LexSOMABHAI GOPALBHAI PATEL versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
8
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 668
SOMABHAI GOPALBHAI PATEL
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
(Criminal Appeal No. 1864 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 24, 2014.
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988:
c
ss. 7 and 13(1) (d) rlw s.13(2)- Demand and acceptance
of illegal gratification - Conviction and sentence of 1 year and
2 years under the two counts respectively -
Prosecution has
established the demand and the acceptance of the amount
by accused as illegal gratification - Conviction needs no
o interference -
However, sentences reduced to RI for six
months u/s 7 and 1 year uls 13(1) (d) r/w s.13(2) - Sentence!
Sentencing .
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court
E
HELD: 1.1. The primary requisite of an offence uls
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is proof
of demand or request of a valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage from the public servant. In the instant case,
PW1, the complainant has fully supported the case of the
F prosecution by testifying about the demand of illegal
gratification made by the accused to him and acceptance
of the same. The shadow witness has clearly stated in his
testimony about the demand of bribe and giving of the
same to the accused. Further, the recovery of chemically
G treated currency notes from the possession of the
accused stood proved by the testimonies of PW3, PWS
and the Investigation Officer PW7. Thus, the prosecution
has established the demand and the acceptance of the
amount by the accused as illegal gratification. The
H
668
SOMABHAI GOPALBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF
669
GUJARAT
accused has miserably failed to dislodge the A
presumption u/s 20 of the Act. Therefore, the conviction
recorded by the courts below does not warrant any
interference. [Para 6, 8 and 9] [673-C; 675-H; 676-A-F]
A. Subair vs. State of Kera/a (2009) 6 SCC 587; State
B
of Kera/a and another vs. C.P. Rao 2011 (6) SCR 864 =
(2011) 6 sec 450 - held in applicable.
Banarsi Dass vs. State of Haryana 2010 (4) SCR 383 =
(2010) 4 SCC 450 and B.Jayaraj vs. State of A.P. 2014 (4)
SCALE 81 - distinguished.
C
Narendra Champak/a/ Trivedi vs. State of Gujarat 2012
(6) SCR 165 = (2012) 7 sec 80 -
cited.
1.2. As regards the sentence, the appellant is said to
be 60 years old and suffering from heart disease, facial
D
nerve palsy and speech disorder. In the circumstances,
the imposition of minimum sentence prescribed for the
offences would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the
sentences of RI for one year u/s 7 and two years u/s
13(1)(d) read with s. 13(2) of the Act are set aside and
E
instead the accused-appellant is sentenced to undergo
RI for six months u/s 7 and one year u/s 13(1)(d) read with
s. 13(2) of the Act. [Para 10-11] {676-F-G; 677-A-C]
Case Law Reference:
F
(2009) 6 sec 587
held inapplicable
para 4
2011 (6) SCR 864
held inapplicable
para 4
2010 (4) SCR 383
distinguished
para 4
G
2014 (4) SCALE 81
distinguished
para 4
2012 (6) SCR 165
cited
para 5
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1864 of 2011.
H
670
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 10 S.C.R.
A
From the Judgment & Order dated 14.02.2011 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 292 of
1997.
Aparna Bhat, Priyambada Mishra, Tanima Kishore for the
B Appellant.
Hemantika Wahi for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C
C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the
judgment dated 14.2.2011 passed by the learned single Judge
of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad whereby it has
confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
21.3.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Banaskandha
at Palampur in Special Case No.215 of 1992, wherein the
D
Special Judge had convicted the appellant-accused for the
offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000, in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and
E
further convicted him under Section 13(d)(i)(ii)(iii) read with
Section 13(2) of the said Act and sentenced him to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a
fine of Rs.1500, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
six months with stipulation that the sentences would run
F
concurrently.
2. Briefly the facts are stated thus: PW1 Girishbhai is the
son of PW2 Ranchhodbhai and they owned 28 bighas of
agriculturExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.