IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.
Ramsingbhai Abdabhai Vasava – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1734 of 2005
Decided On : 16-04-2024
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a public servant, was convicted for demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The complainant alleged that the accused demanded an amount to settle a case and was caught red-handed accepting the illegal gratification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found major contradictions in the evidence, lack of proof of prior demand, and failure to establish the essential element of demand for bribe money. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, contradictions in the evidence, and failure to establish prior demand.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that demand for bribe money is essential to convict under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere recovery of tainted currency notes without proof of demand does not constitute the offense.
Final Decision: The appeal succeeded, and the appellant was acquitted from all charges. The judgment and order of conviction were quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT :
S.V. PINTO, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Bharuch, (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Corruption Case No. 6 of 1999 on 30.07.2005, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act”).
The appellant is hereinafter referred to as the accused as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 That the accused was working as an Assistant Sub- Inspector, Buckle No. 1137 in Nabipur Police Station, Zanor Beet and was a public servant. That the complainant Melabhai Mohanbhai Vasava residing at Navinagari, Orpatar, Zanor, Taluka and District Bharuch was doing the retail sale of fish besides the bus stand and on 21.01.1999, at around 10.00 am Babubhai Valibhai and his sister had come to buy fish and had asked for the price of one kilo fish and he had stated that it was Rs. 60/- per kilo and they had bought one kilo fish. That after half an hour, Homeguard Babubhai came to his house and told him that he had taken more price for the fish and had given less fish and had threatened that he would file a police case against him. That at around 11.30, one policeman Maheshbhai came to his house and told him that the accused was calling him and he went to the police gate which was situated near Zanor Bus Stand. That the accused met him and told him that Babu had filed a complaint and he would have to go to Nabipur Jail and had demanded an amount of Rs. 1,000/- to settle the case. After bargaining the amount was fixed at Rs. 700/- and as he had Rs. 500/- with him, he had given the accused the amount of Rs. 500/- and had stated that the remaining amount of Rs. 200/- would be paid later and at that time, the accused told him to pay the amount on Saturday till 06.00 pm. That the complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification and hence, filed the complaint with the ACB Police Station, Bharuch which was registered at C.R. No. 2/1999 on 23.01.1999. The Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and after the experiment of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp was carried out and explained to the panch witnesses and the complainant, the trap was arranged and on 23.01.1999, the accused was in Zanor Police Gate and he accepted the amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 200/- from the complainant and after the predetermined signal was given, the members of the raiding party rushed in and the accused was caught red handed. That after the statements of the connected witnesses were recorded and the panchnama was drawn, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet before the Sessions Court, Bharuch which was registered as Special Corruption Case No. 6/1999.
2.2. That the accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and after the procedure under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.5 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.6. The accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.3 The prosecution produced the following oral evidence to bring home the charge against the accused:
| S. No. | PW | Particulars | Exhibit |
| 1. | 1 | Melabhai Mohanbhai | 10 |
| 2. | 2 | Nitish Rajsinh Solanki | 13 |
| 3. | 3 | Shankarbhai Ambalal Patel | 15 |
| 4. | 4 | Pratapbhai Khatariyabhai | 18 |
| 5. | 5 | Dr. Vijay Patel | 21 |
| 6. | 6 | Dineshbhai Sumra | 22 |
| 7. | 7 | N.B. Koralwala | 34 |
| 8. | 8 | R.L. Parmar | 49 |
2.4 The prosecution also produced the following document
AI
The demand for bribe money is essential to establish the offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The central legal point established is that the demand for illegal gratification is a sine qua non for convicting an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove the....
The demand for illegal gratification is essential for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove the initial demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof rests on the prosecution.
The prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be established for an offence under the Prevention of Corr....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and the need for reliable and corroborative evidence in bribery cases.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance as crucial elements for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the requirement of valid sanction for prosecution is essential. Lack o....
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.