STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MADHUSUDAN GOOTHWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the Judgment and order of acquittal dated 01.03.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mehsana, in Special (ACB) Case No.18 of 1989, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent - accused from the charges levelled against him.

(2.) The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that in the year 1989, the respondent no.1 was serving as Overseer in Harij Taluka Panchayat and respondent no.2 was doing the business outside office of Taluka Panchayat. It is alleged that the complainant Kalabhai Amthabhai Bhangi, who belongs to Schedule Caste and as per the rules and regulations of the Government and as per Hudco Scheme, they were being allotted plot free of cost for residential purpose and they were also being given the loan installments and subsidy in proportion for construction to be made on the said plot. It is alleged that in the year 1987, the complainant had also got the plot free of cost from Harij Taluka Panchayat and he started construction work. The payment was made according to the construction work. First and second installments to that effect were made in the year 1987 and third installment to that effect was made in the year 1988 by way of demand draft from the office of Taluka Panchayat Harij. As and when the payment was made, the accused No.1 demanded bribe regarding the certificate. The accused No.1 accepted the amount of Rs.20, Rs.15/- and Rs.30/- from the complainant. Before 15 days of filing of the complaint, the construction work of the complainant was completed. On 01.03.1989, the complainant met the accused No.1 in the office of Taluka Panchayat, Harij and the complainant requested to the accused No.1 that as the construction work was over, after verifying the same to issue the certificate and thereupon the accused No.1 demanded Rs.100/- regarding issuance of certificate. It is alleged that the complainant, however, was not willing to pay any such amount and hence, the complainant lodged complaint against the accused - respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the accused for the aforesaid offence before the A.C.B Office, on 09.03.1989.

(3.) Thereafter, the concerned officer, after completing the necessary procedure arranged the trap. The raid was carried out and the respondents accused was caught red-handed. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the respondents - accused. The respondent - accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.