SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Guj) 241

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :H.R.Shelat
GOPALLA GHISULAL CHHIPA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 66 of 1987
Decided On : 05/28/1996

Advocates Appeared: K.B.ANANDJIVALA, M.A.BUKHARI

Headnote:

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Section 161- Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (1) (d) - 161- Appellant file of Court conviction and deceased appellant came to be sentenced to three months simple imprisonment and fine in default simple imprisonment for one month more - Apprised him about coercive measures adopted by appellant-accused for purpose of extorting illegal gratification complaint was then reduced into writing permission from Judicial Magistrate was obtained and panchas were called explained about purpose of mission what role complainant and both panchas were to play - Currency notes given by were shown to panchas and anthracite powder was applied on both sides of currency notes and then necessary demonstration with aid of ultra-violet lamp was carried out and both panchas were apprised how limbs of the person touching notes would be found glittering with light blue fluorescent marks - Appellant came there riding over his cycle parked his cycle near railway track where tree was complainant called him mentioning about his inability to walk because he was pricked with a thorn deceased-appellant went nearer to him and questioned whether had brought amount and what amount had brought replied in affirmative – Held, Court submitted that at relevant time was serving in District was serving as Home Inspector was serving as Office Superintendent another reason malpractices they adopted in connection with horse fodder came to light and Rajkot raided their places - Court examine evidence requirement to prove charge may be stated is held by Supreme Court in case of that vital part of prosecution if cannot be believed or not proved, conviction cannot be based as laid down in this case demand and acceptance are required to be proved without any doubt if one of them is not proved being vital part offence cannot be said to have been constituted and conviction if inflicted cannot be sustained view has been taken in view of law made clear in above stated decisions what is required to be determined is whether prosecution has successfully established case about demand and acceptance hers then assumed that deceased appellant had played pivotal role in getting their places raided - Prosecution has not beyond reasonable doubt succeeded in establishing case about demand and acceptance - Judgment and order of lower Court convicting and sentencing deceased appellant of charges with set aside and acquitted thereof - Appeal allowed(Para 16)

H. R. SHELAT, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant (now deceased) was placed on trial before the Special Judge for the District of Bhavnagar at Bhavnagar to answer the charge of the offence punishable under Sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947 in Special Case No. 1 of 1984 on the file of the Court. The trial ended in conviction and the deceased appellant came to be sentenced to three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500. 00, in default, simple imprisonment for one moth more. The case of the prosecution in short is as under.

( 2 ) DAHYABHAI, Bhutabhai is serving as Keyman in Railways. He resides at Nari in Bhavnagar District. Damji aged about 18 years and Ramesh aged about 17 years are his sons. Both the sons go to the factories for labour work. and during leisure hours they also take their cattle to the grazing ground for the purpose of grazing. The deceased-appellant was serving as Mounted Armed Police Constable. His duty was to move around the area allotted to him along with his fellow brother and have close surveillance over the theft or other crimes being committed or likelihood thereof and not the criminals. Few days before the incident the deceased appellant told Damji that his cattle were entering into the fields of others and causing damage to the crop. It was also told to him that he was committing theft and therefore, he would see that he was put behind the bars. but he would be let off if he was paid Rs. 1000. 00. Damji went home and informed Dahyabhai Bhutabhai. his father about the threat given to him by deceased appellant. He was pacified. Thereafter, on 12/09/1983 after 5-00 p. m. . the deceased-appellant met Dahyabhai bhutabhai and demanded Rs. l. 000. 00 the amount of illegal gratification saying that if the payment was not made he would see that his son was sent behind the bars involving in any case. Dahyabhai Bhutabhai supplicated and urged not to talk through his hat and be reckless as his son was not engaged in criminal activities. However, the appellant paid heed and insisted for Rs. l. 000. 00 failing which it was made clear that his son would be sent behind the bars. Dahyabhai Bhutabhai was having no option. He made it clear that because of the financial stringencies it was not possible for him to manage for Rs. l. 000. 00. but the deceased-appellant persisted for the same. Hence Dahyabhai Bhutabhai in order to save his son Damji feeling helpless agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 1,000. 00. but by two equal instalments each of Rs. 500. 00. On the next day the payment was to be made. The place was then fixed. It was a place in G. I. D. C. area where there is a tree near the milestone of 161 Kms. , near the railway track. At 5-00 p. m. , Dahyabhai Bhutabhai had to go there and make the payment of Rs. 500. 00 the sum of first instalment. After the deceased appellant went away. during night time Dahyabhai Bhutabhai cogitated and decided to lodge a complaint. On the next day, i. e. , on 13-9-1. 983 in the morning at 11-00 a. m. he went to the office of A. C. B. at Bhavnagar. Mr. Janakrai Mahashankar vyas was serving as P. S. I, in A. C. B. office. Dahyabhai Bhutabhai apprised him about coercive measures adopted by the appellant-accused for the purpose of extorting illegal gratification. The complaint was then reduced into writing. The permission from the Judicial Magistrate (F. C.) was obtained, and panchas were called. Both the panchas were explained about the purpose of the mission. They were also explained what role the complainant and both the panchas were to play. The currency notes given by Dahyabhai were shown to the panchas and, thereafter, anthracene powder was applied on both the sides of currency notes and then necessary demonstration with the aid of ultra-violet lamp was carried out and both the panchas were apprised how the limbs of the person touching the notes would be found glittering with light blue fluorescent marks. In the shirt pocket put

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top