STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MUSTAKBHAI KASAMBHAI SHAIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and 16th order dated April 1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhavnagar in Special (A.C.B. Case No.10 of 1993, whereby he has acquitted the respondent-accused of the charges under sections 7, 13(1 (d read with section 13(2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" . 18th

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on August, 1992, the complainant Firojbhai Akbarbhai Unvala lodged a complaint before the A.C.B. Police Inspector to the effect that the complainant's father 30th Akbarali Gulamali Unvala expired on November, 1988. His father had five properties, namely, two shops and three open plots at Ghogha. Upon the death of his father, the complainant made four applications for transferring the said properties in the name of his brother, mother and himself. At the relevant time, he had given necessary measurement and sketch fee. The complainant had also given additional Rs.800/- other than by way of legal remuneration to the respondent- maintenance surveyor (hereinafter referred to as "the accused" , which was taken in the presence of the complainant's elder brother. It is further the case of the complainant that the accused told him that this amount was not sufficient for the purpose of completing the work, whereupon, the complainant had asked him as to how much expenditure he would have to incur, to which the accused replied that for three plots Rs.6000/- and for two shops Rs.2000/-, in all, he would have to spend Rs.8,000/-. The complainant, therefore, said that at present he did not have such amount and that after the work is over, he would give whatever was to be given, whereupon, the accused transferred the two shops in the name of the complainant, his brothers, his mother and his sister and sent a communication to come and take the property card after paying late fee. Thereafter, the complainant had gone to Ghogha and obtained the property cards after paying late fee of Rs.15/-. At that time, the accused had told the complainant that his work was over, what about the money, whereupon, the complainant had told him that the work of three plots was still remaining, to which, the accused had said that he would now have to first pay the amount, only thereafter, the remaining work would be done. The complainant requested him to complete the work, after which, he would do whatever he could and arrange for the amount. However, because of his weak financial condition, he could not arrange for the amount demanded by the accused. A period of three months passed by and without any written or oral intimation, the application for transfer of the remaining plots came to be disposed of as filed and the complainant came to be informed accordingly. Hence, the complainant personally went to Ghogha and met the accused who told him that he had sent a written intimation; however, the complainant had not come. Hence, he should inquire at home. Whereupon, the complainant had come home and inquired from his mother, who had given him a cover which contained a letter dated 3rd June, 1992 sent by the respondent wherein certain details were called for. Therefore, the complainant obtained the necessary documentary evidence and went to Ghogha and met the accused, who told him that he would have to pay Rs.8,000/-, only thereafter, the work would be done. The complainant, therefore, requested him that presently he did not have the means to pay such amount, hence, as and when arrangement could be made, he would pay the amount. However, the complainant was not in a position to arrange for such sum and hence he did not go to Ghogha. On 8th August, 1992, the complainant met the accused outside the door of the multi-storey building at Bhavnagar, whereby the complainant asked him as to what had happened as regards the property cards. In response to which, the accused had told him that his work would be done but whether he had made provision for the money. The complainant, therefore, told him that he was not in a position to pay such a huge amount at a time and that he would pay the entire amount in installments, whereupon accused had said that he had no objection, but the work would be done only after the amount is received. The complainant had told him that he would pay the entire amount by way of installments of Rs.1000/-. The accused had then told him that at present his camp was at Bhandariya and that from 17th to 24th August, he had a camp at Ghogha. Hence, the first installment of Rs.1,000/- should be paid to him during the said period during office hours. That if he pays the amount in this manner, the work would be done. In this manner, the accused had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.8,000/- and as the complainant had not given the same, his work was stopped halfway and he was told that it would be completed only after he paid the entire amount. However, since the complainant did not want to pay any amount by way of illegal gratification, he had come to the A.C.B. Office and lodged the complaint requesting that the needful be done.

(3.) DURING the course of trial, the prosecution had examined three witnesses and had produced various documentary evidences. The trial court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, found that the case of the prosecution was not believable and that the prosecution had not established its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him of the offences with which he was charged.