JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the
appellant accused against the judgment and order of
conviction dated 3.3.1988 recorded by Special Judge,
Ahmedabad in Special Case No.30/1986, on a prosecution
instituted by Central Bureau of Investigation ( CBI for
short) on behalf of the State of Gujarat.
(2.)The appellant is the original accused who has
been held guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.5(2)
R/w Sec.5(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as the "Old Act") and under
Sec.161 of Indian Penal Code ( IPC for short) and came to
be convicted to undergo R/I for 1 Year and to pay a fine
of Rs.500/ (Rs.Five hundred only), I/d to undergo R/I for
3 Months for the offence punishable under Sec. 5(2) R/w
Sec. 5(1)(D) of the Old Act and to undergo R/I for 1
Year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ (Rs. Five hundred
only), I/d to undergo R/I for 3 Months for the offence
punishable under Sec.161 of IPC.
(3.)
(i) The case of the prosecution in brief is that the
accused Ajaykumar Solanki was serving with Bank of Baroda
and during the discharge of his official duties of
sanctioning and giving loan amount, demanded illegal
gratification of sum of Rs.1200/ in two parts i.e.
Rs.700/ in the form of commission + Rs.500/ for
disbursing the loan amount and accepted the said sum in
two parts i.e. Rs.600/ from the complainant
Roopchandbhai Bhemabhai Baraiya and remaining amount of
Rs.600/ when he was trapped on the strength of the
complaint on the fateful day i.e. on 26.02.1985.
(ii) Piplod is a small town, say a big village, of
district Panch Mahals and the accused was performing his
duties as an Agricultural Officer in Piplod Branch of
Bank of Baroda, one of the Nationalised Bank. It is not
disputed that the appellant accused was a "public
servant" within the meaning of the Old Act. Complainant
Roopsingh was having his shop in the name of Vishwas
Machinery Stores, Opp: Bus Stand at Piplod. One Shri
Dhirabhai of village Asaydi, a nearby village of town
Piplod, was anxious to have loan with the assistance and
guidance of District Industrial Centre (DIC for short) at
Godhara and, therefore, he applied for obtaining
subsidized loan for purchasing one Oil Engine for his
floor mill. His case was recommended by DIC, Godhara for
subsidized loan to the tune of Rs.9700/ somewhere in
January-1985 and in turn, loan application of Dhirabhai
was sent with recommendations to the Bank of Baroda,
Piplod Branch (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank").
As per the case of the prosecution, when Shri Dhirabhai
came to know that his application has been sent to the
Bank, he met the accused, but he was told that
application was not received. Thereupon, said Dhirabhai
met complainant Roopsinghbhai and talked to him.
Complainant Roopsinghbhai, therefore, approached the
accused who demanded Rs.1200/ from the complainant for
disbursing the loan amount. On sale of Oil Engine, the
complainant obviously, was to earn some profit.
(iii) That on 22.02.1985, the accused went to the shop
of the complainant Roopsinghbhai and repeated the demand
of illegal gratification and obtained Rs.600/ from the
complainant against the amount of Rs.1200/ demanded by
the accused. The complainant also informed the accused
that he will pay balance amount of Rs.600/ on 25.02.1985.
As the complainant did not want to pay the amount of
illegal gratification, he lodged a complaint in the ACB
at Godhara on 25.02.1985. Thereafter, Inspector of ACB
Office at Godhara arranged for calling panch witnesses
for the purpose of laying trap after recording the
complaint and preparing panchanama and after observing
necessary formalities of explaining the nature and effect
of anthracene powder and experiment of ultra-violet lamp
and production of muddamal notes of Rs.100/ each
amounting to Rs.600/ smeared with anthracene powder and
placed into the pocket of the bus shirt of the
complainant. After going through all the formalities, a
trap was laid at about 4.50 O'clock in the evening on
25.02.1985 at the shop of the complainant. At that time,
the accused approached the complainant at his shop and
first he took the favour of motor cycle from the
complainant for going to village Asyadi and he returned
after about 20 minutes to the shop of the complainant.
It is the case that at that time, bus going to Limbdi
arrived at the bus stand and so he ran to board the bus
for going to his place, repeating his demand for
remaining amount of illegal gratification. So, the
complainant did not give the amount of RS.600/ as the
accused had also told the complainant to see him on the
next day for collecting the said amount.
(iv) That on the next day i.e. on 26.02.1985, the
accused came to the shop of the complainant and demanded
remaining amount of Rs.600/ and accepted the same by
accepting the muddamal currency notes of Rs.600/ from the
complainant. After placing the said 6 notes of Rs.100/
each in the left pocket of his shirt, the accused turned
to go out of shop and in the meantime, as arranged, panch
witness No.1 Mr. Malek and PSI Mr. Patel were in the
process of coming out from the rear room. When the
accused was about to leave the shop, PSI Mr. Patel asked
the accused to stop there. It is the case of the
prosecution that thereupon the accused hurriedly left the
shop of the complainant, threw away the muddamal notes on
the road near the corner of the shop and started running
fast towards the Bank. He was ultimately caught and
brought to the shop of the complainant where necessary
formalities were gone through.
(v) That after the trap operation and registration of
offence and initial part of investigation, the case was
entrusted to CBI as the accused being a bank employee,
CBI was the agency to carry further investigation and
also to file chargsheet if so decided. CBI completed
further investigation and filed chargesheet before the
Court after obtaining necessary sanction, on 16.10.1986.
The accused came to be tried for the offence punishable
under Sec. 5(2) R/w Sec. 5(1)(D) of the Old Act and
under Sec.161 of IPC and vide impugned judgment and
order, came to be convicted and sentenced as stated
earlier, which judgment and order is challenged by the
accused by filing present Criminal Appeal.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.