MAHENDRA AMRATLL KAYASTHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, at the relevant time, in the year 1992, was working as Mamlatdar of Kamrej, District Surat. The allegations levelled against the said appellant were of demanding and accepting the illegal gratification, other than legal remuneration. Therefore, he was put on trial for the commission of the offences under Section 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Special Judge, Surat, in Special Case No.1 of 1994 passed judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28th January, 1998, whereby the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellant-accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and awarded sentence to the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, i/d, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. The appellant was also ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, i/d, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) According to the prosecution, the original complainant Sanjay Sanmukhlal was working as Power of Attorney on behalf of Sarabibi Ibrahimbhai in respect of the land. The land being new tenure and, therefore, for converting the same into old tenure for residential purpose, as a Power of Attorney, the complainant approached Dy. Collector, Olpad, Prant office at Surat by way of application and record for inspection was given to appellant Mamlatdar, Kamrej. The complainant met the appellant with regard to the proceedings of the land and the appellant demanded Rs.10000/- towards illegal gratification from the complainant for doing the same work. Thereafter, the complainant after having taken the amount of Rs.10,000/- from his uncle Dineshbhai went to the ACB office at Surat and complaint was lodged against the appellant accused. After completing usual formalities, the trap was arranged by ACB parties and first part of the panchnama was prepared. Thereafter, ACB members including the complainant reached at Kamrej cross roads, where the accused was not there, therefore, they reached at the residence of the accused. Thereafter, again the complainant and raiding party members of ACB reached at Karmrej four cross road, the accused met the complainant and they reached at Manisha Hotel for taking dinner. At Manisha Hotel, the accused demanded Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification and the complainant gave the same to the accused. Immediately, after giving the amount, the complainant made prearranged signal to the ACB parties and amount Rs.10,000/- was recovered from the pant of the accused.

(3.) After usual investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted the charge-sheet. The prosecution had examined the witnesses and got exhibited a large number of documents. The witnesses examined by the prosecution viz. PW-1, Pramodbhai Ishwarbhai Parmar, working as a Clerk in RTO Office at Exhibit 9, PW-2, Sanjaykumar Sanmukhlal Patel, complainant at Exhibit 17, PW-3, Rameshchandra Chhaganlal Rana, P.I. ACB Office at Exhibit 19 and P.W.4 Jayantilal Ichhchhubhai Patel, P.I. Mahidharpura, Surat City at Exhibit 20. Thereafter, the documentary evidence viz. complaint at Exhibit 18, Panchnama at Exhibit 13, recovery panchnama at Exhibit 14, Notification of holiday at Exhibit 15, sanction letter at Exhibit 21 and charge-sheet at Exhibit 6 were produced. The appellant was put on trial, where he abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried and the learned Judge has recorded the statement of the present appellant-accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The accused submitted his written reply at Exhibit 23.