SHANTILAL KASHIBHAI PATEL versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 266 · Decided: 02-11-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SHANTILAL KASHIBHAI PATEL 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
NOVEMBER 2, 1992 
[KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code: Section 161. 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: Sections 5(1) (d) and 5(2). 
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. 
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 
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. 
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 
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 
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. 
The State filed an appeal against the acquittal of the three accuse.:, 
whereas accused No. 2 filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence. 
B 
c 
D 
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, 
this Court, 
HELD: 1. The High Court had acquitted the accused No. 3 and did 
F 
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] 
B 
3. N
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.