STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PRAVINKUMAR DAHYABHAI PRAJAPATI

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 6.12.2001 rendered by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural, Gandhinagar, in Special Case No.8 of 2001. The said case was registered against the present respondent original accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 1,2,3 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, the original complainant Kalidas Girdhardas Patel, a wholesale dealer, dealing in the business of selling oilseeds as well as grains is staying at Dehgam. The respondent accused in the capacity of Deputy Deputy Mamlatdar visited the shop in the month of November 1997 and seized some stock and gave a notice in this regard. Thereafter, the respondent accused called the complainant at his house to give reply to the notice and to settle the case and at that time demanded Rs.15,000/as illegal gratification. The complainant showed inability to pay the demanded amount and, therefore, the accused reduced his demand to Rs.10,000/. The complainant showed willingness to pay Rs.2,000/to 2,500/but the respondent accused refused to accept meager amount and ultimately forced to pay Rs.7,000/. The complainant had no money at that time and, therefore, the respondent accused told to approach him in the office of Mamlatdar on 8.12.1997 in the afternoon. As the complainant was not ready to give illegal gratification, he approached the Police Inspector of A.C.B. Ahmedabad (Rural), Gandhinagar and lodged the complaint. After completing necessary formalities the raid was carried out, statement of the witnesses were recorded by the trapping officer and then before the learned Special Judge chargesheet was filed. 2. On the basis of above allegations, charge was framed, readover and explained to the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 1, 2, 3 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

(3.) THEREAFTER , after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused person has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him.