FULACHAND AMBALAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellant has preferred this Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.12.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No.8, Ahmedabad, in Special Case No.16 of 1994, whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant, accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for 15 days. Learned Judge also convicted the appellant ? accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default, further R.I. for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:

(2.) As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant Kumari Uzma Mohmadnasir Machiswala, is a practicing lawyer. It is alleged that one M. Case No.62 of 1992 before Vejalpur Police Station against one Ashwinkumar Krupasanker Dave and four others, was filed and they have been arrested. Said Ashwinkumar engaged the complainant as his advocate in the matter of bail. In the said case, the appellant ? accused was Assistant Public Prosecutor. On 20.7.1993, the application for bail was kept for hearing before Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mirzapur and at about 1:00 p.m., the appellant Assistant P.P. met the complainant and called her nearby Court room and some conversation between them took place, wherein the appellant told the complainant that if you want to get the accused released on bail, then she (complainant) has to understand something. The appellant ? accused told the complainant that if you pay Rs.500/- i.e. Rs.100/- per accused then appellant ? accused will not take objection. But as the complainant did not want to give bribe and, therefore, she approached ACB and gave complaint. After receipt of complaint against the appellant, panchas were called, trap amount was given by the complainant and after following necessary procedure, raid was carried out. Therefore, the complaint was registered against the appellant ? accused, after obtaining necessary sanction for prosecution against the accused. After completing due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused.

(3.) The charge was framed at Exhibit 25 and same was read over and explained to the appellant ? accused. Plea of the appellant was recorded at Exhibit 26. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. His reply about receiving of police paper was recorded.