BHIKHABHAI AMBALAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present appeal, filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.9.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad, in Special Case No.2 of 1997. The said case was registered against the appellant-original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant is sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, S.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He is also sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, S.I. for two months for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, the accused was working as a Senior Supervisor / Bill Clerk for the salary and loans with Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. At a relevant time, complainant, Shri Bhaverji Goduji was working as a permanent labourer in the Main-hole Department (Engineering Department) of Sabarmati ward of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.

(3.) It is the say of the complainant that amount towards salary and loan used to be paid by the accused. The office is situated near Three Gates, Ahmedabad. He wanted to have advance/loan from his P.F.Account in respect to marriage of his daughter, Kailash which was to take place in near future. Therefore, on 1.6.1969, he submitted application form to the accused. In turn, the accused suggested that signatures of the officer and witnesses were necessary on the form of loan. On 4.6.1996, he approached the accused and inquired as to when he would get amount of loan. He was replied by the accused that he would get it after a week or 15 days. After 10 days he went to him to inquire. At that time, the accused told him that his loan was not sanctioned and if he wanted to sanction the loan at the earliest he had to pay remuneration (Mahantanu). Therefore, complainant asked the accused as to how much should be paid to him and the accused replied that he had to pay Rs.500/-. Thereafter now and again he went to accused, but he was informed that his loan was not sanctioned.