( 1 ) THE appellant is the orig. convict (hereinafter referred to as the appellant ) of Special Case No. 2 of 1987 decided by the learned Special Judge, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar, vide his judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10th August, 1990, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the charge of offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 5 (1) (d) punishable under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) THE present appeal is under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by the appellant assailing the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence on various grounds. By way of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under challenge in this appeal, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay the fine of Rs. 1500/- and in default to make payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months qua the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code; and the appellant is also directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay the fine of Rs. 1500/-, and in default to make payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months qua the offence punishable under Section 5 (2) of the Act. Of course, both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

( 3 ) SHRI Anandjiwala, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has taken this Court through the charge Ex. 12 on page 28 of the paper-book. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and written explanation was also given vide Ex. 82, whereby he has denied the charge saying that he has been victimised by the complainant and other members of the raiding party including panch Dr. Prataprai L. Anakhia, PW-2, Ex. 27, as well as PW-3 Yusufbhai N. Malek examined vide Ex. 30. He has neither demanded nor accepted the amount of bribe amount of Rs. 5000/- as alleged, from the complainant on the date of trap i. e. 02nd September, 1984 and only with a view to see that the appellant is trapped, the complainant as well as PW-3 Yusufbhai planted the bribe amount in the teapoy (corner table) lying in his drawing room, when the appellant had gone to instruct his maidservant to collect the cup and saucer which were lying in the drawing room and was not able to see the activities of these two persons of planting the said amount in the teapoy.

( 4 ) TO appreciate the say of the appellant as well as the case of the prosecution, firstly it would be appropriate to have a look on the basic charge framed against the appellant, which inter alia reads as under :

A. That on 02nd day of September 1984 at Himatnagar, District Sabarkantha, you were serving as Deputy Collector (L. N. D. 11) Sabarkantha District at Himatnagar, and as such being a public servant demanded and accepted respondent. 5000/- as bribe from the complainant Punjabhai Dahyabhai Patel son of Dahyabhai Rangabhai Patel of village Jalodar Taluka Modasa, through Yusufbhai Mohmamadbhai Malek of village Jalodar, Taluka Modasa, a gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for the issuance of an order in favour of Dahyabhai Rangabhai Patel etc. in Revision Case No. 190/84 under the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. B. That on the aforesaid day, time and place you Rameshkumar Purshottambhai Sagar being a public servant by use of corrupt or illegal means or by abusing your position as as public servant obtained a sum of Rs. 5000/- for yourself for pecuniary advantage and thereby committed an offence under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act punishable under Section 5 (2) of the said Act.

( 5 ) THE above charge is framed on the facts placed by the prosecution before the learned trial Court and if the said facts, es

Click Here to Read the rest of this document