Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 576 (GUJ)

NANJI GOVINDBHAI SONAGARA v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2011-08-01

Z.K.SAIYED

body2011
JUDGMENT : 1. Criminal Appeal No. 694 of 1997 has been filed by the appellant – (original accused), under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “P.C. Act”) read with Section 374(2) of Cr. P.C., challenging the Judgment and order dated 3rd July, 1997, passed by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Special Case No. 14 of 1993, whereby the learned Special Judge, has held the appellant – accused guilty for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, and under Section 193, 196 and 477A of I.P. Code, and sentenced him (i) to undergo SI for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act; (ii) to undergo SI for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act; (iii) to undergo SI for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 193 of I.P. Code; (iv) to undergo SI for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 196 of I.P. Code. Learned Judge has ordered that in default of making payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment of two months for each such default. The learned Judge has also ordered that substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. However, no separate sentence is passed by the learned Judge for the offence punishable under Section 477-A of I.P. Code. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 906 of 1997 has been filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat, under Section 377 of Cr. P.C., for enhancement of sentence awarded by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar, in Special Case No. 14 of 1993 vide Judgment and order dated 3rd July, 1997. 3. Both the above Appeals are arising out of the one and same Judgment and since the oral as well as documentary evidence are the same, they are heard together and disposed of together by this common Judgment. 4. The facts of the prosecution case are that, at the relevant time, the appellant – accused was serving as Sub-Registrar at Jam-Jodhpur. Both the above Appeals are arising out of the one and same Judgment and since the oral as well as documentary evidence are the same, they are heard together and disposed of together by this common Judgment. 4. The facts of the prosecution case are that, at the relevant time, the appellant – accused was serving as Sub-Registrar at Jam-Jodhpur. The complainant and his brother had purchased agricultural land from one Ashwin Trikam and Hasmukh Trikam by executing unregistered Sale Deed on a stamp paper of Rs.20/-. Thereafter, the complainant decided to execute registered Sale Deed. Therefore, the complainant inquired from the accused about the probable expenses and formalities. It is alleged that the accused informed the complainant that if the vendors and vendee of agricultural land are small farmers, the stamp duty will be somewhat lesser and the vendors and vendee has to file affidavit testifying that they are small farmers. The appellant – accused, therefore, advised the complainant to file such affidavit and thereafter informed the complainant to meet him again. Thereafter, Affidavit of one of the vendors Ashwinbhai was made before the Mamlatdar, through the Bond Writer Velajibhai and then the complainant alone met the accused and inquired from him about the probable expenses of registration of Sale Deed and at that time the accused demanded Rs.1000/-as an illegal gratification from the complainant for getting the Sale Deed registered. However, thereafter, the amount was reduced and settled at Rs.400/-. The accused also informed the complainant that he should pay the said amount at the time of registration of the documents. It is alleged that as the complainant was not willing to pay such amount and, therefore, he approached the A.C.B. Office at Rajkot on 10.1.1993, where his complaint was recorded by Police Inspector of A.C.B., Rajkot. On the basis of complaint, the Police Inspector called two Panchas on 11.1.1993 and narrated the facts about the complaint. Four currency notes, each of Rs.100/-denomination, were produced in A.C.B. Office, Rajkot, by the complainant. Usual experiments of ultraviolet lamp and anthracene powder was carried out in the A.C.B. Office. Thereafter, after completing the necessary procedure, the preliminary part of the panchnama was completed and then raiding party, viz. the complainant, panch witnesses, Police Inspector and other police staff proceeded from Rajkot to Jam-Jodhpur. Usual experiments of ultraviolet lamp and anthracene powder was carried out in the A.C.B. Office. Thereafter, after completing the necessary procedure, the preliminary part of the panchnama was completed and then raiding party, viz. the complainant, panch witnesses, Police Inspector and other police staff proceeded from Rajkot to Jam-Jodhpur. Thereafter, the complainant and the Panch No.1 called the vendors at the office of bond writer and, in the mean time, the complainant and first panch went to the place where the police jeep was parked and intimated about the development. Thereafter, the complainant and panch also reached to the office of Bond Writer, where the Bond Writer caused the sale deed to be typed on stamp paper, as per instruction of vendors and obtained their signatures over the sale deed. It is alleged that at about 13.35 hours the accused returned to his office and thereupon the complainant, first panch, both the vendors, Bond Writer and the brother of the complainant went to the office of the accused and the members of raiding party followed them. Thereafter, the bond writer submitted the Sale Deed for registration before the accused. The accused verified the signatures of the vendors and obtained their signatures in the register and on being instructed by the accused, they left the office. The complainant paid the amount of Rs.160/-being the registration charges of the documents to the accused, who thereupon, prepared the receipt and kept the same in his hand and inquired from the complainant as to whether, as per earlier understanding and agreement, he has brought the amount, to which the complainant replied in affirmative and tendered the marked currency notes of Rs.400/-from the pocket of his shirt and the accused has accepted the said amount. On acceptance of amount by the accused, the complainant gave prearranged signal to the raiding party. The raiding party rushed to the office of the accused and Police Inspector Mr. Jhala gave his introduction to the accused, who thereupon put the tainted currency notes in his mouth and tried to chew it and, therefore, immediately, his both the hands were caught hold off and tainted currency notes were taken out from his mouth by the first panch. The experiment of ultraviolet lamp were carried out which showed positive result. Jhala gave his introduction to the accused, who thereupon put the tainted currency notes in his mouth and tried to chew it and, therefore, immediately, his both the hands were caught hold off and tainted currency notes were taken out from his mouth by the first panch. The experiment of ultraviolet lamp were carried out which showed positive result. The presence of anthracene powder was found over the finger tips of right hand, palm, lips, mouth and chicks of the accused. The presence of anthracene powder was also found on finger tips of both the hands of first panch. The numbers of currency notes were tallied with first part of the panchnama. Thereafter, necessary procedure was completed and the second part of panchnama was drawn and completed in the office of the accused. Police Inspector Shri Jhala carried out further investigation. The complaint was sent to A.C.B. Office, Jamnagar for registration of offence and then the offence was registered against the accused. The accused was sent to Irwin Hospital, Jamnagar on 16.1.1993 where the sample of his saliva was collected by the C.M.O. and the said sample was sent to the A.C.B. Office, Rajkot. During the course of investigation the accused sent representation coupled with copy of Government records, forwarded by the Inspector General of Registration, Ahmedabad, to the A.C.B. Office, Rajkot. On inquiry by the ACB Office, it was found that the Government records have been subsequently got up after the trap by the accused with an intention to create or support his false defence in criminal prosecution and, therefore, the accused was found to have committed offences punishable under Sections 193, 198, 461, 471 of I.P. Code and hence, offences under the aforesaid sections were also added. The sample of saliva and tainted currency notes were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ahmedabad, for analysis, which shows positive results. Thereafter, the sanction for prosecution against the accused was obtained. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused in the Court of learned Special Judge, Jamnagar, which was registered as Special Case No.14 of 1993. 5. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the appellant. The appellant – accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the charge levelled against the appellant- accused, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses and also produced documentary evidence on record before the trial Court. 4. 5. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the appellant. The appellant – accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the charge levelled against the appellant- accused, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses and also produced documentary evidence on record before the trial Court. 4. Thereafter, after examining the witnesses, further statement of the appellant-accused under sec. 313 of Cr PC was recorded in which the appellant-accused has denied the case of the prosecution. The appellant – accused in his further statement has stated that “on the date of incident between 1.00 PM to 2.00 PM the complainant Bhogilal Kalidas, vendor and bond-writer Velajibhai had come to his office for registration of the sale deed. He recovered registration charges of Rs.160/- from the complainant and passed receipt for it and gave it to the complainant and the registration formalities were over and, therefore, all of them left his office. After about five minutes, the complainant came alone and told him that he has to pay amount due to the Government to be paid by his relative and submitted an application, letter of intimation and Rs.400/-, being the amount of Government dues mentioned in the said intimation notice before him and he, therefore, accepted the said amount from the complainant and issued the receipt and delivered it to the complainant, who thereafter left the office. He has also stated that after about five minutes, four to five A.C.B. Police personnel rushed to his room and he was removed from his chair and thereupon he became unconscious for a while and regained consciousness later on when he found himself to be lying on chair. He was detained in the office. They took away Rs.400/- which was lying on his table. The said amount of Rs.400/- was Government revenue. After their departure from his office, he wrote office cash book and made entry of Government money received during the whole day including the amount of Rs.400/- which was taken away by the police personnel, in the office account book. The fact of A.C.B. Authority having taken away the Government money of Rs.400/- was also noted in the account book. He had, therefore, made a written representation to his superior authority supported by the copies of relevant Government records. The fact of A.C.B. Authority having taken away the Government money of Rs.400/- was also noted in the account book. He had, therefore, made a written representation to his superior authority supported by the copies of relevant Government records. According to his say, he has not accepted the amount of Rs.400/-from the complainant by way of bribe, but, it was the amount received from the complainant as Government dues which were due from Hitesh Raghavji and he had issued the government receipt for the said amount and has made lawful entry in the account books. He has stated that he is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case.” 5. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned Special Judge, Jamnagar, vide impugned judgment and order dated 03.07.1997, held the appellant – accused guilty to the charge levelled against him and awarded the sentence as referred to herein above. 6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar, the present appellant has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 694 of 1997. The State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 906 of 1997 for enhancement of sentence awarded by the learned Judge, vide the impugned Judgment. 7. Heard Mr. K.J. Shethna, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr H.L. Jani, learned APP for the respondent-State. 8. Mr. Shethna for the appellant has read the charge (Exh.2) and contended that as per the charge, which is framed against the accused, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Judge has committed grave error in holding the appellant – accused guilty of the offences charged against him. He has contended that the Sanctioning Authority has not given the sanction (Exh.19) as per law and it has been given as per the draft prepared by the A.C.B. Office and given in a mechanical manner. He has also read the oral evidence of P.W.No.4 – Mr. J.P. Vaghela (Exh.15) and contended that it is clearly established that the sanction has been given as per the proposed draft given by the A.C.B. Office and, therefore, the same is without application of mind. He has contended that when the sanction is not proved, as per the provision of law, then it is fatal to the prosecution case. J.P. Vaghela (Exh.15) and contended that it is clearly established that the sanction has been given as per the proposed draft given by the A.C.B. Office and, therefore, the same is without application of mind. He has contended that when the sanction is not proved, as per the provision of law, then it is fatal to the prosecution case. He has contended that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe amount. He has contended that there are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and since the story alleged by the prosecution is an integrated story depending upon the earlier demand and agreement, the prosecution was bound to prove the entire story. He has contended that earlier part of the story of first demand, negotiation and agreement have not been proved by the prosecution and, therefore, subsequent part of the story relating to the second demand, offer and acceptance of bribe amount, coupled with the recovery of tainted currency notes from the mouth of the accused, automatically falls to the grounds. He has contended that there are material contradictions between the oral evidence of complainant, first panch and P.I. Mr. Jhala and, therefore, the second demand, offer and acceptance of bribe by the appellant – accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that the evidence on the point of recovery of currency notes is contradictory inasmuch as the oral evidence of the complainant is contradictory to the evidence of first panch and the Investigating Officer and, therefore, the said part of the evidence is doubtful and not reliable. He has contended that since the prosecution has failed to prove vital part of the story, no presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act arises against the appellant – accused. He has contended that from the deposition of the complainant, it clearly appears that the complainant has not deposed anything about the demand of Rs.400/-having been made by the accused and the prosecution has failed to collect any supporting evidence with regard to the demand. He has contended that the learned Judge has not considered the defence version and when the probable defence is made by the appellant – accused then the learned Judge has committed grave error in holding the appellant – accused guilty for the charge alleged against him. He has contended that the learned Judge has not considered the defence version and when the probable defence is made by the appellant – accused then the learned Judge has committed grave error in holding the appellant – accused guilty for the charge alleged against him. He has contended that even from the report of Forensic Science Laboratory it is not proved that the said amount of trap is recovered from the possession of the appellant – accused. Mr. Shethna has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. SUBAIR v/s STATE OF KERALA, reported in 2009 (8) SCALE 585 and contended that mere recovery of currency notes, in the facts of the case, by itself cannot be held to be proper or sufficient proof of the demand and acceptance of bribe. He, therefore, contended that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the appellant – accused and, therefore, the Judgment and order of the trial Court is required to be quashed and set aside and appellant – accused may be acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 13. On the other hand, learned APP Mr HL Jani, has supported the Judgment and order of the Special Court and contended that the trial Court has fully appreciated the evidence produced on record by the prosecution and, therefore, no interference may be called for by this Court. He has contended that merely because there are certain contradictions in the evidence, that does not mean that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that the version of the complaint is required to be corroborated with the independent evidence of panch witness and the panchnama. He has contended that from the evidence of the complainant and the first panch, the prosecution has proved the first demand made by the appellant – accused. He has contended that the offer and acceptance of bribe by the accused and putting the marked currency notes in his mouth on seeing P.I. Mr. Jhala and recovery of notes from the mouth of the accused has been proved by the prosecution through the oral evidence of first panch and P.I. Mr. Jhala. He has contended that the offer and acceptance of bribe by the accused and putting the marked currency notes in his mouth on seeing P.I. Mr. Jhala and recovery of notes from the mouth of the accused has been proved by the prosecution through the oral evidence of first panch and P.I. Mr. Jhala. He has contended that the saliva of accused was found on the marked currency notes as per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory and finding of saliva of accused on the tainted currency notes is the strongest circumstance against the accused. He has contended that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is positive, cogent and clear evidence for holding the appellant – accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 193, 196 and 477 of I.P. Code. He has contended that for proving the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act, what is required to be proved is the acceptance of bribe amount by the accused only and, therefore, the prosecution has established, through the evidence of first Panch, its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that from the evidence on record it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has accepted the bribe amount of Rs.400/- from the complainant and, therefore, the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act requires to be drawn against the accused and the amount was accepted by the accused as a motive or reward as specified in the charge and, therefore, the burden of proof lies upon the accused who has failed to discharge the same and, therefore, the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and under Section 193, 196 and 477A of I.P. Code are proved against the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Judge has rightly held the appellant – accused guilty of the offences alleged against him. Therefore, the Judgment and order of the learned Judge is required to be confirmed. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on the record. I have read the oral evidence of prosecution witness and also perused the charge framed against the appellant and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on the record. I have read the oral evidence of prosecution witness and also perused the charge framed against the appellant and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. I have also considered the decisions cited by the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties. 15. So far as the question of sanction is concerned, I have perused the evidence of P.W.4 – J.P. Waghela (Exh.15) and the evidence of P.W.6 – Manilal Nathalal Parmar (Exh.25). From the evidence of both these witnesses, it is clearly established that the Inspector General of Registration, Ahmedabad, was the competent Authority to accord sanction for prosecution against the present appellant and was also competent to remove or dismiss the accused. It is also evident from the record that proposal for according sanction for prosecution was forwarded by the ACB Department to the said authority, along with copies of relevant police papers and thereafter, after considering all the relevant papers, the then Inspector General of Registration was satisfied that the accused was involved in the commission of offence and, therefore, the sanction for prosecution (Exh.19) was accorded and, therefore, in my opinion, the sanction is legal and valid. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Shethna that the sanction, given by the Authority, is without application of mind does not deserve acceptance. 16. For the purpose of proving the demand, offer and acceptance of bribe amount, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 – complainant Bhogilal Kalidas (Exh.7), P.W. 2 – Nitesh P. Patel, first Panch (Exh.9) and P.W. 5 – Velajibhai Devasi Makadia – Bond Writer (Exh. 22). According to the evidence of the complainant, before getting registered Sale Deed executed, he had met Velajibhai Devasi Makadia – Bond Writer (Exh.22) at Jam Jodhpur and informed him about his intention to get the Sale Deed registered which was executed by him and thereupon he informed the complainant that he would have to pay Rs.400/- by way of bribe to the accused if he wanted to pay lesser amount of stamp duty. The complainant has then did not support the story of prosecution. The complainant has then did not support the story of prosecution. From the evidence of the complainant, it appears that the complainant did not depose about the demand of bribe having been made by the accused and, therefore, with the permission of the Court, the learned APP asked the question to him where the complainant has admitted that the accused had demanded Rs.400/- and that he tendered the amount of bribe as per earlier talk. From the deposition of the complainant, it appears that he has not fully supported the case of the prosecution. However, looking to the deposition of Panch as well as the deposition of Bond Writer, coupled with the deposition of the complainant, it clearly appears that the appellant – accused has demanded the bribe and he has also accepted the same in presence of the first panch. From the evidence of Bond writer it clearly appears that he has informed the complainant that if he (complainant) wanted to pay lesser amount of stamp duty, then he has to pay Rs.400/- by way of illegal gratification to the appellant – accused. So, the first demand made by the appellant – accused is proved through the oral evidence of complainant as well as the evidence of Bond Writer. So far as the second demand is concerned, no doubt the complainant did not depose about the demand of bribe having been made by the accused, but, thereafter, when the learned APP, with the permission of the Court, asked leading question to him, the complainant admitted that the accused had demanded Rs.400/- and that he had tendered the said amount of bribe as per earlier talk. From the evidence of first panch, it is clearly established that the said second demand was made by the appellant – accused from the complainant in presence of first panch and the complainant has tendered the tainted currency notes to the accused. However, on seeing the raiding party, the appellant – accused has put the said notes in his mouth and thereafter the said currency notes were taken out by P.I. Mr. Jhala, with the help of first panch. Looking to the evidence on record, it clearly appears that presence of anthracene powder was found under the ultraviolet lamp on both the hands, palm, face, mouth, lips of the accused. Jhala, with the help of first panch. Looking to the evidence on record, it clearly appears that presence of anthracene powder was found under the ultraviolet lamp on both the hands, palm, face, mouth, lips of the accused. The saliva and presence of anthracene powder were also noticed over the marked currency notes. Similar marks of presence of anthracene powder were also found on his two first fingers and thumb of right hand. The serial numbers of tainted currency notes were tallied with the numbers noted in the first part of the panchnama. The panch witness is an independent witness who is Government officer and it has not come on record that he has any animosity with the accused. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence. 17. I have also gone through the complaint (Exh.42) lodged by the complainant as well as the Report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.44) in connection with muddamal sent for the purpose of analysis. As per the serological report, from the trap amount of four notes of denomination of Rs.100/- each, blood group “AB” is found and the swab is also of the person, who is holder of “AB” group blood. From the circumstantial evidence also, the amount which is found and recovered by the Trapping Officer shows that anthracene powder in the light of ultraviolet lamp was found from the lips, chicks and the hands of the present appellant – accused which clearly suggests that the said amount of trap is accepted by the appellant – accused and was put in his mouth by him. I have also perused the further statement of the appellant – accused, which is recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 18. Looking to the evidence on record, in my opinion, the appellant has failed to prove his probable defence and he has not explained as to how anthracene powder was found from the person of appellant – accused. Mr. Jani has also contended that looking to the facts of the case presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act is required to be drawn against the present appellant – accused. Mr. Jani has also contended that looking to the facts of the case presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act is required to be drawn against the present appellant – accused. Section 20 of the P.C. Act reads as under : (1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. (2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under section 12 or under clause (b) of section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7, or as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption may fairly be drawn.” 13. Looking to the evidence produced on the record, it appears that the illegal gratification was accepted by the appellant – accused. It also appears that the appellant – accused has not properly explained the presence of anthracene powder. Looking to the evidence produced on the record, it appears that the illegal gratification was accepted by the appellant – accused. It also appears that the appellant – accused has not properly explained the presence of anthracene powder. From the perusal of evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the appellant – accused has failed to rebut the presumption, rightly drawn by the learned trial Judge, under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. Even from the cross-examination of witnesses also, I have found that the appellant has failed to prove his probable defence beyond reasonable doubt before the trial Court. 14. As per Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the conduct of the accused is required to be considered. From the record it is clearly established that at the place of occurrence, the accused was found and from his possession the trap amount was recovered in presence of panch witness and hence that conduct of the accused can be considered that there was motive of the accused to commit the offence and just to get some illegal gratification. Further, his conduct to put the currency notes in his mouth on seeing the ACB personnels is also not natural. It is a clear attempt to escape from the raid. Not only that, he fabricated and created documents to save his skin from the aforesaid offensive acts. The trial Judge has, therefore, rightly held the appellant – accused guilty for the aforesaid offences. Therefore, the contention of the appellant – accused that the accused was wrongly involved in the commission of offence is not believable. 15. I have also gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, cited by learned A.P.P. Mr. Jani, in the case of STATE OF M.P. v/s JIYALAL, reported in 2010 (1) G.L.H. 597, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has, in Para – 8, observed as under : “20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration - “It was also not justified for the learned Single Judge to hold that the District Magistrate who had passed the sanction order should have been subsequently examined as a witness by the prosecution in order to prove the same. The sanction order was clearly passed in discharge of routine official functions and hence there is a presumption that the same was done in a bona fide manner. The sanction order was clearly passed in discharge of routine official functions and hence there is a presumption that the same was done in a bona fide manner. It was of course open to the respondent to question the genuineness or validity of the sanction order before the Special Judge but there was no requirement for the District Magistrate to be examined as a witness by the prosecution” 13. This Court has also gone through the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BANARSI DAS v/s STATE OF HARYANA, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 450 . In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the complainant and another independent witness have not supported the case of the prosecution and, therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed and set aside the Judgment of the High Court and acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against him. In the present case, no doubt the complainant has not fully supported the case of the prosecution, but, when the learned APP has asked a leading question to him, with the permission of the Court, the complainant has admitted that the accused had demanded Rs.400/- and that he had tendered the said amount of bribe as per earlier talk. The panch witness has also fully supported the case of the prosecution and his evidence is fully corroborated with the circumstantial evidence. In the decision in the case of Banarsi Das (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para – 20 has also observed that ....”It is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that the conviction of an accused cannot be founded on the basis of inference. The offence should be proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or even by circumstantial evidence if each link of the chain of events is established pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has to lead cogent evidence in that regard so far as it satisfies the essentials of a complete chain duly supported by appropriate evidence.” In the present case before me, the witnesses had fully supported the case of prosecution and even by circumstantial evidence each link of the chain of events is established to prove the case of prosecution. 14. 14. Looking to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved that the appellant - accused, being a public servant, has demanded the amount and also accepted the bribe amount from the complainant. The accused has not explained by discharging his burden of rebutting the statutory presumption of guilt against him. From the facts and evidence on record, it is clearly established beyond reasonable doubt that the amount by way of bribe was demanded by the accused and he accepted that amount voluntarily as an illegal gratification. I am also of the opinion that the learned trial Judge has also rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant – accused for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of above, I am in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and I am of the view that no other conclusion except the one reached by the trial Court is possible in the instant case as the evidence on record stands. Therefore, there is no valid reason or justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. However, the State is also not able to demonstrate before this Court that the sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge is in-approriate and requires to be enhanced. On the contrary, in my view, the learned trial Judge, after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, awarded sentences which is absolutely just and proper and enhancement is not warranted. 21. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 694 of 1997, filed by the appellant – original accused, is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03.07.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Special Case No. 14 of 1993 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. The appellant – accused is directed to surrender before the Jail Authority within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, failing which the concerned Sessions Court shall issue non-bailable warrant to effect the arrest of the appellant – original accused. R & P to be sent back to the trial court forthwith. 22. The appellant – accused is directed to surrender before the Jail Authority within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, failing which the concerned Sessions Court shall issue non-bailable warrant to effect the arrest of the appellant – original accused. R & P to be sent back to the trial court forthwith. 22. So far as Criminal Appeal No.906 of 1997, filed by the State of Gujarat, for enhancement of sentence, passed by the learned Special Judge in the aforesaid special Case No.14 of 1993, in the facts of the case, is hereby dismissed.