ASHWINKUMAR CHINUBHAI SONI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant-original accused has inter alia payed to quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17th February 1998 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, in Special Case No.09 of 1992 whereby the learned trial Judge was pleased to convict the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also imposed fine of Rs.01,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. The appellant-accused was also held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, and also imposed fine of Rs.02,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. However, it was clarified that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) AS per the case of the prosecution, the complainant is doing business of grocery items in the name and style of Satyam Kariyana Stores at Lasundra and he is selling grains and grocery items in retain since 1989. The accused being the Deputy Mamlatdar used to visit his shop for inspection and checking the books etc. It is alleged that on 11th February, 1992 at about 14.00 hours, the accused had visited the shop of the complainant and after checking the books, as alleged, he demanded the amount of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant by way of illegal gratification. It is the case of the prosecution that at that time the accused, after checking the books, told the complainant that he would have to file a prosecution and thereupon the complainant requested him not to file the prosecution and thereupon the aforesaid demand was made. The complainant requested him to reduce the amount and ultimately, as alleged, an agreement was arrived at between the complainant and the accused for payment of Rs.2,500/-. It is further alleged that on that day, the complainant made the payment of Rs.2,000/- in cash. The amount was paid from the cash received from business on that particular date. However, no entry was made by the complainant in the books of accounts regarding the same. Thereafter, at once when the accused met the complainant, he told the complainant to make the payment of Rs.500/- on the next day between 12.00 noon and 14.00 hours, otherwise he would have to lodge the prosecution just as the prosecution was lodged against the person of Antroli village.

(3.) THEREAFTER, charge was framed below Exhibit 10 against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellantaccused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.