RANCHHODBHAI BAVABHAI THAKORE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant " original accused No.1 has preferred this appeal under sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.03.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, in Special Case No. 33 of 1998, whereby, the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant " accused No.1 for the offence under section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 18 (eighteen) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for further three months. Vide the said Judgment, the learned Special Judge has acquitted original accused No.2 from the offences charged against him.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case is as under: That the accused No.1 (appellant herein) was discharging his duties as Talati-cum-Mantri in Group Gram Panchayat of village Didarda, Taluka Tharad and the accused No.2 was working as Chowkidar. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant and his three brothers were staying separate. It is alleged that, at the relevant time, the possession of the land in the sim of village was running in the name of father of the complainant. It is alleged that at their own the complainant and other brothers have separated the land in the name of each brother. THEreafter, on 12.6.1997 the complainant and his brothers contacted the accused No.1 (appellant) at Panchayat Office and made an application, signed by all of them and submitted the same to the Talati " accused No.1. It is alleged that, at that time, for doing this work the accused No.1 has demanded Rs.500/- and thereafter, on bargaining, Rs.400/- was paid to the accused No.1 on the spot. It is alleged that thereafter on 24.9.1997 the complainant contacted the accused No.1 and made an inquiry as to whether accounts are separated or not and at that time the accused No.1 has demanded more amount of Rs.500/- to complete the work. THE complainant, therefore, agreed to pay Rs.500/- at his house on the next day. As the complainant was not willing to pay Rs.500/- as illegal gratification to the accused, he lodged the complaint on 25.5.1997 before A.C.B. Office. THEreafter, on receipt of said complaint, the concerned Officer called two panchas from the office of Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department, Palanpur and made all the arrangements for trap to catch the accused red-handed. Panch No.1 was directed to remain with the complainant. THEreafter, first part of the panchnama was prepared at the office of A.C.B., in presence of panch witnesses and thereafter the complainant, along with panchas and the memebrs of raiding party, including, Trapping Officer, left for Tharad. THE complainant and Panch No.1 went to the house of accused No.1. THE accused No.1 was present in house and was doing the work. It is alleged that on being asked by the complainant, the accused told him that his work is completed and he asked for money. THE complainant informed him that he has brought the amount and, therefore, the accused informed the complainant to give the money which he accepted and in turn passed the same to the person (accused No.2) who was sitting there. THEreafter, the complainant went out and raised pre-arranged signal. THE raiding party thereafter rushed to the place of the appellant and caught the accused. THEreafter the second part of the panchnama was completed and the currency notes which were recovered from the physical and conscious possession of the accused No.2 were taken into custody of the police. THEreafter, investigation was carried out and after completing the necessary procedure, and on receipt of sanction, the charge-sheet against the accused came to be submitted before the Court.

(3.) THEREAFTER, after examining the witnesses, further statement of the appellant-accused No.1 under sec. 313 of Cr PC was recorded in which the appellant-accused No.1 has denied the case of the prosecution.