STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. CHANDRESH VIRANCHILAL YAGNIK

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 12.08.1999 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Vaodara, in Special Case No.11 of 1998. The said case was registered against the present respondent - original accused for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, respondent -accused Mr. Chandresh Viranchilal Yagnik was a Depot Manager in Muffusal S.T.Depot, Vadodara during the year 1996 -97. The complainant -Ashwinkumar Krishnrav Dayal was serving as a Fuel Clerk at Muffusal Depot, Vadodara during March, 1997 to August, 1997. During his tenure, the complainant misappropriated 17,172 liters of Diesel worth of Rs.1,50,770/ -. Therefore, the respondent -accused issued show -cause notice against the complainant and asked explanation as to why he should not be dismissed from his service. Hence, on 08.12.1997 the present complainant approached the respondent -accused and requested for mercy but respondentaccused demanded Rs.50,000/ -as bribe amount not file a case against the complainant. As the complainant did not want to pay the bribe amount, he approached A.C.B. Office, Ahmedabad and lodged complainant against the respondentaccused and as a result of which, a raid was arranged on 13.12.1997 and the respondent -accused caught red handed and offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the respondent -accused. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and statements of witnesses were recorded by Investigating Officer and documents were also collected. Then Investigating Officer filed charge -sheet before the Special Judge, Vadodara.

(3.) ON the basis of above allegations, charge was framed vide Exh.6 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. of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.