CHANDRAKANT CHHAGANLAL BHUPATANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27th March 1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar passed in Special Case No.12 of 1993, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to convict the appellant-accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was serving as Mamlatdar at Taluka Kalyanpur in the year 1991. The complainant was the resident of Khandera, Taluka Kalyanpur and dealing in distribution of Kerosene. IT is the case of the complainant that in the month of October, 1991 the appellant visited the shop of the complainant and asked the complainant to give him 10 paisa per liter if the complainant wants to continue his business and if the complainant did not do so, his licence would be cancelled and the appellant took Rs.500/- from the complainant in the month of October, 1991. IT is also the case of the complainant that in the month of November, 1991 the appellant has once again taken Rs.500/- as installment from the complainant. IT is also the case of the complainant that when on 20th January 1992 the complainant met the appellant in his office, the appellant demanded installment for the month of January, 1992 and agreed to accept the same on 28th January 1992. Therefore, a complaint to the said effect was lodged with the Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jamnagar on 28th January 1992. Therefore, it is decided to catch the appellant red-handed and trap is arranged. Thereafter, formal procedure was explained to the complainant and panch witnesses and it was stated to them that on sprinkling anthracene powder on currency note it will be seen in light blue shining, if the the same will be seen under ultraviolet lamp. Thereafter preliminary panchnama was drawn in presence of two panchas, who were summoned by the Police Inspector.

(3.) THEREAFTER the trial was conducted before the learned Judge. To prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution has examined five witnesses and also produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of the prosecution case. After filing of the closing pursis, the learned Judge has recorded the statement of the present appellant-accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in which the appellant has denied the case of the prosecution and contended that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The appellant-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.