STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RATILAL HIRJI JOBANPUTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat under Sec. 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("The Code" for short) against the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 23/6/2006, recorded by learned Special Judge (Fast Track Court No.5), Bhuj- Kutch in Special Case No.99 of 1993, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted respondent - accused from the charges of the offences punishable under Ss. 7 , 13(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 ('the Act' for short).

(2.) Brief facts leading to the prosecution case is that, on 29/12/1991, respondent was discharging his duties as a Nayak - Peon in the office of Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation, Bhuj and on that day, complainant-Ramesh Kanji Rathod, resident of Mahdapur, Junavas, Taluka: Bhuj, District: Kutch, came with loaded truck bearing No.GRN 3668. The said truck was loaded with DAP Fertilizers of Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd., Bhuj Depot, Village: Moti Khavdi, Jamnagar, Sikka and required to be offloaded at the godown of Gujarat Warehousing Corporation, Bhuj. For offloading the truck, on 29/12/1991, the complainant met respondent, who told the complainant that today being Sunday, it was not possible to offload the truck and if he wishes to do the same, he had to pay Rs.50.00 and also told him to meet at 'Octroi naka' at around 2:30 p.m. It was case of the prosecution that as the complainant was not ready and willing to pay the amount of illegal gratification, demanded by respondent, he approached Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, Kutch- Bhuj. Pursuant to the said compliant, Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, arranged a trap by calling independent panch witnesses and during course of trap, respondent was caught with the amount of illegal gratification and therefore, an offence punishable under Sec. 7 , 13(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act , was registered against him. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, the respondent was arrested. Ultimately, charge- sheet came to be filed before the learned Special Judge, Kutch at Bhuj, where the case was registered as Special Case No.99 of 1993. The trial was initiated against the respondent.

(3.) To prove the case against the present respondent, the prosecution had examined in all five witnesses and also produced several documentary evidences.