STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. GIRDHARBHAI DHANJIBHAI GOHIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the State under the provisions of Sec. 378 (1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dtd. 20/7/2006 passed by learned Special Judge and Fast Track Court-2, Amreli, in Sessions Case No.6 of 1997, whereby the present respondent was acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that the the present respondent was working as a Deputy Engineer with the Gujarat Electricity Board. On 1/6/1996, the respondent along with the other employees of the GEB had gone to the village Kathrota for checking the electricity connections and several irregularities were found in the connections obtained by various agriculturists and therefore, those connections were disconnected and fine of Rs.9,000.00 each was imposed upon these agriculturists. Out of those agriculturists, (1) Purshottambhai Naranbhai and (2) Rambhai Jivabhai Aahir had already paid the amount of fine / penalty, however, despite the same their connections were not reconnected and therefore, those two persons had approached the first informant for reconnection of their electricity connections and asked him to request the respondent to reconnect the electricity as early as possible. Therefore the first informant had met the respondent and asked him to reconnect the two connections of these two persons upon which the respondent had asked Rs.5,000.00 for each connections towards illegal gratification which was subsequently reduced to Rs.2,000.00 per connection after negotiations. On the basis of the aforesaid information, a trap was organized on 1/6/1996 itself and the respondent was caught red-handed accepting the amount of illegal gratification at his residence.

(3.) After the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the present respondent before the concerned Trial Court and since the respondent pleaded not guilty, he was put to trial by framing charge vide Exh.5 for the aforesaid offences.