CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date : 02/07/2012
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant – original accused has preferred this appeal under sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.12.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar, in Special Case No.8 of 1989, whereby, the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant – accused for the offence under sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. of 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for one week. The appellant is also convicted for the offence under section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further RI for one week, which is impugned in this appeal.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
The complainant was running an oil mill with the name and style as Natvar Oil Mill. In the year 1988 he received an electric consumption bill for Rs.1,93,056.48 ps. in connection with the power theft. Being aggrieved by the said bill the complainant moved the Court of Civil Judge, J.D.Khambhalia and obtained stay against the execution of the said bill and payment could not be made to the GEB. One and half month before dated 15.4.1988, the accused, who is office bearer of the Akhil Gujarat Vidyut Mandal, came to the Mill of the complainant and informed him that some bills are likely to be received from the GEB as he has made application in the form of complaint. While confirming it, the accused was shown application to this effect to the complainant wherein details of his factory's complaint and name of other factories were also included in it regarding power theft. The accused told the complainant that to get his name deleted he has to incur some expenses to which the complainant agreed. On 13.4.1989 the accused came to the Mill of the complainant and told that name of his Mill has been deleted from the list of power theft and the accused demanded Rs.3,500/- as illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration. As the complainant was not willing to pay any amount as illegal gratification to the accused, he approached the Inspector of Anti-corruption Bureau and lodged the FIR. On receipt of the complaint, the Investigating Officer called the panchas and completed the necessary formalities and thereafter they proceeded at the spot in the Government vehicle. Upon reaching at Khambhalia the complainant and the panch went to the Oil Mill of the complainant and took over seat in the office. Remaining persons including panch No.2 and the Inspector of ACB remained unnoticed out of the office of the complainant and took their position in the compound. Thereafter the accused came to the office of the complainant. The complainant welcomed the accused saying “Avo Joshibhai”. The accused thereafter took the chair lying near the complainant. The complainant told the accused that the amount of Rs.3,500/- is more and it should be reduced. The accused refused by saying that, 'nothing will be reduced'. On the contrary, he should pay Rs.200/- more as I am your Gor. The complainant told that he has only Rs.1,000/- as per their talk. In reply to that the accused told give me Rs.1,500/- I have to go to Baroda. The complainant took out the tainted currency notes from his pocket of the shirt by his right hand and gave it to the accused, who willingly accepted the tainted currency notes of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant. The complainant then gave the pre-planned. The raiding party thereafter rushed to the spot and recovered currency notes of Rs.1,000/- from the physical and conscious possession of the appellant.
Thereafter, investigation was carried out and after following the necessary procedure, and on grant of sanction, the charge-sheet against the accused came to be submitted before the Court.
Thereafter, the charge was framed against the appellant to which the appellant – accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In order to bring home the charge levelled against the appellant - accused, the prosecution has examined witnesses and also produced documentary evidence on record of the trial Court.
After examining the witnesses, further statement of the appellant-accused under Sec. 313 of Cr PC was recorded wherein the appellant-accused has denied the case of the prosecution.
After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned Special Judge, Jamnagar, vide impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.1996, held the appellant – accused guilty of the charge levelled against him and convicted and awarded the sentence as stated herein above.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar, the present appellant has preferred this appeal.
Heard Mr. Nitin M. Amin, learned for the appellant-accused and Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP for the respondent – State
Mr.Amin has contended that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence produced by the prosecution and the prosecution in this case has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that in a corruption case demand and acceptance are required to be proved but in this case no demand has been proved by the prosecution and only fact which is revealed in the evidence is that the appellant had gone to the complainant's Mill before one and half month from the date of incident. Thus, from the foundation the prosecution case is not established.
He has contended that looking to the evidence of the complainant it is proved that the complainant is an accomplice and therefore, independent corroboration is a must and in this case there is no independent corroboration from the panch as it is established that the panch is also specially selected by the prosecution agency. He contended that the copy of the letter submitted by the complainant is not prepared as per provisions of Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act and therefore, the contents of the same cannot be looked into.
He has contended that from the circumstances and the evidence on record, it is established that the FIR and the panchnama were prepared on the next day at the ACB office and therefore, all these documents loses their sanctity. He has contended that the learned Judge has overlooked the fact that evidence of the complainant, the panch and Constable Bhikhu Shah is contrary to that of one another in material particulars and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of either of these witnesses.
He has contended that the complainant is habitual of making complaint against public servant. It is established that the complainant has committed electricity theft and false complaint to pressurise the appellant – accused is filed. He has contended that in the evidence of the complainant letters referred to by him is not at all produced on record. He has contended that in the FIR timings are interpolated and there is overwriting in timings and therefore, contention of the appellant is more probable that the FIR and the panchnama were prepared in the Police Station itself and no such raid was carried out and the appellant had never accepted any illegal gratification.
On the other hand, learned APP Jirga Jhaveri has supported the judgment and order of the Special Court and contended that the trial Court has fully appreciated the evidence produced on record by the prosecution and, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court.
She has read the complaint and contended that as per case of the prosecution demand made by the present appellant – accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt. She has contended that the appellant - accused while functioning as a public servant demanded and accepted the illegal gratification from the complainant. She has contended that the presence of anthracene powder has been noticed on the fingers, thumb, tips and palms on both hands of the accused and also on the table of the accused where he put the currency notes after receiving the same from the complainant. It shows recovery from the physical and conscious possession of the tainted currency notes from the appellant - accused.
She has also contended that at the time of trap present appellant was a Senior Clerk and it was not his duty to visit the complainant's office. She has read Section 8 of the Evidence Act and contended that the act of the present appellant – accused is voluntary. She has contended that so far as visit of the appellant - accused at the place of complainant is concerned, it was intention of the appellant – accused in connection with the demand made by him to accept illegal gratification from the complainant. She has contended that the appellant – accused has admitted his presence at Natvar Oil Mill, Khambhalia.
She has also contended that looking to the facts of the case presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act is required to be drawn against the present appellant – accused. Section 20 of the P.C. Act reads as under :
“20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration -
(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
(2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under section 12 or under clause (b) of section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7, or as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption may fairly be drawn.”
She has read provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and contended that as per provisions of Section 7 there are specific ingredients of agreement. She has read oral evidence of the panch witness and contended that he is an independent witness. The defence has not made any attempt before the learned Judge to show that present panch witness is doubtful. She has contended that in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code the appellant – accused has disclosed that he was forcefully taken away by some persons in Government Vehicle at his residence and thereafter he was dropped at particular place. In connection with that defence Ms.Jhaveri has read definition of 'criminal force' provided under Section 350 of the Criminal Procedure Code and contended that so far as explanation of appellant is concerned, the appellant has never filed any complaint against the complainant or any member of the raiding party. Looking to the explanation of present appellant – accused, he has not disclosed any probable defence in his statement.
She has contended that from the contents of the documents produced on record and from the cross-examination of the complainant the appellant – accused has not proved that demand was not made by him and amount was not accepted by him.
She has read further statement of the appellant – accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code and contended that presence of anthracene powder found from both the hands of the appellant is not explained by the appellant accused. It is the duty of the appellant to rebut the presumption drawn under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against him. In support of her contention she relied on the decision in the case of Balasubramanian Vs. State through Inspector of Police, reported in 2011 (1) GLR 739. She has contended that sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant to explain the evidence against him after the prosecution witnesses are examined and no explanation is given in further statement under Section 313 of the Code about the trap amount recovered from the possession of the present appellant.
I have perused the oral as well as documentary evidence. I have also considered the oral arguments advanced by learned advocates appearing for both the sides. Mr.Amin, learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned Judge has committed grave error in convicting the present appellant. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that defence has never made any attempt to challenge the sanction and even today the issue of sanction is not argued before me therefore, the Court is not entering into legality of the sanction. From perusal of the evidecne of P.W. No.1 – complainant, presence of appellant at the place of complainant and demand was made are required to be verified. Ms.Jhaveri has contended that Section 8 of the Evidence Act is applicable in the present case. I have perused Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The same is reproduced hereinbelow :-
“Section-8 Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct – Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offecne against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.”
From the cross-examination of the witnesses and even in explanation of present appellant – accused recorded under Section 313 the appellant has failed to disclose that he was empowered to visit the place of present complainant. So far as conduct of the present appellant is concerned, when he was serving as a Senior Clerk then he was not supposed to visit the place of the complainant. In light of Section 8 of the Evidence Act conduct of the present appellant of visiting the place of complainant shows that there was intention of the appellant – accused to obtain illegal gratification in connection with the demand made by him. Mr.Amin has vehemently contended that prosecution has failed to prove the demand. I have perused cross-examination of P.W.No.1 and P.W.No.2, however, I have not found anything to show that defence has tried to make attempt to establish its case. When the demand is proved beyond reasonable doubt through oral evidence of the panch and complainant then in that connection Section 8 of the Evidence Act come in the way of the present appellant. The conduct of the present appellant of visiting the place of the complainant shows that there was agreement to obtain illegal gratification from the complainant. Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act provides for the public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. Section-7 reads as under :-
“7. public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act – Whoever, being or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.”
It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was agreement between the present appellant and complainant to accept demand. I have minutely perused the explanation/further statement of the appellant – accused made under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code wherein it is stated that present appellant was forcefully taken away by some persons and he is wrongly booked. Ms.Jhaveri has contended that when the appellant – accused is trapped by the member of the raiding party at his residence he was not in custody of the police. At that time he had enough time to file complaint against those particular persons who have committed criminal offence. He has never bothered to file any complaint in that connection.
The Apex Court in case of Narendra Champaklal Trivedi Vs. State of Gujarat (Supra), held that the demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is the sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act. It is also settled in law that there is a statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act which can be dislodged by the accused by bringing on record some evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that money was accepted by him other than the motive or reward as stipulated under Section 7 of the Act. The Apex Court further held that it is obligatory on the part of the court to consider the explanation offered by the accused under Section 20 of the Act and the consideration of the explanation has to be on the anvil of preponderance of probability. It was further held that it is not to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and it is necessary to state here that the prosecution is bound to establish that there was an illegal offer of bribe and acceptance thereof. The same has to be founded on facts. The Apex Court referred to the decision in the case of M.Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. Reported in (2001) 1 SCC 691 wherein a three-Judge Bench referred to Section 20 of the Act and observed that the only condition for drawing the legal presumption under Section 20 is that during trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its only requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept the gratification. The Apex Court reproduced a passage from the decision in the case of Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2000) 8 SCC 571 with approval. It reads as follows:-
“The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted ‘as motive or reward’ for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word ‘gratification’ need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like ‘gratification or any valuable thing’. If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word ‘gratification’ must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it.”
In Raj Rajendra Singh Seth v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. the principle laid down in Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi (supra) was reiterated.
In State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, it has been held that to arrive at the conclusion that there had been a demand of illegal gratification, it is the duty of the court to take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on record in their entirety and for the said purpose, undisputedly, the presumptive evidence as laid down in Section 20 of the Act must also be taken into consideration.
In C.M. Girish Babu v. C.B.I., Cochin, High Court of Kerala, after referring to the decisions in M.Narsinga Rao (supra) and Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi (supra), this Court has held thus: -
“19. It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn under Section 20 is not an inviolable one. The accused charged with the offence could rebut it either through the cross-examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence. If the accused fails to disprove the presumption the same would stick and then it can be held by the Court that the prosecution has proved that the accused received the amount towards gratification.”
In the case on hand, money was admittedly recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant and therefore a presumption under Section 20 of the Act becomes obligatory. It is a presumption of law and it casts an obligation on the court to apply it in every case brought under Section 7 of the Act. The said presumption is a rebuttable one. In the present case, the explanation offered by the accused-appellant has not been accepted and there is no evidence on the basis of which it can be said that the presumption has been rebutted.
The learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently submitted that admittedly there has been no demand or acceptance. To bolster the said aspect, he has drawn inspiration from the statement of the complainant in his examination-in-chief. The said statement, in my considered opinion, is not to be read out of context. He has clarified as regards the demand and acceptance at various places in his examination and in the cross-examination. The witness has clearly stated that there was demand of bribe and giving of the same. Nothing has been brought on record to doubt the presence of the witness. He had given the signal after which the trapping party arrived at the scene and did the needful. All the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. The currency notes were recovered from the possession of the appellant. In the cross-examination nothing has really been elicited to doubt his presence and veracity of the testimony. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has made an adroit effort to explain his stand but I have no hesitation in holding that he has miserably failed to dislodge the presumption. Thus analysed and understood, there remains no shadow of doubt that the accused-appellant had demanded the bribe and accepted the same to favour the complainant. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge does not warrant any interference.
The learned counsel for the appellant has, in the course of arguing the appeal, submitted that the appellant has suffered enough as he has lost his job and the said aspect should be considered as mitigating factor for reduction of the sentence. Sympathy has also been sought to be drawn on the foundation that the incident had taken place almost 15 years back. On a perusal of Section 7(1) of the Act, it is perceptible that when an offence is proved under the said section, the public servant shall be punished with imprisonment which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 13(2) of the Act postulates that any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. As is demonstratable from the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has imposed the minimum sentence.
Looking to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant - accused, being a public servant, demanded the bribe amount and also accepted the said bribe amount from the complainant. The accused has not explained by discharging his burden of rebutting the statutory presumption of guilt against him. From the facts and evidence on record it is clearly established beyond reasonable doubt that the amount by way of bribe was demanded by the accused and he accepted the same voluntarily as an illegal gratification.
In view of above, I am in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court and I am of the view that no other conclusion except the one reached by the learned trial Court is possible in the instant case as the evidence on record stands. Therefore, there is no valid reason or justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.12.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar, in Special Case No. 8 of 1989 is hereby confirmed. However, the judgment of the trial Court is modified only to the extent that both the sentences imposed by the trial Court shall run concurrently. Bail bond stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial court forthwith. The appellant – accused is directed to surrender before the Jail Authority within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, failing which the concerned Sessions Court shall issue non-bailable warrant to effect the arrest of the appellant – original accused.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.)
kks
