STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SOMABHAI KOYABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th March, 1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Special (Corruption) Case No.8/1994 whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the complainant Kantilal Manilal Patel, resident of village Saliyabid, taluka Santrampur lodged a complaint before the Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Godhra on 30th April, 1990 stating that he was working as a primary teacher at the Primary School, Margada since the last four years. They were three brothers and three sisters all of whom were married. His father Manilal Jivabhai Patel had expired on 4th March, 1990 and his grandfather Jivabhai Hirabhai Patel was alive. He had approximately fourteen to fifteen acres of land and his father had about five acres of land which was running in the name of his grandfather Jivabhai and his father. Since half of the five acres of land running in the name of his father and grandfather belonged to his father, upon his death, their names were to be entered by way of succession and for the purpose of making such mutation entries, he had met Somabhai, the Talati of Mota Gharola on 24th October, 1990 and requested him to make a succession entry, whereupon he had told him that since he was a teacher, he should give him Rs.500/- and the succession entry would be made, in response to which, he (the complainant) asked him to reduce the amount, whereupon the Talati told him that it was alright if he gives Rs.400/- which was not much, hence he had agreed to pay such amount and he (the accused) had told him that he should keep the amount of Rs.400/- ready on Monday 30 th April, 1990 and that in the afternoon, he would come to his house. It was alleged that on the said day, that is, 30th April, 1990, the accused was going to come to his house for the purpose of taking Rs.400/- for making succession entry and that since he was not willing to give such amount by way of illegal gratification, he had come to lodge the complaint.

(3.) THE learned Special Judge after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them.