- (1.) The appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad upholding his conviction under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short "the Act"). The learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad had held the accused-appellant guilty and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine with default stipulations for each of the aforesaid offences.
(2.) Background facts necessary to be noted for disposal of the appeal are as follows: PW 3 the Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ahmedabad had received information about large-scale corruption in certain departments. He asked PW 1 a trader, to be a decoy and offer money to the appellant at the octroi checkpost. PW 1 the owner of the goods, and the driver were travelling in the truck. PW 1 agreed to be a decoy and certain panch witnesses were called. Two clerks serving in the office of the Maritime Board agreed to be a part of the party. Currency notes sprinkled with anthracene powder were handed over to PW 1. The manner in which the notes were to be used was also indicated to him. It was suggested to him that when the money is accepted by the accused a signal has to be given. On the basis of such instructions PW 1 paid the money in question on demand being made by the accused. The raiding party made personal search of the accused and the powdered notes were recovered from the cash box. Tests were conducted which proved that the fingers of the accused clearly showed that he had accepted money sprinkled with anthracene powder. On the basis of the aforesaid occurrence, a complaint was lodged, the accused was arrested and finally the matter was placed for trial. The main witnesses examined were trader (PW 1), panch witness (PW 2) and the investigating officer (PW 3). Sanction for prosecution was given by Shri Upendra Sing, Deputy Municipal Commissioner (General), Ahmedabad on 25.8.1995. The defence plea was one of denial. Considering the evidence on record, the trial court found the accused guilty, convicted him and imposed sentence as aforesaid.
(3.) In appeal, several points were urged questioning the conviction. The main stand was that there was discrepancy as to the alleged mode of demand of bribe. While the witnesses deposed that the demand was made by gestures and signs, the sanction order referred to the manner of demand being oral. It was also submitted that there was no proper sanction. The High Court did not accept the contentions advanced and by the impugned judgment confirmed the conviction and the sentence.;