Rameshkumar Nandvandan Khakhkhar vs State of Gujarat

Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—The present Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed in Special Case No. 3 of 1989 by the lethat rests on an accused to displace the statutory arned Special Judge, Valsad dated 30.10.1996 recording conviction of the Appellant - Accused for the offence under Sections 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 of Indian Penal Code, imposing RI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default, SI for 6 months. No sentence is separately awarded for offence u/s 161 of IPC.

The facts of the case briefly summarized are as follows:

It is the case of the prosecution that in the year 1987 while serving in the office of City Survey, Sanjan, District Valsad, the complainant had made an application for the entry regarding the property, and at that time, the Appellant - Accused is said to have made a demand for illegal gratification of Rs. 1000/-. On 17.4.1988 the Appellant - Accused is said to have been caught red-handed in a trap accepting the part-payment of Rs. 500/- as and by way of illegal gratification, and thereby committed offence, for which the complaint was registered by the complainant with ACB, Valsad, which is at Exh.45.

On the basis of the complaint given by the complainant, the trap was arranged, and after the accused was caught accepting Rs. 500/- as and by way of illegal gratification, the aforesaid case has been registered. Learned Special Judge framed the charges for the offence at Exh.6 and proceeded with the trial.

In order to bring home the charges levelled against the Appellant - Accused, the prosecution has examined the number of witnesses, including complainant, TLO, panchwitness, etc. and also produced the number of documentary evidence.

After recording the evidence of the prosecution witness was over, the learned Special Judge has recorded the further statement of the Appellant - Accused u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, where the Appellant - accused denied the charges levelled against him.

After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned Advocate for the Appellant - Accused, the learned Special Judge, Valsad recorded the conviction of the Appellant - Accused for the alleged offences and sentenced him as stated above.

It is this judgment and order which has been assailed on the ground stated in detail in the Appeal, inter alia that the learned Special Judge, Valsad has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt with regard to the demand for the illegal gratification of Rs. 1000/-. The learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate that the prosecution, and particularly, the complainant has not been corroborated by the documentary evidence. Further, it is contended that it is an established principle of criminal jurisprudence that the conviction cannot be recorded on conjectures and surmises. The learned Special Judge, Valsad has proceeded to record the conviction on the basis of inference without any cogent evidence. It is also contended that the learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate about the discrepancy in the evidence by the prosecution witnesses.

Learned Advocate Mr. J.B. Pardiwala for the Appellant - Accused has referred to the testimony of PW-1 - Panchwitness at Exh.10 and also the panchnama at Exh.11 and the seizure memo at Exh.12. He has also referred to the testimony of complainant - PW-2 at Exh.36. Learned Advocate Mr. J.B. Pardiwala referred to this testimony and tried to emphasize with regard to the discrepancies, both as regards the incident and also the discrepancies as to what had transpired after the trap. He has also submitted that there is no demand for Rs. 500/- on 17.4.1988. Learned Advocate Mr. J.B.Pardiwala submitted that the demand being essential element of the offence, which is not established. Learned Advocate Mr. Pardiwala referred to the complaint at Exh.45, Panchnama at Exh.11 and also testimony of PW-1 - panchwitness at Exh. 10 and also the testimony of the complainant at Exh.36 and submitted that the testimony of the complainant at Exh.36 as regards the demand, and the version as to what has transpired, cannot be believed. It is submitted that the leaned Special Judge, Valsad has recorded the conviction and proceeded on the basis of the acceptance of part payment of Rs. 500/-. However, the learned Special Judge, Valsad has failed to consider as to the fact that the demand must precede and there is no proof with regard to the demand. He further emphasized that there could not have been any demand for Rs. 500/- on 17.4.1988 as it was a Sunday. Learned Advocate Mr. Pardiwala further submitted that the Appellant - Accused admittedly stays at Valsad, and as per the prosecution case, the demand was made at Sanjan on 17.4.1988 at about 6:45 in the evening, which is not believable. He further submitted that if the place of resident of the Appellant - Accused is Valsad and the place of work at Sanjan, what was the reason for him to go to Sanjan and there is nothing on record to show that the Appellant - Accused was actually in Sanjan on 17.4.1986. Learned Advocate Mr. Pardiwala therefore submitted that the version of the complainant cannot be accepted as he has referred in his complaint at Exh.45 about the earlier demand and payment. Thereafter, he referred to the subsequent demand made and payment of Rs. 300/- and demand for the shirt piece. Learned Advocate Mr. Pardiwala also submitted that so far as the incident of trap is concerned, the demand is stated to be for Rs. 1000/- and the acceptance in the trap is Rs. 500/- and there is no evidence with regard to this demand except the bare words of the complainant. Learned Advocate Mr. Pardiwala submitted that even the past incident or the demand of Rs. 1000/- on 10.4.1988 is not therefore established. He therefore, submitted that if the demand is not established, merely on the basis of so called acceptance of Rs. 500/-, would not be sufficient to record conviction. In support of this submission, he has referred to and relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Kanubhai Kantibhai Patel v. The State of Gujarat 1998 (1) G.L.H. 924. Similarly, he has referred to and relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Gopal Lal Ghisulal Chhipa and Ors. v. The State of Gujarat 1998 (1) G.L.H. 943 and emphasized the observations made in paragraph 9. He has submitted that as it is observed in paragraph 9 referring to the earlier judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court that the demand and acceptance are both necessary elements and both demand and acceptance are required to be proved without any doubt. He further emphasized and submitted that if one thing is not proved being a vital element, the offence cannot be said to have been constituted, and therefore, the conviction inflicted cannot be sustained. He also emphasized the observations made in paragraph 13 thereof. In support of his submission he also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, He has pointedly referred to the observations made in paragraph 7:

Mere receipt of Rs. 200/- by the appellant from PW-1 on 10-7-1987 (admitted by the appellant) will not be sufficient to fasten guilt u/s 5(1)(a) or Section 5(1)(d) of the Act, in the absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. If the amount had been paid as lease rent arrears due to the temple or even if it was not so paid, but the accused was made to believe that the payment was towards lease rent due to the temple, he cannot be said to have committed any offence. If the reason for receiving the amount is explained and the explanation is probable and reasonable, then the appellant had to be acquitted, as rightly done by the Special Court. In Punjabrao Vs. State of Maharashtra, the accused, a patwari, was on a campaign to collect loan amounts due to Government. The complainant therein was admittedly a debtor to the Government. The accused explained that the amount in question was received towards loan. This Court accepted such explanation (though such explanation was not immediately offered as in this case, but was given only in the statement u/s 313) holding thus:

It is too well settled that in a case where the accused offers an explanation for receipt of the alleged amount, the question that arises for consideration is whether that explanation can be said to have been established. It is further clear that the accused is not required to establish his defence by proving beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, but can establish the same by preponderance of probability.

In Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. The State of Gujarat AIR 1976 SC 1497, this Court held that the burden that rests on an accused to displace the statutory presumption that is raised u/s 4(1) of the Act, is not onerous as that cast on the prosecution to prove its case. But such burden has to be discharged, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as is referred to in Section 161, Indian Penal Code. In State through Inspector of Police, Andhra Pradesh v. K. Narasimhachary 2005 (8) SCALE 266, we have reiterated the well recognized principle that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the acquittal by the lower court; and that only where the material-on-record leads to a sole and inescapable conclusion of guilt of the accused, the judgment of acquittal will call for interference by the appellate court.

Further, he has emphasized that as observed in this judgment, the conviction cannot be sustained on mere receipt of the money in absence of any evidence as regards the demand. He has further referred to the testimony of witness, including the PW-1 - panchwitness at Exh.10, PW-2 - Complainant at Exh.42 and the panchnama at Exh.11 and submitted that there is discrepancy in the testimony of this witness. He pointedly referred to the testimony of PW-1 at Exh.10 and submitted that he has stated that before they had gone to the house of the accused after the trap they had not stopped at any place and had not gone to the office of ACB at Valsad. Whereas the TLO Mr. Yadav has stated in the testimony that after the raid, they had gone to the ACB office to register the complaint at 11:45 in the night. Similarly, he emphasized the testimony of panchwitness at Exh.10 and submitted that as it is stated, he was asked to take out the currency notes from the pocket of the Appellant - Accused. While, as per the testimony of TLO - PW-4, the Appellant - Accused was himself asked to take out currency notes. He, therefore, submitted that these are the discrepancies which have not been appreciated and considered.

Learned Advocate Mr. J.B.Pardiwala for the Appellant - Accused, therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and order recording the conviction is erroneous and may be set aside.

Learned APP Mr. K.L.Pandya for the Respondent - State referred to the complaint at Exh. 44 and the testimony of the complainant at Exh.36 and submitted that the complainant has stood by his complaint and the version stated in the complaint at Exh.45 is corroborated by his testimony at Exh.36. Similarly, he has also submitted that it supports the version stated in the panchnama with regard to the incident as to what has transpired at the time of trap. For that purpose he referred to panchnama at Exh.11 and pointedly referred to page 117. Further, learned APP Mr. Pandya submitted that the discrepancy sought to be made in the testimony of the complainant and the panchnama is misconceived as he pointedly referred to the testimony of PW-2 - complainant at Exh.36 and submitted that he has stated that he had visited the house of the Appellant - Accused and after twelve o'' clock they had dispersed, whereas in the testimony of PW-4 at Exh.44 he has stated about having registered the offence at ACB Office and have made the search in the house of the Appellant - Accused at Valsad, which is also, on the contrary corroborated by the testimony of the complainant at Exh.36. He has also stated that in the testimony of the complainant at Exh.36, wherein he has stated as to what has transpired and he has specifically stated that when the complainant reached the Appellant - Accused at the time of trap, the Appellant - Accused is said to have asked whether he has brought the money. Thereupon, the complainant is said to have stated that he could not arrange for Rs. 1000/- and has arranged for Rs. 500/-, and therefore, the Appellant - Accused is said to have stated "Okey". Thereafter, the tainted currency notes are offered, which are said to have been accepted by the Appellant - Accused at the time of the trap. He has also referred to the panchnama at Exh.11 and submitted that as to what has transpired has been more clearly recorded in detail. He emphasized that the Appellant - Accused is said to have stated about making the arrangement first. Thereupon the complainant is said to have stated that after the payment of Rs. 500/-, the remaining amount could be paid lateron. Learned APP Mr. K.L.Pandya therefore submitted that it has been in continuation of the earlier talk, which is established as per the complaint at Exh.45 and the panchnama at Exh.11 corroborated by the testimony of the complainant at Exh.36. Learned APP Mr. Pandya therefore submitted that it cannot be said that the demand is not established. Similarly, he submitted that as discussed by the learned Special Judge, the acceptance is also established. For that, he again referred to the testimony of PW-1 at Exh.10 and TLO - PW-4 at Exh.44 and submitted that the tainted currency notes have been recovered from the Appellant - Accused and the marks of Anthracene powder are found on the finger tips as well as right side pocket of the pant of the Appellant - Accused. He, therefore, submitted that, as both demand and acceptance are established, therefore, recording of conviction is just and proper.

Learned APP Mr. K.L.Pandya referred to and relied upon the judgment of of this Court in case of Karsanbhai Manchubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, and submitted that as observed by the Division Bench of this Court, the payment of bribe in installment could be sufficient and submitted that it supports the version of the prosecution. He emphasized the observations made in paragraph 23. He has also referred to and relied upon the judgment in case of State Through Anti-Corruption Bureau, Government of Maharashtra, bombay Vs. Krishanchand Khushalchand Jagtiani, and submitted that the sanction would be just and valid and the aspect of approval would not be relevant. Learned APP Mr. Pandya also referred to and relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Babarali Ahmedali Sayed Vs. The State of Gujarat, and submitted that, as observed in this judgment, minor discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses could be overlooked if the basic version of the prosecution is not shakened. He emphasized the observations made in this judgment referring to paragraph 10 - Head Note ''B''. He emphasized:

It is settled that while appreciating the evidence of a witness in criminal case the Court should not attach much importance to minor discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution and should ignore the errors due to lapse of memory of ignore those statements made by a witness under fear or confusion from imagination on the spur of moment.

Therefore, learned APP Mr. K.L. Pandya submitted that as both demand and acceptance are established, the conviction recorded is just and proper and may not be interfered with.

In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the impugned judgment and order recording conviction of the Appellant - Accused calls for any interference or it could be sustained.

The first aspect which has been much emphasized with regard to the demand that it is and essential element for constituting the offence, is required to be established beyond reasonable doubt, and in the facts of the present case, it has not been established, is required to be appreciated.

The scrutiny of the evidence on record as it is revealed from the complaint at Exh.45, refers to the earlier transactions and there is one integrated version about what has transpired, then it has to be considered. In the complaint at Exh.45, the complainant had stated with regard to entry in the name regarding the property of the father given to him by will and in that connection, the Appellant - Accused is said to have made a demand, for which, he stated that when he produced all the record on 10.11.1987, the Appellant - Accused is said to have demanded Rs. 300/-, which was given to him. Thereafter, on knowing that he is working as a Driver in Steamer, it was suggested by the Appellant - Accused to bring the shirt piece. It is thereafter, when he inquired, the Appellant - Accused is said to have stated that there is objection lodged by the brother, and if, illegal gratification of Rs. 1000/- is paid, he would manage for him and make a entry. It is on the basis of this demand, the Appellant - Accused met on 17.4.1988 at Sanjan again reminding the complainant as to whether he has made the arrangement for money of Rs. 1000/-. Thereupon, the complainant is said to have stated that he could make the arrangement. Thereafter, the Appellant - Accused is said to have stated that Rs. 500/- may be given to him next day and the remaining amount can be paid after the entry is made. The complainant has stated that as he was not willing to give this amount as and by way of illegal gratification, he lodged the complaint before the ACB office and the trap was arranged. It is this version in the complaint narrating about what has transpired on different occasion. He has stated in his testimony at Exh.36 again referring to this aspect that on 17.4.1988 he met the Appellant - Accused and at that time the Appellant - Accused is said to have reminded that arrangement of Rs. 1000/- may be made and the work would be done. Thereupon, the complainant is said to have stated that he has not been able to make the arrangement and he would make the arrangement for Rs. 500/-. He thereafter decided not to give this illegal gratification / bribe and lodged the complaint before ACB on 18.4.1988. It is in this context when the trap is arranged, the Appellant - Accused is caught red-handed accepting the tainted currency notes smeared with Anthracene powder in a trap, which is established from the evidence on record in the form of the panchnama at Exh.11 and the testimony of the panchwitness PW-1 at Exh.10. Therefore, the much emphasis is given on the aspect of demand, that there was no demand, cannot be believed or accepted as infact the demand was made and thereafter it was settled that Rs. 500/- may be paid first and Rs. 500/- may be paid later on after the entry is made. Thus, the Appellant - Accused having settled for Rs. 500/-, the trap was arranged on the basis of the complaint given by the complainant. The complainant in his testimony at Exh.26 has also stated as to what has transpired at the time of trap corroborating his version stated in the complaint at Exh.45. He has stated in his testimony that when they approached the Appellant - Accused in his chamber, the Appellant - Accused is said to have asked whether they have brought the money. Thereupon, the complaint is said to have stated that he has not been able to make the arrangement for Rs. 1000/- but he has arranged for Rs. 500/-. The Appellant - Accused thereupon is said to have stated that it will do, and thereafter, when the tainted currency notes smeared with Anthracene powder have been offered to the Appellant - Accused, the Appellant - Accused is said to have accepted and placed it in the right side pocket of his pant. Thereafter, when the signal was given, the Appellant - Accused was found in possession of this tainted currency notes which have been recovered, for which the panchnama is made at Exh.11. Thus, this version of the complainant in his testimony at Exh.36 finds corroboration from the testimony of PW-1 at Exh.10 and also the panchnama at Exh.11. The panchwitnes PW-1 in his testimony at Exh.10 has also stated as to what has transpired at the time of trap and he has clearly stated that when they went to the Appellant - Accused, the complainant had requested that his work regarding entry may be competed. At that time, the Appellant - Accused is said to have asked whether the complainant has brought the money. Thereupon, the complainant is said to have stated that he could not arrange for Rs. 1000/- but has brought Rs. 500/-. Thereafter, the Appellant - Accused is said to have stated that Rs. 500/- may be given and the remaining amount would be given lateron and his work would be done. Thereafter the tainted currency notes were offered by the complainant to the Appellant - Accused in the presence of panchwitness PW-1, which was accepted by the Appellant - Accused and he placed the tainted currency notes in the right side pocket of his pant. Therefore, this testimony and the version stated by the complainant in his complaint with regard to the demand and subsequently at the time of trap with regard to the acceptance, is fully corroborated by testimony of panchwitness PW-1 at Exh.10. Further, the panchnama at Exh.11 also refers to this aspect as to what has actually transpired, and as rightly emphasized, it refers to the what had transpired actually in detail. The panchnama at Exh.11 clearly suggest that when the complainant accompanied by PW-1, panchwitness, approached the Appellant accused in his office, and when the complainant requested the Appellant accused that his work regarding entry may be expedited otherwise he will have to go in the steamer, the Appellant - Accused is said to have stated that the arrangement for money should be made first. Thereupon the complaint is said to have stated that he could arrange for Rs. 500/- and the remaining payment is paid after the entry is made. At that time, the Appellant - Accused is said to have agreed for Rs. 500/- stating that the remaining amount could be paid later on. Thereupon the tainted currency notes smeared with Anthracene powder is received by the Appellant - Accused. These aspect has been fully corroborated by the testimony of the complainant himself at Exh.36 and also PW-1 - panchwitness at Exh.10.

The another aspect about acceptance part is also established as could be seen from the panchnama at Exh.11, wherein it is clearly recorded that after the signal was given, PW-4-TLO and PW-2 with the raiding party had rushed there and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the Appellant - Accused. The marks of Anthracene powder were found on the finger tip of the Appellant Accused and also on the right side pocket of his pant. Further, the same currency notes were recovered, the numbers of which were recorded while preparing the panchnama of the first part in the office of the ACB. PW-1 - panchwitness in his testimony at Exh.10 has corroborated this panchnama and has stated that after the signal was given, the TLO had come there and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the Appellant - Accused and the marks of Anthracene powder were found on his finger tips as well as on the right side pocket of his pant.

Therefore, this evidence on record clearly suggest about not only the acceptance but also demand, though there has been some discrepancy with regard to the discussion on this aspect by the learned Special Judge when the points of determination has not been properly recorded. However, as discussed above, this has reference to the earlier discussion and earlier talks and admittedly the demand of Rs. 1000/- was made subsequently and ultimately it was settled for Rs. 500/-. Even during the trap, the Appellant - Accused is said to have made a demand reminding the complainant as to whether he has brought the money. Thereupon when Rs. 500/- has been offered, he has accepted as part payment stating that remaining amount would be paid later on. This itself would lend credence to the version of the complainant that demand was for Rs. 1000/- and it was only part payment which was accepted by the Appellant - Accused during the trap. The recovery of the tainted currency notes and the marks of Anthracene powder was found on the finger tips of the Appellant - Accused and the right side pocket of his pant is not explained and there is no plausible explanation offered.

It is in this context, the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. J.B.Pardiwala for the Appellant - Accused with regard to the acceptance relying on the judgments of the Hon''ble Apex Court as well as this Court, is required to be considered.

Though the reference has been made to the observations made in case of Kanubhai Kantibhai Patel v. The State of Gujarat (supra) referring to the earlier judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court that both demand and acceptance are the necessary element constituting the offence of illegal gratification and it has been observed that in a bribery case demand of illegal gratification has to be established as it is an important element. In this judgment, referring to the earlier judgment of the Hon Apex Court, it has been observed:

The word '' obtains'' therefore has been intentionally used by the Legislature and it has a definite meaning, and, therefore, before any one can be proceeded against under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is necessary to prove that it was the result of the demand that money was passed on.

In the facts of the present case, this aspect has been sufficiently established as discussed above. Therefore it cannot be said that the prosecution has not established the element of demand. Therefore, this judgment would not have any applicability.

Further, in this very judgment, the demand was not clearly established. Similarly, in a judgment in case of Gopal Lal Ghisulal Chhipa and Ors. v. The State of Gujarat (supra), referring to the observations made in paragraph 13 with much emphasis on the first line, "When the case of demand is found highly suspicious, even if the case of the acceptance is established, the accused cannot be convicted." However, apart from the proposition canvassed, even on fact, the demand of illegal gratification is established as discussed above. Moreover, the scheme of the Act is required to be considered with objects and reasons. The Corruption Act has been enacted to curb the corruption. The provisions of Section 4 clearly provide for presumption where the public servant accept a gratification other than the legal remuneration. Section 4 however makes it necessary to raise the presumption only when it is established with regard to obtaining of an illegal gratification, which is other than a legal remuneration and the presumption is made rebuttable which would afford the Appellant - Accused an opportunity to offer a plausible explanation. It is well accepted that the presumption may be of two kinds - (I) Legal Presumption - which the law enjoins upon the Court to draw the presumption, and (ii) the Factual Presumption which the Court may presume depending upon the facts and circumstances based on evidence. It is in this situation, where the burden would shift and rather the Appellant - Accused is given an opportunity to explain even after acceptance of the money that it was not as and by way of illegal gratification. Therefore, the burden would then shift to the Appellant - Accused to point out or give a plausible explanation with regard to any such recovery of tainted currency notes that he had received that money but it was not as and by way of illegal gratification. For example, it could be for discharge of his valid duty that he is required to collect the money before the ticket is issued. In the facts of the present case, no plausible explanation has been given or even suggested by the defence. The entire thrust of the argument is on the aspect of demand that acceptance has to be preceded by demand and there is no demand as established. However, this argument cannot be accepted in light of the evidence on record as discussed hereinabove. Therefore, once the demand is established, the tainted currency notes are recovered from the Appellant - Accused without any plausible explanation and there is an evidence with regard to the acceptance then there is no reason to disbelieve or brush aside the evidence. Therefore, though the learned Special Judge while recording the reasons may not have focused on this aspect, it cannot be said that the conclusion arrived at, is not just and proper recording the conviction. Moreover, even u/s 114 of the Evidence Act, it is open to the Court to draw an inference based on the facts established, like the possession of the tainted currency notes from the Appellant - Accused, for which no explanation is given. Therefore, once it is established that the Appellant - Accused has received the money, and there is evidence with regard to the demand suggesting even motive for making such demand. The Appellant - Accused was required to make an entry as part of his duty in respect of the property of the complainant, for which he had made a demand for illegal gratification. Therefore, the presumption could be drawn that such a demand of illegal gratification was made for doing some favour as referred to in the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Appellant - Accused could show that though the money was received, it was not a illegal gratification and unless such burden on him is discharged by plausible explanation, the presumption could be raised u/s 114 of the Evidence Act, which is perhaps referred to in this Section 4. It is required to be considered that once the accused has received such money from the complainant and unless there is any plausible explanation, the presumption with regard to the explanation as a motive or reward for doing some favour as mentioned in Section 161 of Indian Penal Code may be established. It is in these circumstances, the impugned order recording conviction cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse and does not call for any interference.

In the result, the present Appeal stands dismissed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Valsad in Special Case No. 3 of 1989 dated 30.10.1996 recording conviction of the Appellant - Accused for the offence u/s 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 of Indian Penal Code and imposing RI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, SI for 6 months, is hereby confirmed. The Appellant - Accused, who is on bail, his bail bond shall stand cancelled and as requested by the learned Advocate for the Appellant - Accused, the Appellant - Accused shall surrender within six weeks.