STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PURSHOTTAM KALUBHAI BAMANIYA SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed by the appellant -State under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 14 -5 -2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.11, Vadodara, in Special (ACB) Case No.14 of 2006 whereby respondent Nos.1 and 3 -original accused Nos.1 and 3 have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them. It appears from the judgment and order that respondent No.2 -original accused has been discharged.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the complainant -Kiransinh Fatesinh Parmar, a resident of 347, Jagannath Housing Board, Samta Road, Near Balajinagar, Vadodara with ACB, Vadodara, contending inter alia that he is taking tuitions in Maths and Science subjects to Gujarati medium students of Standard V to X by running classes in the name of New Electron Classes at 301, Chanakya Complex, Subhanpura, Vadodara, as per the permission granted by Superintendent, Central Excise and Customs, Range - V(Service Tax), Div.III, Vadodara. Necessary service tax was being paid by the complainant by filling up returns upto 31 -3 -2005. It was further stated that as per the rules of the Government, if tuition income is less than fixed amount as fixed by the Government, no income tax is required to be paid. According to him, tuition income of the complainant was within the said amount and hence, he was not liable to pay any tax from the income derived from tuition. In this connection, he met the accused in April, 2005, who advised him to two applications for release from payment of tax. He accordingly followed all the procedures, however, the accused demanded Rs.1,000/ - as bribe and the complainant left the place. He thereafter approached the accused on 2 -3 occasions and the accused stuck to his demand. The demand was thereafter reduced to Rs.500/ - which the complainant told to give later. As the complainant did not want to pay the said amount of bribe, he approached ACB officials at Vadodara and gave a complaint. In pursuance of said information, ACB conducted raid after following due procedure filed charge sheet before the Special Court. The learned Special Judge thereafter framed charge against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt against the accused, prosecution examined 7 witnesses. The prosecution has also relied on several documentary evidence numbering 13. After filing of closing pursis by the prosecution, further statement of accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused did not examine any witness. On conclusion of trial and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, respondent Nos.1 and 3 were acquitted of the charges levelled against him giving rise to this appeal. The original accused No.2 was however discharged before commencement of trial.

(3.) HEARD learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr.K.L.Pandya for the appellant -State and learned advocate, Mr.Ramnandan Singh for the respondents accused.