RAMESHCHANDRA PUJABHAI VARIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the Code) against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.05.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, 6th Fast Track Court, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar, (hereinafter tbe referred to as "the Trial Court") in Special Case No. 22 of 1997, whereby the learned Special Judge has held the appellant - accused guilty for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter be referred to as "the P.C. Act") and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months and to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii), and 13(2) of the P.C. Act and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months. The learned Special Judge has ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 03.07.1996, the complainant namely Chhabildas Naranbhai Patel, P.W.1 at Exhibit 29 was desirous to get the granite quarry on lease and, therefore, according to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Act and Rules thereunder, he submitted an application dated 03.07.1996 to the office of the Geologist, Sabarkantha District and had paid requisite fees for such application. It is contended that the complainant met the accused for his application who was holding the post of Assistant Geologist and at that time, the accused told him that to process the application for grant of quarry lease, he has to pay further Rs.15,000/-. It is further contended that at that point of time, the complainant requested the accused to reduce the amount and it was conveyed by the accused that he may give Rs.5,000/- on next day in his office and if he was not available in his office then it could be paid at his residence. It is contended that as the complainant was not willing to pay the illegal gratification, he approached the office of ACB for filing the complaint at Ahmedabad and submitted his complaint to the Investigating Officer namely Hussainkhan Abdulakhan Pathan, P.W.4 at Exhibit 68.

(3.) It appears from the record that to prove the case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses.