STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JAGATSINH FATEJI GOEL

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 28.02.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad, in Special Case No.13/1989, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents � accused from the charges levelled against him.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 19.06.1988, at Village : Nabhoi, Taluka Gandhinagar, some cows were entered into the field of Ramanji Maganji. When Ramanji was trying to take the cows from his field at that time, Bharwads were trespassing the fields of Thakors and thereupon, the quarrel took place between Bharwads community and Thakors community. Therefore, cross complaints were filed by two communities and the cognizable offence was registered against the Bharwad before Adajan Police Station. Bharwad community had also lodged the complaint against Laxmanji Maganji Thakor, Khodaji Nathaji, Ramanji Maganji. It is alleged that the accused No.1 investigated the offence, registered against the Bharwads. Accused No.2 was serving as writer of the accused No.1. According to the complaint lodged by Bharwads, all the three accused got gathered with 15-20 persons of Thakor community under the pretext that in furtherance of application given by the persons of Bharward community 21 persons of Thakor community are likely to be arrested, they collected bribe amount of Rs.200/- from each of the person of Thakor community. Accused No.1 took bribe amount of Rs.2,250/- i.e. Rs.150/- from 15 persons. At the same time, accused demanded Rs.150/- from Prabhatji and Shakraji Shivaji for not beating them and thus, they made demand of illegal gratification amount. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the accused for the offence under Sections 161, 165A and 34 of I.P. Code and under Section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 before the A.C.B Office, on 23.06.1988.

(3.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and order passed by the Special Judge the appellant � State has preferred the present Appeal.