Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The complainant demanded the said originals from the Regional Office at Rajkot as well as from the Morbi branch, but both the offices have not produced the same before the complainant. It is alleged by the complainant that both the offices have wasted time in correspondence but did not produce the original tickets before the complainant during the period of audit. Therefore, accused no.2 told the complainant that he will send the original tickets to the complainant at Ahmedabad. Thereafter repeated demands were made by the complainant for the original tickets. The complainant had suspected the genuineness of the tickets. Thereafter, on 1.5.1986, accused no.2-Kothari telephoned the complainant and requested that ?Saccused no.1 be saved. He will please you. I will send him to you tomorrow, please complete his work. Do not do anything further in the matter??. It is also alleged that in pursuance of the telephonic talk between the complainant and accused no.2, Desai, accused no.1 had gone to the office of the complainant at 12-00 noon on 2.5.1986. Accused no.1 told the complainant that he wanted to talk to him and he requested the complainant to accompany him to the ground floor. The complainant went with him to the downstairs where accused no.1 told him that as per the telephonic talk accused no.2 had with the complainant, he (accused no.1) was there before the complainant and that he is a poor man and that his work be done. Thereafter he showed one packet wrapped in paper to the complainant and insisted on the complainant for accepting the same. The complainant refused to accept the packet and told him that he will act according to law. Thereupon, accused no.1 asked residential address of the complainant and also told him that he will reach the residence of the complainant at 8.p.m. Accordingly, accused no.1 wrote down the address on the packet itself. It is also alleged in the complainant that accused no.1, at that time also requested the complainant to accept the said gift packet and also requested to save him from the LTC case. Thereafter, accused no.1 left the office of the complainant.

11. The complainant, in his chief examination, has stated that he received a telephone call from accused no.2 on 5.5.1986 and as per the telephonic conversation, accused no.2 told him that accused no.1-N.K. Desai will be meeting the complainant in Ahmedabad on the next day and he requested to dispose of the LTC case of accused no.1 for which accused no.1 will do the needful to please the complainant. During the cross-examination, PW 1 has specifically stated that as per the telephonic conversation dated 5.5.1986, accused no.2 only told him that accused no.1 will be coming to see the complainant in connection with the leave fare bill case. In no uncertain terms, this witness has stated in his evidence that except this, no talk has taken place between him and accused no.2. In the circumstances, it was the bounden duty of the concerned Public Prosecutor to have got it clarified by putting questions to this witness-complainant whether earlier version on the telephonic conversation was right or the latter version was right. Unfortunately, this exercise has not been carried out by the Public Prosecutor or by the court below and hence serious doubt is created as to whether accused no.2 had asked the complainant to favour accused no.1 and whether he told the complainant that accused no.1 will please the complainant if such favour is granted. As per the evidence of PW 1, during the audit period, accused no.2 rendered full cooperation and tried to smoothen the work by assisting the complainant in solving objections/queries etc. raised by the complainant.

13. To prove the telephonic talk which has taken place between accused no.2 and the complainant, the prosecution examined PW 2, Arunkumar Trivedi at Exh.40. This witness, in his evidence, has stated that he heard accused no.2, Kothari telling the complainant on phone that he had sent an extract of 22 columns of the telephone register and requested him (the complainant) to close the LTC bill case of the peon, accused no.1, as he (accused no.1) is a poor man. This witness was incharge Branch Manager at the relevant time and according to the case of the prosecution, he was very much present when accused no.2 telephoned the complainant. However, from the evidence of this witness, nothing has come out to corroborate the version that accused no.2 had told the complainant that accused no.1, peon-N.K.Desai ?Swould please the complainant??. It is also pertinent to note that from the evidence of this witness it is found that in connection with the leave fare bill of accused no.2, many times there were telephonic talks between accused no.2 and the complainant. From the evidence of this witness, at the most, the prosecution can only prove that accused no.2 had telephoned the complainant on 1.5.1986 but nothing has come out from the evidence of this witness to prove that accused no.2 had requested the complainant regarding the so-called favour and offer of bribe to the complainant.

14. Now, as regards the probability of the incident in question is concerned, from the perusal of evidence of PW 1, it is an admitted fact that PW 1 is a Class II officer, Grade I -Auditor and accused no.1 is a peon. As stated earlier, according to his own evidence, PW 1 stated that as per the telephonic talk between accused no.2 and the complainant on the previous day of the incident in question, accused no.1 had visited his office with one packet wrapped in paper and accused no.1 requested him to go with him to the ground floor. It has also come out from the evidence of this witness that when accused no.1 reached the table of the complainant, it was office time and staff members as well as Mr Mehta, superior officer of the complainant was also present, and in the presence of these persons, accused no.1 went with the box, requested the complainant to accompany him to the ground floor where they could talk. Under normal circumstances, the story is not believable as accused no.1, a peon will not dare to ask a Class II Officer to accompany with him to the ground floor as he wanted to speak to him, and the complainant cannot be expected to have gone with the peon. This conduct of accused no.1 is improbable and not natural. Furthermore, it is stated on oath by the complainant that when he went with accused no.1 to the ground floor, accused no.1 insisted him to accept the gift box and he refused to accept. Then accused no.1 told him that Kothari (accused No.2) had specially sent the gift for the complainant and Kothari Saheb wanted the complainant to accept it and he must accept it. Again, the complainant has specifically denied to accept the said gift in spite of insistence of accused no.2 and hence he asked accused no.1 to go to the complainant's residence. For the sake of argument, even if assuming that for granting favour to accused no.1, accused no.2 sent the gift (bribe) to the complainant, then what should be the natural conduct of accused no.1, as he was a peon and the complainant was Class II officer. Simply accused no.1 could have handed over the packet to the complainant and at the most he could request the complainant to look into his LTC case. It is highly improbable that accused no.1, peon told so many words to the complainant and insisted him to accept the gift. Further, it is stated by the complainant that he was suspicious that accused no.2 (Kothari) and accused no.1 (N.K. Desai) might have arranged to trap him, as the box brought by accused no.1 was wrapped in paper and on thathis (complainant's) residential address was noted down. This version of the complainant leads us to believe that in presence of his superior officer Mr Mehta and other staff members, accused no.1 came with the gift box and he might have thought not to accept the same in front of others and as the complainant, suspected that some trap might have been arranged by both the accused persons, he did not accept the said packet/box and instead, he went to the ACB office and lodged the complaint. It is also very strange that though the complainant refused to accept the gift from accused no.1, at the request of accused no.1, he gave address of his residence. It is also pertinent to note that even though the incident took place at 11.00 a.m. in the morning and Mr Mehta, his superior officer was present in the office, he did not disclose the said fact to Mr Mehta. It is also rather strange that till 5 p.m., the complainant was in the office but he has not thought of lodging the complaint. But at 5 p.m. he decided to go to the office of the ACB. Thus, the evidence of the complainant and his conduct creates serious doubts whether to favour accused no.1, bribe in the form of gift was offered to the complainant by accused no.1 ? Or by demand of the complainant, gift was sent by accused no.2 to the complainant ? Further, as per the evidence of the complainant, at 9 p.m. on the date of the raid, when accused no.1 came into the house of the complainant, he welcomed accused no.1 and asked him to sit with him on the cot and accused no.1 sat with the complainant. Thereafter, he removed the wrapper of the gift box and took out the clock from the packet and then adjusted the time and started it and told the complainant to accept the said clock and requested to close the case of his leave fare bill. Further, accused no.1 told him that he (accused no.1) and Kothari (accused no.2) both went personally to the shop and purchased the said clock. He further told him that its cost is Rs.150/-. Whether this conversation is possible between accused no.1 and the complainant, as discussed above, as accused no.1 is a peon and complainant is a Class II Officer ? When accused no.1 went to the complainant to hand over the gift box to him, at the most, he could have requested him to look into his case. It is strange that a Class II Officer asks a peon to sit with him and also indulge in such a fashion as mentioned above. As in the morning, accused no.1 told the complainant that as per the the telephonic conversation the complainant had with Mr Kothari, he brought this gift for handing over to him, then again it was not required for accused no.1 to repeat the same conversation/request. This evidence of the complainant regarding the manner in which the incident took place and manner in which the conversation took place between accused no.1 and the complainant, is highly improbable and no prudent man can believe such a story. So, the evidence of the complainant is neither found trustworthy nor inspire confidence of the court. On the contrary, it creates doubt whether both the accused have in connivance with each other, offered the muddamal clock to favour accused no.1. As discussed above, there is all possibility that on demand by the complainant, accused no.2 might have sent the gift through accused no.1 for the complainant. As discussed earlier, the complainant must have been suspicious about the arrangement of trap by accused no.1 and 2 and at that point of time, he might have changed his mind and subsequently belatedly, he went to the ACB office for lodging the complaint. It is incumbent upon the complainant to inform Mr Mehta, the superior officer of the complainant who was present in the office when accused no.1 had visited the office of the complainant with the packet which was to be offered as bribe. If he had informed Mr Mehta about the incident, then things would have been different. So, in the opinion of this court, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against both the accused with regard to offering of the muddamal clock to the complainant.