STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KASHAM HUSSAIN BLOCH

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 01.05.2004 rendered by the learned Joint District Judge, Fast Track Court No.7, Jamnagar, in Special Case No.09 of 1999. The said case was registered against the present respondentoriginal accused for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, 03.05.1999, the respondent -accused was serving as ASI at Lalpur Police Station and he was investigating the offence bearing registration No.II - 14 of 1999 of the same Police Station for the accidental, in which, Iqbalbhai Ibrahimbhai Chaki was the complainant. During the said investigation, on 21.05.1999, the respondentaccused demanded bribe of Rs.2,000/ -from the driver of Iqbalbhai Ibrahimbhai. The respondent -accused also threatened him that if he did not pay the bribe, his employer Iqbalbhai would be arrested in the said crime and also threatened to beat Iqbalbhai. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that driver -Rahimsha Karimsha requested the respondent -accused to reduce the amount of bribe and after the negotiation, it was reduced to Rs.1,500/ -. The respondentaccused also instructed the driver to give the said amount on the same day at his house in the evening. Thereafter, Rahimsha informed his employer and owner of Rickshaw Shri Ibrahimbhai regarding the aforesaid talk with the respondentaccused at Jamnagar Irwin Hospital, where he was there for delivery of his wife. Iqbalbhail told Rahimsha that no bribe amount was required to be paid to the respondent -accused and necessary complaint was to be lodged before the ACB against the respondent -accused and for that purpose, he would pay the amount of bribe to Rahimsha. Thereafter, Rahimsha approached the A.C.B. Office, Jamnagar and lodged complainant against the respondent -accused to the aforesaid facts and handed over Rs.1,500/ - in presence of two panchas to P.I. Shri B.B.Jadeja of ACB, Jamnagar. Thereafter, necessary experiment of anthracene powder alongwith ultra violate lamp was conducted on the currency notes in presence of the complainant, panchas, and the staff of raiding party. Thereafter, after preparing first part of the panchnama at the office ACB, panch No.1 -Kantilal Nanjibha Ninama and complainant went to Lalpur along with members of raiding party. Thereafter, the complainant and panch No.1 went to the house of the complainant and rest of the members of raiding party stayed there for keeping watch on the respondentaccused. Then, the respondent -accused at about 19:15 p.m. came to the house of the complainant in police uniform and told the complainant that he waited for the complainant till evening. Thereafter, the respondent -accused demanded amount of bribe from the complainant in presence of panch No.1 and complainant gave Rs.1,500/ -to the respondentaccused and respondent -accused inserted the said amount of bribe in his purse. Thereafter, a signal was given and members of raiding party rushed to the place and thereby respondentaccused was caught red handed. Thereafter, the muddamal was recovered. Thereafter, second part of the panchnama was prepared and respondent -accused was arrested for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and signatures of panchas were taken on all papers. Thereafter, the investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer and after getting permission for filing the charge -sheet from DSP, Jamnagar, PI, ACB, Jamnagar has filed charge -sheet against the respondentaccused, which was numbered as Special Case No.09 of 1999.

(3.) ON the basis of above allegations, charge was framed vide Exh.4 and read -over and explained to the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent -accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.