STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KIRITKUMAR RAMANLAL PATNI

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 18.04.2014 rendered by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, in Special (A.C.B.) Case No.4 of 2011. The said case was registered against the present respondent original accused for the offence under Sections 7,12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, complainant namely Kanubhai Mohanbhai Chunara was Chairman of Durga Fisheries Cooperative Society Limited, Tranja and was serving as a Superintendent, Fisheries, ClassII at office of the Superintendent of Fisheries, Sardar Bhavan, Nadiad, District: Kheda. The waterbodies situated in the State of Gujarat are allotted to persons by Fisheries. The complainant received contract for fisheries under the water body since 2004 to 2009. After completion of that period, the same was renewed for another five years. The amount of the contract for fisheries was to be paid in three installments. Out of which Rs.50,000/ - was paid by the complainant. As the condition of the pond was that it was having growth of certain plants, fisheries could not be carried out and hence, remaining two installments could not be paid by the complainant. On 27.11.2010, the respondent accused contacted the complainant on telephone and intimated that the contract/permission is cancelled. The complainant requested the respondentaccused that within 23 days, he will pay the remaining installments. The respondentaccused told the complainant that if the complainant wanted to renew the lease/permission/contract, the complainant will have to be paid of Rs.20,000/ - to the respondentaccused as "Vyavhar" (illegal gratification/bribe). Therefore, the complainant paid the remaining installments of Rs.95000/ -through this friend. However, the renewal order was not issued and the friend of the complainant told him that saheb (respondentaccused) wanted to meet him. On 02.12.2010, the complainant went to the office of the respondentaccused at Nadiad. The application of the complainant was read over by the respondentaccused and asked bribe amount. The complainant told that he could not arrange the money and he will arrange the same by evening. The application of the complainant was thrown away by the respondentaccused by saying that Rs.15,000/ -shall have to be at the place which will be conveyed to the complainant by respondentaccused on phone and Rs.5,000/ -will have to paid after the lease is renewed. As the complainant did not want to pay the bribe amount, he contacted ACB Police Station, Nadiad and accordingly, complaint has been filed. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer made necessary arrangement for Rs.5,000/ -of trap amount and panchnama was drawn in presence of two witnesses and trap was carried out. Serial number of trap amount was noted in the panchnama and Trap Officer explained the use of Sodium Cabonate and Phenolphthalein powder and the same was demonstrated also. Then, necessary equipments/material were collected in a box and and trap was followed by member of raiding party. After preparing preliminary panchanma, the respondentaccused was contacted on mobile phone by keeping the speaker on and respondentaccused told the complainant to reach at the office of Jilla Panchayat. Accordingly, members of raiding party went to the said place with complainant and panch witnesses where the bribe amount was paid and accepted. So as decided earlier, the complainant came out of the office of the respondentaccused and gave signal to the members of raiding party and therefore, they rushed to the office of the respondentaccused. Thereafter, an experiment of Sodium Carbonate and Phenolphthalein powder was carried out and the same was found positive. Thereafter, muddamal was recovered and panchnama was drawn and seizure memo was given to the respondentaccused and he was arrested. A search was also carried out at the residence of the respondentaccused. Statements of witnesses, panchas and members of raiding party were recorded by Investigating Officer and sanction was obtained from the competent authority of the respondentaccused and expert opinion of the FSL was also obtained by prosecution. The Investigating Officer has filed chargesheet before the Special Judge.

(3.) ON the basis of above allegations, charge was framed vide Exh.8 and readover and explained to the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7,12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.