2016 Supreme(Guj) 1059
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.G. Shah, J.
Pandya Rajnikant Chimanlal - Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 590, 598 and 755 of 2009
Decided On : 06-06-2016
For the Appellant : B.M. Mangukiya
For the Respondent: Reeta Chandarana
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must prove the demand, acceptance, and possession of tainted currency notes by the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of prior demand and lack of cogent and reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt can result in the acquittal of the accused.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Conviction based on lack of evidence of demand, acceptance, and possession of tainted currency notes - Absence of prior demand and lack of cogent and reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction not confirmed
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of two accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting bribes. The prosecution alleged that the accused, a Police Sub-Inspector, was involved in collecting money as a bribe and illegal gratification from truck owners transporting coal. The trap set by the investigating officer resulted in the accused being caught with tainted currency notes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no prior demand of illegal gratification or bribe by the accused, and there was no evidence of demand, acceptance, or possession of tainted currency notes at the time of the raid. The court also noted contradictions and lack of reliability in the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses. The court concluded that there was no cogent and reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt to confirm the conviction of the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence to prove the demand, acceptance, and possession of tainted currency notes by the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must prove the prior demand of bribe or illegal gratification, demand at the time of the raid, acceptance of tainted currency notes, and possession of tainted currency notes by the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court also highlighted the importance of independent and reliable witnesses in such cases.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants and dismissed the appeal by the State for the enhancement of sentence, citing the lack of evidence to confirm the conviction. The appellants were acquitted from the charges, and the records and proceedings were sent back to the trial court. The appeal by the State for the enhancement of sentence was dismissed.
S.G. Shah, J.
1. All these appeals are arising out of the common impugned judgment and order dated 13.02.2009 by Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Patan in Special ACB Case No. 1 of 2005 whereby both the accused in such case were convicted and sentenced is awarded as under:
| Section | Sentence | Fine | In default of payment of fine |
| 13(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) | 1 year R.I. | Rs. 1000/- | 15 days S.I. |
| 13(2) | 1 year R.I. | Rs.1000/- | 15 days S.I. |
1.1 However, the Special Court has directed to undergo such sentence concurrently and thereby practically accused were awarded imprisonment of 1 year with fine of Rs. 2000/-.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 590 of 2009 is preferred by original accused No. 2 Mr. R.C. Pandya whereas Criminal Appeal No. 598 of 2009 is preferred by original accused No. 1 Mr. N.D. Vyas and Criminal Appeal No. 755 of 2009 is preferred by the State being prosecuting agency against both the accused for enhancement of sentence. Therefore, all these appeals are decided together by this common judgment and order.
3. The prosecution case before the Special Court is to the effect that the accused No. 1 Mr. N.D. Vyas was serving as Police Sub-Inspector, was involved in activity of collecting money as a bribe and illegal gratification from the truck owners, who are passing from Radhanpur towards Ahmedabad, more particularly with coal contending that there is no permission to transport coal from one place to another. On receipt of such intimation, Investigating Officer Mr. H.B. Chavda, Police Inspector of ACB office at Palanpur has managed a dummy driver to offer a bribe and arrange a trap as alleged in the charge-sheet and thereafter confirmed that the trap was positive and hence, filed charge-sheet against both the accused. Therefore, the first and foremost fact is quite clear that actually there is no reason complaint or intimation about prior demand of any amount as bribe or illegal gratification by the appellants, which is punishable under the Act and which is the basic requirement for instituting any criminal proceedings against such accused. Thereby basic ingredients for conviction in such case i.e. prior demand is absolutely absent in the present case. To be more precise, it is to be noted again that in the present case, there is no complaint by anyone from the public or otherwise that accused have demanded illegal gratification and bribe, but complaint does not want to pay such amount and, therefore, he lodged a complaint and thereupon trap was arranged. Even at the cost of repetition, it is to be noted again that said Police Inspector Mr. Chavda of Banaskantha district at Palanpur has received a secret information that on Radhanpur - Varahi road, when trucks are transporting coal, officers of the police department, forest department and RTO department are collecting an amount between Rs. 500/- to Rs. 10,000/- as bribe by stopping such vehicle on highway from driver of such truck. Therefore, Police Inspector has called upon two Panch Witnesses namely Jayantilal and S.S. Chavda from the office of the District Panchayat of Banaskantha at Palanpur and raiding party was formed including ASI Mr. M.M. Joshi, A.B. Ghasura and M.V. Harsh and carry out the requisite exercise for trap on 25.05.2004 and drawn panchnama to that effect, which is proved on record at exhibit 38. Thereafter, they started in police Jeep No. GJ 1 G 986 at about 9:40 p.m. and about 5 kms away from Radhanpur, they were waiting with their Jeep for searching a truck transporting coal. At about 10:50 p.m. one truck bearing No. GJ 8 T 4465 has stopped where such raiding party was waiting. Such truck was driven by one Salimbhai Sipahi and one Dharmesh Thakkar, native of Viramgam but residing at Radhanpur at the relevant time was also travelling in the truck. Mr. Chavda has, therefore, inquired about coal loaded in the truck and witness Dharmesh ha