STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MAYURKUMAR FULSHANKER BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal, under Section 378 (1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.5.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, in Special ACB Case No.2 of 1991, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are such that the accused was Dy. Engineer in Gujarat Electricity Board, at Dholka. The land (field) of complainant Sureshchandra Ramjibhai Patel, his uncle Keshavbhai Chaturbhai and Naranbhai Chaturbhai was having their joint names and for their field, the complainant had given one application on the name of his father to the Gujarat Electricity Board for the electricity connection for the bore well in the field. At that time, the accused demanded Rs.1500/ - from the complainant towards illegal gratification, which was given by the complainant to the accused. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant wanted to transfer the connection of bore well for the Survey No.238 which was on the name of his father, and therefore, he approached the accused and at that time, the accused demanded Rs.10,000/ - from the complainant towards illegal gratification and the complainant had denied to give such amount to the accused. Therefore, as per the case of the prosecution, the accused by keeping grudge against the complainant, threatened the complainant to recover the amount of Rs.40,000/ - towards bill from the complainant and he also told the complainant give the bribe amount on 21.5.1990. Therefore, the complainant approached the ACB office and trap was arranged on 22.5.1990 and the accused was caught by the raiding members of ACB for accepting the bribe amount of Rs.5000/ - from the complainant in presence of panch No.1. As such the accused as a public servant demanded and accepted illegal gratification and thereby committed offence under Sections 7. 13(1)(d), 1,2,3 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Charge was framed against the accused and thereafter, charge -sheet was filed. Thereafter, charge was framed and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.