SHANTILAL KASHIBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

A                     SHANTILAL KASHIBHAI PATEL
                                  v.
                          STATE OF GUJARAT

                             NOVEMBER 2, 1992

B           [KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.]

         Indian Penal Code: Section 161.

         Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: Sections 5(1) (d) and 5(2).
c         Demand for illegal gratification-Statement of complainant-Not cor-
    roborated-Not supported by panch witnesses-Complainant-Admitting that
    he wanted to teach accused a lesson for harassing businessmen-Held ac-
    cused entitled to acquittal.

D         The prosecution case was !hat the complainant was running a shop
    and dealing in Kimam and that on 7th January, 1984, the Chief Inspector
    in the Health Department (accused No. 1) and accused No. 2 (appellant
    in the appeal), accused No. 3 and accused No. 4 who were working as Food
    Inspectors had approached the complainant at his shop and stated that
    they had been inspecting food articles for adulteration, and took a bottle
E
    of Kimam and opened it for sample and when the complainant told them
    that it may be taken in sealed condition, they refused to do so and stated
    that the sample would not be passed and the complainant would be put to
    difficulties, unless he paid Rs. S,000. The complainant was not wiling to
    make such payment but he was pressurised.
F
          On the next day, 8th January, 1984 accused No. 4 came to the shop
    to enquire whether the money had been arranged. He was given Rs. 500
    and the balance was promised to be given on 30th January, 1984.

          On 30th January, 1984 the complainant approached the office of the
G   Anti Corruption Bureau and gave his complaint. Two Panchas were calle<!
    by the A.C.B., the number of 40 currency notes of Rs. 100 each were noted
    done in two batches of 20 each, the currency notes were treated with
    anthracene powder, a demonstration was made and shown to the com-
    plainant and the Panchas. Panch No. 1 was to remain with the com-
H   plainant and Panch No. 2 was to remain with the raiding party.
                                       266
                   SHANTILAL PATEL 1·. STATE OF GUJARAT                      267

           The complainant and Panch No. 1 went to the stop at about 6.00           A
     p.m. and when accused No. 2 demanded the money, the complainant gave
     it to him, when he was apprehended by the raiding party. The hands of
     accused No. 2 (appellant) were seen in the ultra violet light and the four

•.   fingers and thumb of the right hand ohowed the light blue colour and
     white sparkle. The currency notes also showed the anthracene powder in
                                                                                    B
     the ultra violet light.

          Thereafter, the complainant and Panchas went to the residence of
     accused No. 1. The complainant offered money to accused No. I. He,
     however, refused to accept the same, and, therefore no raid was made.

           All the four accused were tried by the Special Judge for offences
                                                                                    c
     under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 5(1) (d)
     and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 were
     acquitted while accused No. 2 was convicted and sentenced by the Special
     Judge.
                                                                                    D
           The State filed an appeal against the acquittal of the three accuse.:,
     whereas accused No. 2 filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence.

           The High Court dismissed both the appeals. It noticed that: the
     Panchas did not recognise any of the accused persons; there is no cor-
     roboration as to what had happened in the meetings preceding the raid on       E
     30th January, 1984; the evidence of the complainant was disinterested and
     did not require any corroboration; and the hands of accused No. 2 when
     seen in ultra violet light the four fingers and thumb of the right hand
     showed the light blue colour and white sparkle.

           Allowing the appeal, and setting aside the conviction and sentence,      F
     this Court,

            HELD: 1. The High Court had acquitted the accused No. 3 and did
     not find it safe to convict him on the sole testimony of the complainant
     supported by the test of seeing anthracene powder on the hands and G
     fingers of accused No. 3 in ultra violet light, but on the same evidence
     upheld the conviction of accused No. 2 relying on the same evidence which
     was rejected vis-a-vis accused No. 3. [272-G]

          2. When the High Court could not find it safe to rely on the uncor-
     roborated statement of the complainant while upholding the acquittal of H
    268                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   accused No. 3 it is unsafe to rely on the ipse di.xii or the complainant which
    is unsupported by both the Panch witnesses and the police officials who
    formed the raiding party for upholding the conviction of accused No. 2,
    appellant. [273-E]

            3. Not only the twp Panchas could not recognise any of the accused
B                                                                                     •
    persons but there is· no corroboration to the various statements of the
    complainant vis-a-vis accused Nos. 1 to 4 by the police officials who
    .lloiistituted the raiding party either. The raiding party including the police
    officials reached the spot at a time when they could neither hear the talk,
    if any, between the accused No. 2 and the complainant nor could see the
C   alleged acceptance of money by accused No. 2 and passing it on to accused
     No. 3. [272-E]

          4. The High Court totally ignored the statement of the complainant
    made during cross-examination on behalf of accused No. 2, that he had
    thought of teaching accused No. 2: a lesson for harassing businessmen
D   selling Pan and Masalas. (273-A]

          5. It is clear that this is not a case merely of a complainant from
    whom bribe was demanded and he was forced to !Jay the same but the
    complainant had thought of teaching a lesson to accused No. 2 for harass-
    ing the businessmen selling Pan Masalas and therefore, it could not be
E   said that the complainant was not interested in success or otherwise of the
    raid. [273-D]      ·

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    646 of 1992.
F
         From the Judgment and Order dated 3.4.92 of the Gujarat High
    Court in Crl. A. No. 161 of 1992.

         T.U.Mehta, N.N. Keshwani, Ashok D. Shah, R.N. Keshwani and S.K.
    Gupta for the Appellant.
G
          Anip Sachthey and Badri Nath for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J. On 4th September, 1992 this Court had
H directed issue of notice on the Special Leave Petition as well as on
       SHANTILAL PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT [DAYAL, J.]                 269

application for bail returnable in four weeks and it was indicated that the A
matter will be heard and finally decided on that date. However, there is no
appearance on behalf of the State today.

      Leave granted. The matter is being disposed of.

      This is an appeal by Special Leave against the judgment of the          B
Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dated 3rd April, 1992.

      Four accused persons were tried by Special Judge, Ahmedabad. Out
of the said four accused only one of the accused person, namely - accused
No. 2, a Food Inspector has been convicted of offences punishable under       C
Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(1) (d) and 5(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

      The three other accused were acquitted by the learned Special
Judge. The State filed the appeal against the acquittal of the three ac-
quitted accused whereas accused No. 2 filed an appeal against his convic-     D
tion and sentence.

       The High Court dismissed the appeal of the State against the acquit-
tal of accused No. 1, 3 and 4 and at the same time dismissed the appeal of
accused No. 2. Accused No. 2 has come up to this Court by way of a Special
Leave Petition against the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench.          E

       The prosecution case is that the complainant Mohanlal Chhatramal
Samnani is running a shop and inter alia dealing in Kimam opposite
Maninagar Railway Station, Ahmedabad. On 7th January, 1984, the Chief
Inspector in the Health Department (accused No. 1) and accused No. 2 F
(appellant herein) and accused No. 4, who were working under him as
Food Inspectors, had approached the complainant at his shop and stated
that they had been inspecting the food articles for adulteration and took a
bottle of Kimarn and opened it for sample and the complainant told them
that it may be taken in sealed condition but they refused to do so and stated
that the sample would not be passed and the complainant would be put to G
difficulties. This was stated by accused No. 1 who further stated that the
complainant should be practical. The complainant enquired as to what was
meant by being practical and the accused No. 2 (appellant) replied that
"being practical" me<tns "money''. The complainant then enquired as to
the amount and he was told Rs. 5,000.00. The complainant was not willing H
    270                SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   to make such payment. However, he was pressurised. The complainant
    stated that he did not have that much money and, therefore, he was asked
    to pay whatever the amount he could pay immediately and the complainant
    opened his 'galla' and gave Rs. 600.00 to accused No. 1.

          The next day, on 8th January, 1984, accused No. 4 had eome to his
B   shop and enquired whether the money had been arranged but the com-
    plainant replied that it could not be done. However, under pressure he
    gave Rs. 500.00 to aeeu'sed No. 4 and asked for more time for making_
    arrangement for more amount. Thereafter, after about 15 days accused
    Nos. 2 & 4 had come to his shop demanding illegal gratification and the
c   complainant requested for four days time. After four days again the
    accused Nos. 2 & 4 came to his shop and the complainant again stated that
    th'e money could not be arranged and he may be given two days time. After
    great difficulties, on complainant making a promise that he would pay the
    amount with 100% certainty, and on this final promise, accused Nos. 2 &
D   4 asked the complainant to keep the money ready on 30th January, 1984
    at 3.00 p.m.

          On 30th January, 1984 the complainant approached the office of the
    Anti Corruption Bureau and gave his complainant. Two Panchas were
    called by the A.C.B. In the presence of those two Panchas, the numbers of
E   40 currency notes of Rs. 100.00 each were noted done in two batchs of 20
    each. Each of these currency notes was treated with anthracene powder
    and a demonstration was made and shown to the complainant and the
    Panchas. One bundle of Rs. 2000.00 v:as to be given to accused No. 1 and
    another bundle was to be given to accused Nos. 2 & 4. Panch No. 1 was
F   to remain with the complainant and Panch No. 2 was to remain with the
    raiding party.

          After making this preliminary panchn&ma raided party went to
    Maninagar and the complainant and Panch No. 1 went to the shop at about
G   6.30 p.m. and the others waited outside a little away. After about an hour
    accused No. 2 came to the shop and the complainant asked accused No. 2
    to come and sit but the accused No. 2 replied that he was in a hurry and
    asked the complainant to come with him where another Inspector was
    waiting near the Post Office. Therefore, the complainant went with accused
    No. 2 and Panch No. 1 followed them. Accused No. 3 and Jinto (abscond-
H   ing accused) were waiting and accused No. 2 introduced them to the
       SHANTILAL PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT [DAYAL, J.)               271

complainant and asked the complainant as to what he had done about the A
money which was earlier talked about. The complainant replied that he had
brought the money. The accused No. 2 demanded the same and the
complainant took out the bundle of currency notes from one of his pockets
and gave it to accused No. 2 who accepted it by his right hand and asked
the complainant as to how much it was and the complainant replied that
it was Rs. 2,000.00 and accused No. 2 asked as to for how many persons it
                                                                           B
was and the complainant replied that it was for three persons. The accused
No. 2 asked accused No. 3 to count the same and while Modi, accused No.
3, was counting the same, the complainant gave the signal and the raiding
party which had followed them immediately came there alongwith Panch
No. 2. All of them went to the shop of the complainant where Modi was       c
asked to give currency notes to the Panchas and exercise of ultra violet
lamp was undertaken and in the ordinary light, hands of each of the three
Food Inspectors did not indicate any light change. Thereafter, under ultra
violet light, hands of all were seen and the hands of Panch No. 2 and the
members of the raiding party did not show any change on their hands. The D
hands of accused No.2 (appellant) were seen in the ultra violet light and
the four fingers and thumb of the right hand showed the light blue colour
and white sparkle. So also was the position with regard to the right hand
fingers and thumb of Jinto and his clothes, namely - the right hand pocket
of the pant, so also the fingers and thumb of both the hands of accused
No.3, Modi, and the left hand pocket and the woollen cap of Modi showed E
white sparkle and the light blue colour. The numbers of currency notes
were compared with the numbers which were recorded in the preliminary
panchnama and they were found to tally. The currency notes also showed
the anthracene powder in the ultra violet light. The complainant's hands
were also seen and they also showed the anthraccne powder in ultra violet
                                                                            F
light so also both his inside pockets of the coat.

      Thereafter, the complainant and the Panchas went to the residence
of accused No.1. The complainant alongwith Panch No.1 went to the first
floor of the flat of accused No.1. Accused No.1 opened the door and asked
these people to come inside and made them sit. The complainant offered G
money to accused No.1. He, however, refused to accept the same and,
therefore, they came out and no raid was n:iade.


     As stated earlier all the accused were tried by the learned Special
Judge and accused Nos. 1, 3, & 4 v.ore acquitted and ultimately the appeal H
    272                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   of the State against their acquittal was dismissed by the High Court. The
    High Court dismissed the appeal of accused No.2 also after noticing -

          (i) that the Panchas did not recognize any of the accused persons ;

          (ii) that there is no corroboration to what had happened in the
B   meetings preceding the raid on 30th .I anuary, 1984 ;

          (iii) that the evidence of the complainant was dis-interested and did
    not require any corroboration ; and

          (iv) that the hands of accused No.2 were seen in ultra violet light and
C   four fingers and thumb of the right hand showed the light blue colour and
    white sparkle.

           The High Court had acquitted accused Nos. 3 & 4 in spite of the
    fact that their fingers have also showed light blue colour and white sparkle
    in ultra violet light but the High Court was not prepared to rely on that
D   circumstance alone with the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant.
    Since according to the High Court no demand had been made by accused
    Nos. 3 and 4 from the complainant for any bribe.

           It will be noticed that not only the two Panchas could not recognize
    any of the accused persons but there is no corroboration to the various
E
    statements of the complainant vis-a-vis accused Nos. 1 to 4 by the police
    officials who constituted the raiding party either. The raiding party includ-
    ing the police officials re1ched the spot at a time when they could neither
    hear the talk, if any, between the accused No. 2 and the complainant nor
    could see the alleged acceptance of money by accused N o.2 and passing it
F   on to accused No.3. We are thus left with the sole testimony of the
    complainant and the test of seeing anthracene powder on the hands and
    fingers of accused No.2. The High Court had acquitted accused No.3 and
    did not find it safe to convict him on the sole testimony of the complainant
    supported by the test of seeing anthracene powder on the hands and fingers
G   of accused No.3. in ultra violet light. But on the same evidence the High
    Court upheld the conviction of accused No.2 relying on the same evidence
    which was rejected vis-a-vis accused No.3.

          The High Court felt that the complainant was totally dis-interested
    in the success of the raid and could not be called interested person and
H   thus felt no need for corroboration of his statement.
       SHANTILAL PATEL 1·. STATE OF GUJARAT !DAYAL, .l.J                273

      The fact remains that th High Court totally ignored the statement        A
of the cotnplainant made during cross-examination on behalf of accused
No.2. In his cross-cxan1ination the CL•tnplainant stated :

         nit is true that accused No.2 used to carry out raids on and
         often on Pan gallas. It is true that l had felt that he is
         harassing businessmen selling P~n and Masalas. It is true             B
         that that is why we thought of teaching him a lesson. It is
         true that in my statement before police, 1 have not stated
         that when accused No.1 asked as to why have you come,
         then 1 told that 1 am Kimamwala of Maninagar and accord-
         ing to talk with Shantilal, I have come to give money."               c
      It is clear that it is not a case merely of a complainant from whom
bribe was demanded and he was forced to pay the same but the com-
plainant had thought of teaching a lesson to accused No.2 for harassing the
businessmen selling Pan Masalas and, therefore, it could not be said that
the complainant was not interested in success or otherwise of the raid. In     D
fact the High Court acquitted accused No.3, though the evidence against
him was the same as it was against accused No.2. When the High Court
could not find it safe to rely on the uncorroborated statement of the
complainant while upholding the acquittal of accused No.3 we also find it
unsafe to rely on the ipse dixit of the complainan'. which is unsupported by
both the Panch witnesses and the police officials who formed the raiding
                                                                               E
party for upholding the conviction of accused Nu.2, appellant before us.

      The result is that the appeal succeeds, the conviction and sentence
of the appellant is cct aside and the appellant is acquitted.

N.V.K.                                                       Appeal allowed.