KACHUBHAI SHANUBAI MACHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Sec. 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Rajpipla, District Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Corruption Case No. 1 of 1996 on 21/6/2004, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act").

(2.) The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order, the accused has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the complainant had not gone to meet the accused before 24/7/1995 and there was no occasion or reason to demand for the amount of Rs.100.00 to file the two notices. That as per the case of prosecution, the complainant had gone to meet the accused on 19/7/1995 after the notices were served upon him and at that time, the accused had demanded the amount of Rs.50.00 per notice but there is no reason as to why the petty amount of Rs.100.00 was not accepted on 19/7/1995 itself and the acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.100.00 was deferred to after five days. Moreover, the complainant was a resident of village Karantha of taluka Nanded which is situated at a distance of approximately 100 kms away from Rajpipla and hence, only to pay the amount of Rs.100.00, the complainant would travel for such a long distance, is not believable. Moreover, the complainant has stated that the demand of Rs.100.00 was made at about 08.00 am in the government office of Assistant Labour Officer at Rajpipla but it is well known that no government office would open before 10.30 am on any working day. That on 24/7/1995, when the complainant had gone to the office of Assistant Labour Officer at Rajpipla, the accused was not available in the office and on inquiry, it was found that the accused had gone to Amiri Electric Store and the complainant saw the accused sitting in Amiri Electric Store and the owner of the shop was not present. The accused has put up a case that as it was raining on 24/7/1995 and he could not go up to his office which was on the first floor due to his physical handicap, he was sitting in Amiri Electric Store and at that time, the complainant came to the store and the complainant had earlier purchased electric goods of Rs.100.00 and had to pay to the owner of Amiri Electric Store the outstanding amount of Rs.100.00 and that amount was paid to the accused to be handed over to the owner of Amiri Electric Store.