Case: Ramanlal Mohanlal Pandya Vs. State of Bombay

2. The appellant was a Police Prosecutor at Anand in the District of Kaira. On July 21, 1953 one Fatesing Somabhai and others brought a complaint against Ramanbhai Harmanbhai of village Ajarpura, the complainant. On the following day the complainant brought aagainst Fatesing Somabhai and others. The police filed charge sheets in both cases. The cases dragged on and nothing happened till June 17, 1954 when there was a talk of a settlement and compounding the complaints. Complainant Ramanbhai Harmanbhai was prepared to pay a sum of Rs. 100 but Fatesing Somabhai and others demanded Rs. 200 and therefore the talks were unsuccessful. Thereafter three witnesses were examined on June 17, 1954 and the cases were adjourned to June 24, 1954. The appellant was conducting the prosecution on behalf of the State. On the same day the complainant was returning to his village and therefore went to the Railway Station Umreth. The appellant was also at the Railway Station and was going to Anand. The complainant met the appellant at the Railway Station and asked the appellant if it was still possible to have the compromise and the appellant told him to come to his house a day before the next hearing and as the complainant did not know his address the appellant gave him his address. On June 23, 1954 at abouta.m., the complainant went to the house of the appellant and appellant assured the complainant that he need not worry about his case but that he should pay to him Rs. 250 and he would see that he, the complainant, was acquitted. The complainant expressed his inability to pay that sum but the appellant insisted that he would not take anything less and asked the complainant to see him the following morning between 8 and 9 Oclock. The complainant then went to one Ramanbhai Shankarbhai, the Secretary of the Taluka Congress Committee Anand and complained to him about the demand of bribe from him Ramanbhai Shankarbhai introduced the complainant toKantilal Patel of theBranch at Surat and the complainant told him about the demand of the bribe.Kantilal Patel went to Dy. Superintendent of Police Pandya of theBranch and told him of the complaint of the complainant whereupon the Dy. Superintendent of Police Pandya came to Anand along withKantilal Patel and the next morning the Dy. S. P. Pandya called the complainant and took down his complaint. Two Panch witnesses Mohanbhai Shankarbhai and Rambhai Dahyabhai were also called and in their presence the complainant was searched and the Dy. S. P. Pandya gave him Rs. 250 consisting of two currency notes of Rs. 100 each and five currency notes of 10 rupee each. One of the panch witnesses Mohanbhai Shankarbhai was asked to accompany the complainant to the house of the appellant. Both the complainant and the witness went to the house of the appellant and they were followed by twoKantilal and Rathod and Dy. S. P. Pandya. There money was paid by the complainant to the appellant who after accepting these notes from the complainant put them in the pocket of his shirt. On asignal being given the police officers and the other panch witness Rambhai Dahyabhai rushed into the house of the appellant.Kantilal caught hold of the hands of the appellant and the Dy. S. P. Pandya asked the appellant to produce the money which he had received from the complainant. At first the appellant was reluctant but when Dy. S. P. Pandya showed him his identity card he took the money from hisand threw it on the ground. The currency notes were picked up by Mohanbhai Shankarbhai and numbers were found to be the same as on the notes which had been given by Dy. S. P. Pandya. The appellant was then was the prosecuted under S. 161, I. P. C

Reasoning:
8. In our opinion in this case the Courts below have not proceeded on any wrong principle and the Courts below having accepted all the essential facts which constitute an offence the conviction must be held to be proper and correct. It was submitted that the offence was committed as far back as June 1954 and the appellant has already undergone about three months sentence and it would be very hard to sent him back to jail. The appellant first took an appeal to he High Court which was decided on September 10, 1955 when his appeal was dismissed and the sentence passed by the trial Court was upheld. The appellant then obtained special leave in this Court on November 21, 1955 and was released on bail. No. doubt since then it has taken some time for the appeal to be heard but in the circumstances sentence passed by the trial Court cannot be called excessive and this Court would ordinarily not interfere with the quantum of punishment given by the Courts below particularly in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 136. For a public servant to be guilty of corruption is a very serious matter and the Courts would not look upon it with underdoes not seem to be the law that if the money given as bribe is provided by a particular officer of the police then the evidence of all the witnesses becomes evidence of accomplices and must be looked at with suspicion.