STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAMANLAL GANGARAM MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant -original complainant, State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 28.8.1992 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Court No. 2, Ahmedabad , in Special Case No. 3 of 1990. The said case was registered against the present respondents original accused for offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, the complainant Gordhanbhai Mangilal Gosai lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau at Ahmedabad on 30.12.1988 the accused No. 1 is demanding illegal gratification of Rs. 300/ - from him for not filing a case under the Prohibition Act against his friend Subhash Pande . The facts as alleged are that the complainant is a truck -driver with Raol Roadways and is driving heavy goods vehicle; he is staying near Narol Courts, Saraniya - Vas. That on 29.12.1988 his friend Subhash Pande had come to Ahmedabad with a truck from Bombay and the Complainant had invited him at his residence for dinner. The complainant and his friend Subhash Pande are habituated to consume liquor and as such liquor was brought to the aforestated place of residence of the complainant on 29.12.1988, both the complainant and his friend truck -driver Subhash Pande after dinner were consuming liquor and were in drunkard condition. At that time, it is alleged that the accused No.1 who was the Police Sub -Inspector on duty at Narol Police Chowki on receiving information that the complainant had indulged in anti -prohibition activities, raided the house of complainant. However, the complainant was not inclined to give gratification amount of Rs. 300/ - to the accused No.1 and hence he approached the A.C.B. Office whereupon the complaint was registered. On the basis of the said complaint raid was carried out by the A.C.B. and the bribe amount was found from the table of the accused. 2.1 Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused persons, to which the accused persons not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.