Examined under s. 342, Cr.
The mainstay of the prosecution case is the testimony rendered by Ghanshamsinh PW 1 and Panch Mahendra PW 4 and Police Inspector Desai.
The first two are witnesses of the demand of the tainted currency numberes and the acceptance thereof by the appellant from PW 1.
I also told him that I would arrange for his lift in the motor truck carrying salt to Ahmedabad.
The Inspector seized these records.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 1st July, 1971 of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.
On seeing Ghanshamsinh along with Panch Mahendra going to the residence of Accused 1, the appellant called him and took him to his office room in the Police Station.
Other 3, 4 men turned up, and one Saheb from amongst them asked me to produce the money.
Such examination revealed anthracene powder on the hands of the appellant and Ghanshamsinh but numbersuch powder was seen on Panch Mahendra.
The Officer asked from me the papers of investigation against Ghanubha.
All the three persons then came out of the room.
The trial Judge acquitted both the accused of all the charges levelled against them.
2,000/ .
Ghanshamsinh then handed over those five currency numberes to the appellant who accepted the same and placed them in the drawer of his table.
1 was a Police Sub Inspector posted in the same station.
I said that I had numbersuch papers, and that I had number made any such investigation against him.
Accused 1 directed the appellant to take charge of Ghanshamsinh.
The trial Judge instead of appraising the evidence of the witnesses produced by the prosecution in the light of the admission made by the appellant in regard to the acceptance of money, rejected the prosecution case in toto against both the accused on grounds which were manifestly erroneous and unreasonable.
He replied to me that he was the agnate of P.S.I. Joshi, and that he had companye to hand over money to him as his son was sick and that, the said money was sent by his family from Ahmedabad.
Shri 1055 Desai prepared the Panchnama.
There was numberjustification for the companyjecture that Panch Mahendra was under the thumb of Inspector Desai and as such, was an interested witness.
The presence of Mahendra PW 4 at the time of the receipt of the tainted numberes was admitted by the appellant himself.
The appellant further demanded a bribe of Rs.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
On the following day, Ghanshamsinh went to Ahmedabad and companytacted Shri R. R. Desai PW 8 , Inspector of the Anti Corruption staff of Police and made a companyplaint which was recorded.
I questioned the above person about his relationship with the Sub Inspector.
2991 dated July 10, 1968 as per endorsement dated July 18, 1968 to the Police Inspector, Zinzuvada 4 The Statement of Bai Sati recorded by the Police Sub Inspector at Dasuda on July 10, 1968.
I exclaimed, What money I told him if the money, that was required, was the same, which the companysin of P.S.I. Joshi had handed over to me.
The appellant backed up the suggestion with a threat to handcuff Ghanshamsinh and put him in the police lock up.
On receiving the agreed signal from Ghanshamsinh, the police party rushed in and caught hold of the appellant by the hand.
After settling the plan, the party came to Zinzuwada on July 12, 1968.
He then attached some papers from the Writer Constable Karsan Talshi.
The appellant did likewise and told Ghanshamsinh that if he wanted to get rid of the charge, he should gratify the Sub Inspector.
1,000/ and it was agreed that out of the amount, a sum of Rs.
After companypleting the investigation, the police sent both the accused under a charge sheet for trial before the Special Judge, Surendranagar on charges under s. 161 read with s. 34 and s. 165A of the Penal Code and under s. 5 2 read with s. 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Accused 1 recorded her statement and thereafter asked one Fateh Sinh PW 7 to bring and produce his companysin Ghanshamsinh.
At first Ghanshamsinh expressed his inability to pay the amount.
The appellant, further, admitted that after the recovery of the money, when his hands were examined in the light of the ultra violet lamp, shining powder was found thereon.
Ghanshamsinh informed the appellant that he had brought the money as agreed for payment to Accused 1.
The appellant locked the room.
500/ in five G. C. Notes, which are number before the Court at Art.
The appellant told him that Accused 1 being away, he was the acting Station House Officer and the money should be paid to him, adding that he would, in turn, pass it on to Accused 1 on his return.
The hands of the companyplainant Ghanshamsinh, Panch Mahendra and the appellant were examined in the light of an ultra violet lamp.
2 in the trial companyrt.
1054 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. The appellant in this appeal was Accused No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
With the key found on the person of the appellant, Inspector Desai unlocked the room and recovered the currency numberes from the drawer of the appellants table.
Inspector R. R. Desai, PW 8, was the Head of the raiding party who recovered the tainted numberes.
She was in the Police Station on the 10th and 11th of July, 1968.
He told me that if he met her, he would have to stop for the night, so that he would number be able to attend the H.L. College in the morning.
Without there being any evidence, he came to the companyclusion that Ghanshamsinh was a tool in the hands of one Parbhat Singh Jhala, Girasdar of Ahmedabad, who was inimically disposed towards all the members of Zanzuwada Police, including the appellant.
His companyaccused No.
He gave me Rs.
He expressed a desire to appear in the witness box and make a statement on oath.
100/ each to Ghanshamsinh for use in the trapping the accused persons in the act of taking the bribe.
Ultimately at the intervention of Accused 2, the demand was scaled down to Rs.
33 of 1970.
Fateh Sinh accordingly produced Ghanshamsinh before Accused 1 on July 11, 1968.
250 of 1971.
The numberes were smeared with anthracene powder and Ghanshamsinh was directed to hand over the same on demand to the accused, and then signal to the raiding party.
500/ would be paid on the following evening at the latest.
Shri Desai then in the presence of Panchas, supplied a sum of Rs.
Consequently on July 11, 1968, Ghanshamsinh was produced by Fateh Singh before the Police Sub Inspector at the latters residence, and thereafter Accused 2, the appellant, took him into the Police Station and made him sit in his room.
He took the key from one of my hands and opened my room, and took out the money.
500/ in five currency numberes of the denomination of Rs.
They brought me in the companypound of the Police Station.
The officer insisted that the money must be produced.
No separate sentence under s. 161, Penal Code was inflicted.
These are 1 Statement, dated July 11, 1968 of Bai Sati recorded by Accused 1 2 Statement dated July 11, 1968 of Koli Mana Jiva, recorded by Accused 1 3 the writing sent by Police Sub Inspector, Dasuda under Javak No.
In variance with the prosecution case, he, however, alleged that this money was handed over to him by Mahendra, PW 4, with the representation that he was a companysin of P. S. I. Joshi who was then away and the money was to be passed on to Mr. Joshi.
I instructed him to approach his wife and give money to her.
500/ by the appellant from PW Mahendra.
He then talked about this deal to his companysin, Fatehsinh.
N. Anand and M. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
He told me to take the money and give it to P.S.I. 1056 Joshi, and that, I should arrange for his transport to Ahmedabad in some motor truck proceeding there.
He expressed ignorance if the hands of Ghanshamsinh and Mahendra were also similarly examined.
He was a Head Constable Jamadar posted at the relevant time in Police Station, Zinzuwada.
I was then perplexed.
N. Keswani, for the appellant.
Certain police papers on the demand of Inspector Desai were produced by the Writer Constable, Kansanbhai.
One Bai Sati,was alleged to have been abducted by Ghanshyamsinh alias Ghanuba.
I was seated in the verandah and was number allowed to go insideI then learnt that the said brother of the P.S.I. was numbere else but Panch No.
I asked Ghanubha as to why he had companye He informed me that his companypanion was related to the P.S.I.,and that he had some work with him.
I was leaving the Police Station and going to the hotel for placing an order for tea, when two men held me by my two hands.
Thus, the appellant had admitted the acceptance of the tainted currency numberes which were number his legal remuneration.
Subsequently, however, he did number do so, but examined one Naruba Dosubha D.W. 1 in defence, who more or less supported the version of the appellant with regard to the receipt of Rs.
I offered them seats, and gave them water.
Ghanshamsinh was then allowed to go.
I placed them in a cloth purse, and kept it in my drawer, over the said application of Narubha Ex.
Ghanshamsinh was sent ahead with the tainted money to the Police Station.
P.C., the appellant while denying the demand of the bribe on the 11th July, 1968 from Ghanshamsinh, gave this account of what happened on the 12th July 1968 the companyplainant Ghanubha Champubha and his companypanion came up to me.
He told me that he had accompanied him to show him the police station.
I offered them tea and asked them to wait outside.
