AJAYKUMAR CHANDRASINH SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2005-3-100
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on March 28,2005

AJAYKUMAR CHANDRASINH SOLANKI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAMSINGH BAHADURSINGH V/S STATE [REFERRED TO]
HARI DEV SHARMA VS. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
KHILLI RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
PUNJABRAO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. V VASUDEVA RAO [REFERRED TO]


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.