Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. While Criminal Appeal No. 491/1994 is preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for enhancement of the sentences awarded to the accused in Special (Corruption) Case No. 10/1989 and the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 33/1994.

3. The facts leading to the prosecution against the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 33/1994 can shortly be depicted as under:

3.1. The complainant-Jitendrakumar Nanalal Raval originally resident of village Choila, Taluka: Bayad, District: Sabarkantha joined in service as teacher in Primary Section (School) from January, 1986 at village Gundikheda, Taluka: Dahod, District: Panchmahal. In the month of February, 1986, he was required to appear in examination of Hindi and, therefore, he had to go to his native town. According to him, he obtained leave for that purpose on 15th February, 1986. Thereafter, he over stayed and could not join the duty till 18th February, 1986. During that period, the accused - Kalubhai Danabhai Patel, who was serving as an Area Inspector, during relevant juncture, in Dahod Taluka Panchayat, Education Department, visited Gundikheda for inspection at the school where the complainant was serving. It is the say of the complainant that the accused signed his Register and, thereafter, he met with his landlord Shri Gomabhai Handa. About the absence of the complainant from the school, Shri Gomabhai Handa informed the accused that the complainant had been of station. When complainant returned from his native town, his landlord Shri Gomabhai Handa informed him (complainant) that accused had visited and had directed the complainant to meet the accused. Shri Gomabhai Handa also stated to the complainant that he had given Rs. 75/- to the accused on behalf of the complainant. On 19th February, 1986, the complainant met the accused and asked the advice about the leave period of his absence from the school for 3 to 4 days as his job was new and temporary. The accused informed the complainant that the complainant should pay Rs. 100/- to him and the matter would come to an end there. Thus on 19th February, 1986, according to the demand of the accused, complainant paid Rs. 100/-. Thereafter, on 4th March, 1986, an annual inspection of the school at Gundikheda was arranged and accused appellant visited the school of the complainant. At that time, accused threatened the complainant that the complainant was not running the school properly and that his job might be terminated. The complainant sought the advice of the accused again. There accused thereupon demanded Rs. 100/- from the complainant. At that juncture, the complainant had Rs. 85/- which he paid to the accused at the Bus Stand of village Gundikheda. The accused stated to the complainant that the complainant was still required to pay more amount. Thereafter, through the landlord (Shri Gomabhai Handa) of the complainant, accused conveyed the message to the complainant that he should meet the accused. The complainant could not visit the accused and instead on 27th March, 1986, he visited Gandhinagar and represented before the Hon'ble the then Education Minister Shri Hasmukhbhai Patel about the harassment of the complainant by the accused. The Hon'ble Minister advised to file the complaint before Anti Corruption Bureau, if the accused demanded more amount. On 30th April, 1986, landlord - Shri Gomabhai Handa of the complainant informed him that the accused appellant had summoned the complainant at Dahod to meet him. He was further informed that the complainant was required to go with all preparation. On 1st May, 1986 in the morning, complainant had been to Dahod where he came to know that the appellant accused was to go to Godhra. Therefore, complainant went straight to Godhra and waited at S.T. Bus Stand. At about 11.45 a.m., the appellant appeared at Godhra Bus Stand and met the complainant. The appellant inquired as to why complainant had not come to Dahod. The complainant explained that he had some work so he could not come to Dahod. The appellant accused then told to the complainant that if complainant intended to be permanent in his job, he had to pay Rs. 100/- otherwise, his job would likely to be terminated. The complainant said to the appellant that at that movement, he had no sufficient fund at hand, but he would go in the town and borrow Rs. 100/- from some acquaintances. Thereupon, the appellant instructed the complainant that the complainant was required to put Rs. 100/- in one envelope and that envelope was to be handed over to the appellant in the compound of District Panchayat Office at 12.30 p.m. He was specifically instructed that not to bring currency note of Rs. 100/- openly but in an envelope which should be kept blank and nothing should be written on the said envelope. Thereafter, as it appears from the original prosecution case, the complainant visited Anti Corruption Bureau Office at Godhra where P.I. Shri Shri Dinkar Mangesh Rangdekar, P.W.6 was sitting alone. The complainant explained his complaint which was reduced to writing and signed by the complainant as well as P.I. Shri Dinkar Mangesh Rangdekar. In the meanwhile, PSI Shri Joshi resumed at Police Station and he was instructed to ascertain and call panchas. P.I. Shri Joshi called Panchas Shri Khumansinh Madhavsinh Thakor, Panch No. 2, P.W.5, from Mamlatdar Office and Shri Gammatsinh Chandubhai Thakor, Panch No. 1, P.W.1 from the Prant Office of Godhra. As usual panchas were informed about the facts of the complaint and the complainant produced one currency note of Rs. 100/- which was to be offered in bribe. An experiment of ultra violet lamp and anthracene powder were carried out by Sub-Inspector Shri Joshi and said muddamal note of Rs. 100/- was smeared with anthracene powder and, thereafter, P.I. Shri Dinkar Mangesh Rangdekar took an envelope, the flap of which was opened and P.I. Shri Joshi put that currency note in the said envelope and the said envelope was then closed and put it in left hand shirt pocket of the complainant, after verifying that the said shirt pocket was empty. Thereafter, P.I. Shri Joshi destroyed blank paper which was used to smear with powder and washed his hands with soap. The anthracene powder bottle was secured in a cup-board and, thereafter in ultra violet lamp, the hands of all of them examined, but no marks of anthracene powder was found. The complainant was instructed to accompany them till District Panchayat Office and from there with both the panchas on foot, he was to go in the compound of the District Panchayat Office and if, the appellant met him and demanded the amount of bribe, the complainant was to give that envelope put in his shirt pocket and except that, he was not to touch that envelope. Both the panchas were directed to remain with the complainant and to see what might take place and hear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant. First part of panchnama was prepared at 11.30 a.m. to 12.15 p.m. in this respect. Thereafter in official jeep, raiding party as well as panchas and the complainant went towards the District Panchayat Office. The complainant and the panchas entered in the compound of the said District Panchayat Office, while raiding party persons remained within the vicinity. At about 12.30 p.m. according to the prosecution case, the appellant came out of the room of the Education Committee and entering in compound, inquired from the complainant whether the complainant had brought the amount. The complainant stated that he had brought the amount and then the appellant directed the complainant to go towards the canteen and started to go along with the complainant towards the southern portion where canteen was located. Both the panchas followed them. There appellant demanded the amount from the complainant and the complainant took out an envelope containing currency note of Rs. 100/- of muddamal by his right hand and delivered to the appellant. The appellant accepted the said envelope with his right hand and put the same in his left shirt pocket. At that time panch No. 1 indicated pre-arranged signal by putting his hands on his head. On receiving the single, raiding party in leadership of P.I. - Shri Dinkar Mangesh Rangdekar reached at the spot and Shri Dinkar Mangesh Rangdekar introduced himself to the appellant. The appellant, on inquiring, stated that he was Kalubhai Danabhai Patel, Bit Inspector of Taluka Panchayat Education Department, Dahod. Thereafter, upon instruction, Police Sub-Inspector Shri Joshi in ultra violet lamp examined the hands of all, but no mark of anthracene powder were found upon any of the hands. Thereafter, upon direction from P.I. Shri Dinkar Mangesh Rangdekar, panch No. 1 - Shri Gammatsinh Chandubhai Thakor took out white envelope from the left shirt pocket of the appellant and along with that envelope, there was one more paper and that paper was an application of teacher of village Jalad named as Natvarlal Lalubhai Modi and that application was dated 24th April, 1986 containing request to District Education Officer for his transfer. A recommendation was made by the appellant below such application. The said paper was seized and, thereafter panch No. 1, upon instruction, opened an envelope found from the shirt pocket of the appellant. It was found that muddamal currency note of Rs. 100/- was in the envelope which was taken out and examined in ultra violet lamp. Marks of anthracene powder on the said currency note were found and inside flap of the envelope such marks were visible. Those marks were rounded by pen on envelope by P.I. Shri Dinkar Mangesh Rangdekar. The said note was again placed in envelope and was seized by the police. The appellant's shirt pocket etc. examined by ultra violet lamp, but no marks were found. The second part of panchnama of all these procedure was prepared in presence of panchas and was completed at 13.45 hours. Thereafter, the investigation was carried out after registering the offences by P.W.6 - Shri Dinkar Mangesh Rangdekar, P.I. and thereafter, P.W.7 Shri Ramsinh Balusinh Chauhan, and Successor of Shri Rangdekar further investigated. A charge-sheet came to be filed against the present appellant in Special Court, Panchmahal at Godhra, for the charges levelled against him as aforesaid.

He stated in his deposition further that in the said report, he had stated that he was not on duty from 14th February, 1986 to 18th February, 1986. The witness produced that report on record at Ex.23. The witness further stated that on 27th February, 1986, he was out of station on account of school work and, therefore, he was not present in the school. He stated that a visit book was kept in his school. He further stated in his deposition that visit book of his school was shown to him which he produced on record at Ex.26. He admitted in his deposition that in the said visit book, an endorsement was made that from 14th to 18th February, he remained absent without obtaining leave. He stated his ignorance about the fact that the endorsement made in visit book were originally required to be forwarded to Taluka Office in the end of respective month. He admitted that on 15th February, 1986, he had to appear in examination in Hindi. He denied the allegations that on leave report for 15th February, 1986, he did not enter outward number. He admitted that the said report had not been entered in visit book and endorsement to that effect was made in visit book. He admitted that in his reply at Ex.23, he stated that he applied leave on 15th February, 1986, but the said report was not entered in visit book and no outward number was mentioned on that. He admitted that in the said report, the cause of leave was not shown by him. He further stated thereafter that he had shown reason to go to his native town. He further stated that Hindi examination continued for two days. He admitted that on the report at Ex.20, he endorsed the date of 14th January, 1986. The witness explained that instead of two, one was inadvertently written on that report. He admitted that his leave was not to be sanctioned by Bit Inspector. He further admitted that authority to sanction his leave was not with the accused. He further stated that Ex.12 report was addressed to Taluka Education Inspector. He denied the allegations that Head Master of the school had no authority to sanction the leave. He deposed that Ex.20 report had been submitted by him to his head master for arranging his charge. He admitted that the said leave was not sanctioned. He stated that for 15th February, 1986, he applied before Taluka authority. He denied the allegations that on 15th February, 1986, he did not forward any report endorsing outward number on it. The witness further stated that he did not know that at each year census report of students was required to be prepared and was to be sent to the District through Bit Inspector. He denied the allegations that at the time of Annual Inspection, the accused orally instructed him to prepare census report in respect of how may students were eligible to be admitted in the school. He stated that on 4th March, 1986, when accused conducted inspection, he instructed in writing about the management of the school and this instruction had been written in visit book. He stated that such report was not with him. The witness further stated that when he resumed on 19th, he straightway went to village Himala where his landlord met him. He stated that his landlord's name was Gomabhai. He stated that Gomabhai informed him that on 18th accused had come for inspection and he had to pay Rs. 75/- to the accused. He stated that it had not happened that he had instructed Gomabhai to give Rs. 75/- to the accused and upon that instruction, Gomabhai had paid that amount to the accused. He stated that it had not happened that the accused had demanded the amount from him and that he had instructed Gomabhai to pay the amount to the accused. The witness stated that the day on which he resumed, he had seen the accused in the evening for tendering leave report. He denied the suggestion that on that day, he was not required to meet the accused and in fact, had not met the accused. He admitted that on 14th, 16th, 17th and 18th, he was on leave unauthorisely. He stated that the proper management and regular management was to be inspected by Education Inspector. He denied the suggestion that from 14th February, 1986 till 4th March, 1986, the day on which inspection had been made, he had not met with the accused. He denied the suggestion that the explanation for his absence was offered first time by him on 4th March, 1986 and he had never explained before that. He admitted that in visit book, there was an endorsement that he was required to explain his absence. The witness stated that before 4th March, 1986, in respect of leave, he tendered oral explanation and did not tender any written explanation. The witness stated that on 19th, when he resumed, he had seen visit book. He admitted that after seeing visit book, he felt that it was necessary to tender explanation. The witness further stated that he had not kept the office copy of the application which he tendered to Hon'ble Education Minister. The witness further stated that he had represented before Education Minister that the accused had been harassing him. The witness further stated that before resuming his service, he had been to Godhra for interview except that he had not gone to Godhra before. He visited Godhra first time, when he had given interview. From 27th October to 1st May, since the Godhra was on way, he had occasions to visit Godhra. He further stated that at Godhra his relatives were staying and he visited his relatives. He admitted that the persons of Adarsh Radio were his acquaintance and he visited them at that shop. He stated that Adarsh Radio Shop was situated on Shahera Bhagol Road. He stated that till 1st May, it happened to visit once with person of Adarsh Radio. The witness further stated that on 1st May, 1986, he might have reached at Dahod at about 7.00 a.m., but he was not certain about the time. He stated that he reached Dahod through Himala. He denied the suggestion that it took one and half hour in bus for coming to Godhra from Himala, but he stated that it took 20 to 25 minutes. He stated that he did not know that for going to Dahod from Himala, the first bus was available from Himala at 7.00 a.m. He stated that he came to Godhra from Dahod in private vehicle. He stated that he came in one truck which was not loaded. He paid Rs. 7/- as fare to truck driver. He stated that the landlord informed him that the accused had summoned him with full preparation and, therefore, he had been to Godhra with cash amount of Rs. 150/-. He denied the suggestion that on 4th March, 1986 at the time of inspection, the accused instructed him that he had made adverse report against him on 20th February, 1986. He denied the suggestion that therefore, he felt that he would be terminated from the job and, therefore, he met Minister for the education and made false grievance against the accused. He admitted that the harassment for his absence was legitimate. The witness further stated that coming to Godhra Bus Stand, he inquired about the location of ACB Office. He stated that to whom he had asked, he could not say, but that person indicated the way to reach to ACB Office. He stated that jail, Mamlatdar office and the office of the Deputy Collector and other offices are surrounded the ACB Office. He stated that ACB Office was situated in the lane of residential premises and was located in corner. He denied the suggestion that the ACB Office could not be found easily. He stated that from bus stand, he had walked upto the ACB Office. He stated that he reached at ACB Office at about 11.00 a.m. In 1986 bus stand was located near Lalbaug. He stated that before offering the complaint, inquiry was made from him in ACB Office. He stated that the details of the complaint was asked before offering the complaint. He stated that this inquiry lasted for about ten minutes. Ten minutes also elapsed in writing of the complaint. He stated that when he reached at ACB Office, Shri Rangdekar, P.I. alone was sitting. On reaching there, he saw a name plate and he felt that person sitting was Shri Rangdekar. The inquiry was made by Shri Rangdekar at that time, no other person was present. At the time of writing of the complaint in between Shri Joshi was called. Police Constable Shri Dilipsinh was in ACB Office. Shri Joshi was called by beckoning him. Shri Joshi came after complaint was written as soon as the complaint was completed to be written, Shri Joshi came there. He denied the suggestion that after 27th March, 1986, he was in constant touch with the ACB Office. He admitted that on each first day of the month, a meeting was taking place of Area Inspector and that fact he knew very well. He denied the suggestion that the accused never met him at Godhra and never demanded any amount. He denied the suggestion that after verifying that on 1st May, 1986, the accused was to visit in District for meeting and, thereafter, he offered complaint. He denied that Shri Joshi and Shri Dilipsinh both had gone to call two panchas, but only Shri Joshi had gone to call the panchas. He stated that he could not exactly say that whether Shri Rangdekar directed Shri Joshi and Shri Dilipsinh to call the panchas or not. He stated that both the panchas came together. He stated that after he reached at ACB Office and, thereafter, Shri Joshi reached at the ACB Office and fifteen minutes thereafter, Shri Joshi had gone to call panchas. After calling panchas procedure for raid was performed and that took about ten minutes. The second part of panchnama took about half an hour. It took one hour between he reached in ACB Office and first part of panchnama was completed. He stated that he did not know that in District Panchayat, a Meeting Hall named as Vamanrao Meeting Hall was situated. He stated that they did not wait on Otala of the hall where the meeting was being conducted. He stated that when they entered in the gate of District Panchayat Office, he noticed Shri K.D. Patel. The witness stated that he was waiting for him. The witness stated that in the compound of District Panchayat in the centre the banyan tree was situated and around that tree one otala was situated. After entering in the gate of District Panchayat and after walking to 40 to 50 steps, this banyan tree was situated. The witness further stated that Shri K. D. Patel was waiting for him and met to them at the gate. He stated that he exactly could not say whether on that day in the compound of District Panchayat at about 100 to 150 persons were present. He stated that to his knowledge, there were some persons, but he could not say the numbers of those persons. He denied that it did not happen that meeting was completed and the accused had come out of the meeting. He denied the suggestion that after completing the meeting, the accused was going towards the canteen and he accompanied the accused. He denied the suggestion that on the pretext of census report, he delivered the envelope containing currency note to the accused. He admitted that the envelope in which currency note was placed was not brought by him. The currency note was put in the envelope after folding the same. He demonstrated the folds of the note in the Court and stated that in that position the note was placed in envelope. He stated that as soon as he delivered the envelope to the accused, he immediately put the same in his pocket. The signal was demonstrated by panch No. 1 and, therefore, raiding party rushed at the spot. He further stated that on receiving the signal, PSI Shri Joshi, PI Shri Rangdekar, panch No. 2 and constable Shri Dilipsinh came running there. He stated that except the complaint, police recorded his three statements. He stated that his statements on 2nd May, 1986 and 30th November, 1986 were recorded. He stated that he signed those statements. He denied the suggestion that in his complaint or in his three statements, he did not state that Son 4th March, 1996, accused visited my school and performed inspection and threatened that your management was not proper and accused threatened me. He denied the suggestion that the accused had never demanded firstly Rs. 75/- then Rs. 85/- and then Rs. 100/- at any time. He denied the suggestion that the accused had not accepted any such bribe. He denied the suggestion that between 19th April, 1986 to 4th March, 1986, he did not meet the accused. He denied the suggestion that when he resumed his duty, he came to know that on 20th February, 1986, accused had made a report adversely against him and, therefore, he attempted to arrange that raid. He stated that District Education Officer did not ask his explanation for his absence from the school till the date of his deposition. He admitted that the report at Ex.13 was written by him. He stated that the said report was given to the Taluka Inspector of Dahod Shri Lalbhai Parmar. He admitted that there was an endorsement of Shri Lalbhai Parmar below such report. He admitted that on 3rd May, 1986, the amount salary for the period of his absence from his duty was deducted from the salary of fourth month. He stated that the procedure for deducting pay started after he filed the complaint. He stated that he did not know that whether Shri Gomabhai had expired. He denied that he filed a false case against the accused because accused had filed adverse report against him. This is all the evidence of the complainant.

14. P.W.6 - Dinkar Mangesh Rangdekar, the captain of the teem, who conducted the raid is examined at Ex.32. He stated that in the year 1986, he was serving as Police Inspector, ACB at Godhra. On 1st May, 1986, Shri Jitendrakumar Nathalal Raval had come to ACB Police Station and offered his complaint against the Area Inspector Shri K. D. Patel for demanding bribe of Rs. 100/- for the purpose of making good remarks for the complainant. The witness stated that he reduced the complaint in writing as stated by the complainant which he produced at Ex.21. He identified his own signature as well as the signature of the complainant on complaint. The witness further stated that while he was recording the complaint, PSI Shri Joshi had come to the Police Station. He stated that he instructed PSI Shri Joshi to bring two panchas from Mamlatdar Office. He stated that Shri Joshi at about 11.15 a.m. brought the panch - Khumansinh who was Government employee. He stated that the second panch was not found and, therefore, he was sent to Prant Office for second panch. The witness further stated that Shri Joshi brought Gammatsinh at 11.25 a.m., as panch. The witness further stated that he introduced complainant to the panchas and panchas to the complainant. He stated that complainant read over his complaint to the panchas. The witness further stated that the complainant presented Rs. 100/- for offering in bribe. The witness stated that number of the said note was recorded in panchnama. He stated that thereafter, this note was handed over to Police Sub-Inspector Shri Joshi. He stated that PSI Shri Joshi explained the utility of anthracene powder and ultra violet lamp and he was instructed to execute experiment. The witness stated that thereafter, the said note was seen in natural light and thereafter, in the light of ultra violet lamp, but no marks could be visible on the said note. The witness further stated that thereafter, PSI Shri Joshi took out one blank paper and sufficient anthracene powder was extracted on that blank paper and was smeared on both the sides of the note of Rs. 100/- with his fingers. The witness further stated that thereafter, PSI Shri Joshi examined the said note on which powder was smeared, blank paper and his hands in natural light, but no marks were visible, but in light of ultra violet lamp the marks were seen. Both the sides of note and on the fingers of the hands of PSI Shri Joshi as well as on blank paper anthracene powder marks were visible. The witness stated that thereafter, he took out one envelope of white colour and he opened the flap of that envelope and he instructed PSI Shri Joshi to put the note of Rs. 100/- in that envelope in which PSI Shri Joshi put. He further stated that thereafter, flap of envelope was closed and after folding the same, the envelope was put in left hand shirt pocket of the complainant. Before putting the envelope through panch No. 1, search was made of left hand shirt pocket of the complainant, but the same was found empty. He further stated that thereafter, PSI Shri Joshi restored the bottle of anthracene powder in the cupboard and he locked that cupboard. The blank paper on which PSI Shri Joshi had taken anthracene powder was burnt and destroyed by PSI Shri Joshi. The witness further stated that PSI Shri Joshi washed his hands by soap. The witness further stated that PSI Shri Joshi examined his hands first in natural light and thereafter, in the light of ultra violet lamp, but no marks were found on the hands of PSI Shri Joshi. The witness further stated that thereafter, the hands of the complainants, hands of both the panchas and hands of the all of members of the raiding party were examined firstly in natural light and, thereafter, in the light of ultra violet lamp, but no marks were found on the hands of anybody. The witness further stated that thereafter, he instructed the complainant that he along with both the panchas in Government jeep went to Pathik Ashram and from there along with both the panchas, complainant would walk till the office of the District Panchayat, Godhra. The witness stated that he further instructed complainant that if Shri K. D. Patel was available there then complainant should discuss about the report and in pursuance of the earlier demand, if the accused demanded the amount, in that case only the complainant to deliver the envelope containing the note of Rs. 100/- to the accused and except that the complainant must not touch the said envelope. The witness further stated that he instructed both the panchas that they should accompany the complainant and to hear the talk which might take place between Shri K. D. Patel and complainant to notice the exchange of the amount. They were further instructed that if Shri K. D. Patel accepted the bribe then panchas should remember where he put the said amount of bribe and panch No. 1 to give signal moving his hands upon his head. The witness further stated that he instructed PSI Shri Joshi and police constable Shri Dilipsinh both of them to go to District Panchayat on motor cycle ahead and should remain there. They both were further instructed to hear conversation which might take place between the complainant and Shri K. D. Patel and notice the exchange of amount and if panch No. 1 gave pre-arrange signal, they should involve themselves in raid. The witness further stated that a panchnama from 11.30 a.m. to 12.15 p.m., the first part of this procedure was drawn and signature of both the panchas were taken on that and he also signed that panchnama. He identified that panchnama to be that panchnama at Ex.17. The witness further stated that complainant and both panchas were made to sit in the jeep, while Shri Joshi and Shri Dilipsinh started for going upto Pathik Ashram on motor cycle. The witness further stated that complainant and both panchas alighted from the jeep and had walked till the office of the District Panchayat. The witness further stated that they followed the complainant and panchas towards the office of the District Panchayat. The witness further stated that Shri K.D. Patel had come out from the office of Education Department and he made conversation with the complainant and had gone towards the canteen. The witness further stated that both the panchas followed them. The witness further stated that panch No. 1 gave pre-arrange signal moving his hands over his head and, therefore, he himself and the members of the raiding party reached near the corner of the canteen. The witness further stated that he introduced himself to Shri K.D. Patel and asked the name and address of Shri K.D. Patel. The witness further stated that thereafter, he had inquired from both the panchas, what had taken place and he noted that in the panchnama. The witness further stated that thereafter, the hands of the complainant, hands of both panchas and hands of the members of the raiding party were examined in natural light and thereafter, in the light of ultra violet lamp, but no marks were found on the hands of anybody. The witness further stated that thereafter, through panch No. 1 envelope and one paper was taken out from left shirt pocket of Shri K.D. Patel. The witness further stated that on examining the paper, it was found that the same was the application of one Shri Natvarlal Modi for his transfer. He was shown the envelope containing currency note of Rs. 100/- which he identified before the Court. The witness further stated that the said application was seized. The witness further stated that thereafter, the envelope was examined in natural light and thereafter, in the light of ultra violet lamp, but no marks were found of anthracene powder and outer part of the envelope. The witness further stated that thereafter that envelope was got opened by panch No. 1 and currency note of Rs. 100/- was extracted from that envelope. The witness further stated that the number of the note of Rs. 100/- was compared with the number written in the first part of the panchama and they were tallied. The witness further stated that this envelope was examined from its inner part and currency note of Rs. 100/- was also examined in natural light, but no marks were seen, but in the light of ultra violet lamp on examination, it was found that inside of the envelope on the hands of panch No. 1 and on the currency note of Rs. 100/-, anthracene powder marks were visible. Those marks were rounded by ball pen on currency note of Rs. 100/-. The witness further stated that the said currency note was again put in envelope and after obtaining signatures of both the panchas, the said envelope as well as that currency note were seized. He further stated that about this seizure, a receipt was prepared which was signed by the accused and placed on record at Ex.18 and was identified by the witness to be said receipt. The said receipt was also signed by both the panchas. The witness further stated that thereafter, the hands of the accused and his left hand shirt pocket were examined in natural light and in the light of ultra violet lamp, but no marks were seen. The witness further stated that a detailed panchnama was prepared for this procedure and panchas signed that panchnama which was identified by the witness to be said panchnama at Ex.17. The witness further stated that thereafter, at 15.00 hours, crime came to be registered against the accused vide C.R. No. 3/1986. Further statement of the complainant was recorded on 2nd May, 1986. He visited Himala and muster as well as inspection note were seized from the complainant and his statement was recorded. He identified Ex.14 to be that muster and Ex.15 to be inspection note. The witness further stated that thereafter, he recorded the statements of Incharge Head Master and landlord of the complainant. The witness further stated in para-3 that he also attempted to get the copy of an application preferred by the complainant to Hon'ble Education Minister for which the complainant preferred correspondence on 27th March, 1986, but the same could not be made available to him. The witness further stated that thereafter, he entrusted and transferred the investigation to PI Shri Chauhan because, he was transferred from Godhra.

38. The reliance can be placed on the evidence of the complainant in the fact and circumstances of the case in respect of demand made on 1st May 1986 if other three witnesses as aforesaid are corroborating him. It is also strange that between 4th March, 1986 to 1st May, 1986, the accused and the complainant are not met. But suddenly, the accused sends a message to Gomabhai, landlord of the complainant that the complainant was required to see the accused on 30th April, 1986. Again material it is to be noted here that Gomabhai is not examined. It is not understood that why the directions were not issued by the accused to the complainant to place that note in an envelope on earlier occasion. According to the complainant himself, the amount was accepted openly. One more fact which affect the credibility of the complainant, is the fact that the meeting of the complainant and the accused at Godhra Bus Stand is a chance meeting. It is not the case of the complainant or the prosecution that the complainant was directed to see the accused at certain hours and at certain juncture, but it clearly appears that it was within the mind of the complainant that on 1st May, 1986 in any case, the accused was to come to Godhra and was to attend the said meeting. This story of the complainant meeting the accused at Godhra Bus Stand more becomes doubtful for the reasons and attending circumstances that in absence of any instruction from the accused, how the complainant led himself to believe that the accused was to come to Bus Stand at Godhra at 10.45 hours on 1st May, 1986. There is no explanation coming forward from the prosecution or from the complainant. It is not explained why the complainant waited at the Bus Stand at Godhra upto 10.45 hours. If this aspect is taken into consideration then it becomes doubtful that whether the accused directed the complainant to bring the amount in an envelope. In respect of meeting of complainant and accused at Godhra Bus Stand only evidence is available is of complainant and for the above circumstances, wider dents are visible in the credibility of the complainant. This is the dilemma arises from the prosecution case from the evidence of the complainant. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he came to Godhra early from Dahod and he waited in a Bus Stand of Godhra as he ascertained that the accused was to reach at Godhra Bus Stand from somewhere. On probability this story becomes doubtful for one more reason that the accused was an Area (Bit) Inspector. His duty was to inspect the primary school of the villages. It is an admitted fact that the village Gundikheda or Himala where the complainant was staying was within the jurisdiction of the accused. Then in that case, what was the reason for the accused to summon the complainant at Godhra or Dahod for demanding the amount of bribe. It would have been easier for the accused in natural course to visit to school of the complainant or village Himala where he was staying and to obtain the amount of bribe safely where the trap could not be led, unless the same is arranged in well advanced. This circumstance suggests that the say of the complainant that he met the accused at Godhra Bus Stand becomes doubtful. It is pertinent to note that in these circumstances, whatever took place during the trap is to be considered as stated by the complainant. In his deposition, the complainant states that he himself and two panchas were standing near the canteen and accused came there. It must be remembered that panchas deposed that the complainant and accused both together walked upto the canteen without any conversation. The complainant says that the accused asked that had he brought that amount and he took out that envelope and handed over the same to the accused and signal being given by the panch, the raiding party reached at the spot and recovered the said envelope. It is also not understood that why the said envelope was not treated with anthracene powder as to ascertain that the said envelope was given to the accused. Apart from that as above said, the credibility of the complainant is doubtful for the reasons stated above, his say about the demand made by the accused in the District Panchayat Office also cannot safely be relied upon. Pertinent here it is to note that the panchas have not supported the complainant in respect of demand made by the accused in the compound of District Panchayat Office at the time of raid. When this case hinges only on the evidence of the complainant and it is found that his evidence is not creditworthy, the demand made by the accused though deposed by the complainant is required to be corroborated by the independent witnesses i.e. Panchas.