SOMABHAI GOPALBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT

C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 14.2.2011 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad whereby it has confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.3.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Banaskandha at Palampur in Special Case No.215 of 1992, wherein the D Special Judge had convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and further convicted him under Section 13(d)(i)(ii)(iii) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1500, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with stipulation that the sentences would run E F concurrently.

#2. Briefly the facts are stated thus: PW1 Girishbhai is the son of PW2 Ranchhodbhai and they owned 28 bighas of agricultural land in village Ratanpur. There was a borewell in the said land fitted with 10 HP motor and it was not bailing out sufficient water and hence they planned to replace it with 15 HP motor. In order to submit an application for the said purpose to the Electricity Board, they needed documents like village form No.7, 12, 8-A, map from revenue record and certificate regarding sufficiency of the water in the borewell, and therefore, G H SOMABHAI GOPALBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT [C. NAGAPPAN, J.] 671 PW1 Girishbhai approached the appellanUaccused Somabhai A Gopalbhai Patel who was Talati-cum-Mantri at Ratanpur village and requested for issuance of documents and the accused asked PW1 Girishbhai to come with money and meet him in his office at Ratanpur. When PW1 inquired the accused as to how much money he has to bring, the accused told him to pay B the amount as per his desire. PW1 Girishbhai lodged Exh.12 complaint in the office of Anti-Corruption Bureau at Palanpur against the accused. The Investigation Officer on receiving the complaint on 20.11.1991 sought assistance of two Panch witnesses who were government servants and made them to c understand the case and thereafter experiment of U.V. lamp was carried out with the help of anthrecene powder. Thereafter the complainant produced currency notes of Rs.300 comprising of two notes of Rs.100 denomination and two notes of Rs.50 deomination anda-~reliminary part of Panchnama was drawn and signature of Panchas were taken and anthracene powder was applied to the said notes in the presence of Panch witnesses. PW1 Girishbhai took the said currency notes in his shirt pocket and alongwith PW3 lsmailbhai went in his scooter to the office of the Ratanpur Panchayat. The accused was sitting in his chair in the office and both of them occupied chairs in front of the accused. PW1 Girishbhai told the accused that as per the earlier talk he had come to take the documents and the accused handed over the documents and PW1 Girishbhai asked the accused as to what is the amount he should give for it and the accused told him to pay whatever he wants to give. PW1 Girishbhai gave Rs.250/- and the accused put the same in his left side shirt pocket. On giving signal, the raiding party came thete and the experiment of U.V. lamp was carried out on the hands and shirt pocket of the accused and light blue fluorescent marks of anthrecene were found on the right hand G thumb and the pocket also. Pancha No.2 took out the currency notes from the left side pocket of the accused and on those currency notes light blue florescent marks of anthrecene powder were found and the numbers tallied with the numbers mentioned on the first part of the Panchnama. The second copy of the H D E F 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R. A panchnama was prepared and the Investigation Officer carried out further investigation and after obtaining requisite sanction, laid the chargesheet against the accused. 8

#3. The learned trial judge framed the charges in respect of the offences mentioned hereinbefore. The accused pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried. The prosecution examined six witnesses and produced documentary evidence. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and answers were recorded. Exh. 50 is the C statement given by him. The trial court found the accused guilty of the charges and convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. The accused preferred appeal and the High Court dismissed the same by impugned judgment. That is under challenge before us. D

#4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised challenge to the impugned judgment, inter alia, but primarily on the following grounds: E F G (a) There is no evidence to prove demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification (b) The recovery of the currency notes from the accused had also not been proved inasmuch as panchas are not independent witnesses and their evidence did not merit any acceptance. (c) Without prejudice to the above contentions it is also urged that the sentence awarded to the appellant is unreasonably excessive and deserves reduction.