafter, the said note was seen in natural light and thereafter, in the light of ultra violet lamp, but no marks could be visible on the said note. The witness further stated that thereafter, PSI Shri Joshi took out one blank paper and sufficient anthracene powder was extracted on that blank paper and was smeared on both the sides of the note of Rs. 100/- with his fingers. The witness further stated that thereafter, PSI Shri Joshi examined the said note on which powder was smeared, blank paper and his hands in natural light, but no marks were visible, but in light of ultra violet lamp the marks were seen. Both the sides of note and on the fingers of the hands of PSI Shri Joshi as well as on blank paper anthracene powder marks were visible. The witness stated that thereafter, he took out one envelope of white colour and he opened the flap of that envelope and he instructed PSI Shri Joshi to put the note of Rs. 100/- in that envelope in which PSI Shri Joshi put. He further stated that thereafter, flap of envelope was closed and after folding the same, the envelope was put in left hand shirt pocket of the complainant. Before putting the envelope through panch No. 1, search was made of left hand shirt pocket of the complainant, but the same was found empty. He further stated that thereafter, PSI Shri Joshi restored the bottle of anthracene powder in the cupboard and he locked that cupboard. The blank paper on which PSI Shri Joshi had taken anthracene powder was burnt and destroyed by PSI Shri Joshi. The witness further stated that PSI Shri Joshi washed his hands by soap. The witness further stated that PSI Shri Joshi examined his hands first in natural light and thereafter, in the light of ultra violet lamp, but no marks were found on the hands of PSI Shri Joshi. The witness further stated that thereafter, the hands of the complainants, hands of both the panchas and hands of the all of members of the raiding party were examined firstly in natural light and, thereafter, in the light of ultra violet lamp, but no marks were found on the hands of anybody. The witness further stated that thereafter, he instructed the complainant that he along with both the panchas in Government jeep went to Pathik Ashram and from

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(Guj) 570

Gujarat High CourtJudgename :J.R.VoraKALUBHAI DANABHAI PATEL - AppellantVersusSTATE OF GUJARAT - RespondentCriminal Appeal 491 Of 1994Decided On : 09/07/2006

Cases Referred (1)

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :J.R.Vora
KALUBHAI DANABHAI PATEL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 491 Of 1994
Decided On : 09/07/2006