BECHAARBHAI S. PRAJAPATI versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 634 · Decided: 29-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 3 S.C.R. 634 
• • 
~ 
~ 
A 
BECHAARBHAI S. PRAJAPATI 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2008) 
B 
FEBRUARY 29, 2008 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.) 
.. 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 
.... 
Rule 7 (2) - Illegal gratification - Accused, a policeman, 
c demanding and accepting illegal gratification from owner of a 
luxury bus -
Trap laid and accused caught with marked 
currency notes - Conviction uls 161 /PC and r. 7(2) -Affirmed 
by High Court - Held: Both trial court and High Court have 
analysed evidence in great detail and have found the accused 
D guilty of offences charged - It cannot be said that conclusions 
of either the trial court or the High Court suffer from any infi:mity -
._ 
- However, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took 
place seven years back and accused has suffered sentence 
for more than six months, sentence reduced to the period 
E already undergone - Sentence. 
The appellant-accused, a policeman, stopped the 
luxury bus of the complainant which was carrying a 
marriage party, and demanded the documents relating to 
F 
the bus. The permit and other papers, which were in order, 
were shown to the accused who kept the papers and told 
the complainant to collect the same after paying a specified 
amount. The complainant approached the Anti-Corruption 
Bureau. The trap was laid and the accused was caught 
along with the marked currency notes of Rs. 250/-. The 
(] accused was prosecuted and ultimately convicted by the 
trial court for offences punishable u/s 161 IPC and Rule 7 
(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 
~ 
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under 
, 
each of the two counts. Having remained unsuccessful 
H 
634 
BECHAARBHAI S. PRAJAPATI v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
635 
..... 
..., 
~ 
in appeal before the High Court, the accused filed the A 
instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal but modifying the sentence, 
the Court 
HELD: 1. It is to be noted that both the trial Court and 
B 
the High Court have analysed the evidence in great detail 
~ 
and have found that the appellant had demanded and 
iJ 
accepted the amount from the complainant for allowing 
the luxury bus to go to its destination. The tainted 
currency notes were recovered from the appellant. On c 
accused-appellant's trousers, presence of anthracene 
powder was noticed. It has also been established that the 
numbers of the currency notes matched with the 
denominations mentioned in the pre-trap panchnama. 
Thus, it cannot be said that the conclusions of either the D 
. 
~ 
trial court or the High Court suffer from any infirmity. 
~. 
[para 7-8] [641-A-D] 
2. As regards the sentence, the occurrence took 
place nearly seven years back. It is stated that the accused 
E 
has suffered custody for more than six months. It is to be 
noted that the minimum sentence prescribed under 
Section 7 (2) of the Act is six months. Taking into account 
all these aspects, interest of justice would be best served 
.. 
... 
if the sentence is reduced to the period undergone, while 
maintaining the conviction. [para 9] [641-D-E] 
F 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 408 of 2008 
From the final Judgment dated 24/8/2007 of the High Court 
G 
of Gujarat atAhmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1289of1993. 
Aniruddha P. Mayee, Rucha A Mayee and Sanjeev Kumar 
.. " 
Choudhary for the Appellant. 
Hemantika Wahi and Pinky for the Respondent. 
H 
636 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
. -
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
~ ... 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the 
B appeal filed by the appellant. 
3. Challenge before the High Court was to the judgment 
and order dated 5.11.1993 passed by learned Sub-Judge, 
Ir 
Bhavnagar, in Special Case No.9of1991 whereby the appellant 
c 
was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment 
for one year in respect of offence under Section 161 of the Indian 
Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'I PC') and for offence punishable 
under Section 7(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in 
short the 'Act'), he was sentenced to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for one year in respect of each of the offence and 
D fine with default stipulation. 
~ • 
4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
On 12.12.1990, one Luxury Bus bearing No. GTS-9919 
was hired by Ramnikdas Hargovindas from Bharat 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.