http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  953 of 1997

PETITIONER: G.L.Raval

RESPONDENT: State of Gujarat

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/03/2004

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & B.P.Singh

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

The appellant herein was found guilty of offence punishable  under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as  also under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted  for the said offences to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year  and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer further rigorous  imprisonment for one month by the Special Judge, Ahmedabad. An appeal filed against the said judgment and conviction to  the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad having failed, the  appellant is now before us in this appeal. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this case are as  follows: When the appellant was working as a Senior Clerk in the  office of Licensing Board, Gujarat, the complainant was working  as a Junior Assistant Electrical Inspector. The appellant while  holding the said post was responsible for clearing TA, DA bills of  the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that for clearing  one such bill of the complainant, the appellant demanded Rs.101/- hence, the complainant approached the Anti Corruption Bureau  who agreed to lay a trap and in the said trap which was organised  on the 17th of December, 1984 the appellant did not accept the  gratification amount because he was in a hurry to leave the office.  It is further case of the prosecution that two days later, i.e. on 19th  of December, 1984 the complainant along with ACB officers and  other panch witnesses went to the office of the appellant and when  the complainant and the panch witnesses approached the appellant  he received the said sum of money which was pre-marked and  treated with phenopthylin. When the officers of the ACB came into  the room of the appellant, the appellant threw away the currency  notes which landed on the next table. The members of the ACB  team then arrested the appellant and on conducting the necessary  test it was found that the appellant had handled the currency. The prosecution in support of its case had examined the  complainant, two panch witnesses and the Investigating Officer  among other witnesses. The appellant took the defence that the  complainant was a person of dubious character having been  removed from his previous job and was also in the habit of  preparing false TA, DA bills. The appellant had taken the stand  that it is because the appellant refused the request of the  complainant to approve the false TA, DA bills, the complainant  had decided to take revenge on the appellant, accordingly, he had  lodged a false complaint. It was also the case of the appellant that  the two panch witnesses who were chosen for witnessing the trap  were officials working under the father of the complainant in the  health department and were specially chosen and the Investigating  Officer also for reasons of his own had colluded with the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

complaintant in implicating the appellant. The trial court as well as the High Court have accepted the  prosecution case and convicted the appellant, as stated above. In  this appeal, Shri H.A.Raichura, learned counsel for the appellant  contended that from the prosecution case itself it is seen that the  demand of Rs.101/- as a bribe seems highly improbable. He  contended the fact that earlier attempt to bribe the appellant having  failed, the appellant really would not have been careless enough to  accept the money the next time around. He also contended that  both the courts below have not properly appreciated the defence of  the appellant and mechanically proceeded to extract the evidence  of the prosecution witnesses given in the examination-in-chief, and  without appreciating the contradictions and omissions brought out  in the cross-examination, accepted the prosecution case. We have heard the arguments and perused the records and  we find no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of  the two courts below.  The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended if  really the demand of illegal gratification was genuine there was no  need for the Investigating Officer to choose panch witnesses who  were working under the complainant’s father which itself shows  that the I.O. was unfair to the appellant and had oblique motives in  organising the trap. Since on the face of it, we found that if this  allegation of choosing of such panch witnesses who were closely  associated with the father of the complainant was true then, in our  opinion, the prosecution case required a careful consideration. In  this process, when we examined the said argument of the learned  counsel by perusing the evidence of the panch witnesses as also the  I.O. we were unable to find any material to accept the argument of  the learned counsel for the appellant that the panch witnesses were  either associated with or were working under complainant’s father.  It has come in evidence that while the complainant’s father was  working in the Health Department of Municipal Corporation of  Ahmedabad City, the panch witnesses were working in the Health  Department of State Government which are not situated in the  same premises nor is the father of the complainant anyway  connected with the panch witnesses. From the perusal of the cross  examination of these witnesses also we notice that no suggestion  whatsoever has been made to these witnesses that they are in any  way associated with complainant’s father. Even to the  investigation officer no such suggestions have been made,  therefore, we find no merit in this contention also. For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same  is dismissed.