SAMJUBHAI ODHAVJIBHAI PAGHDAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellant, accused has challenged judgment and order dated 06.01.2005 passed by learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Fast Track Court, Veraval in Special Case (ACB) No.3 of 2001. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ - and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months and for offence under Section 13 (2) of the Act he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ - and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that the appellant -accused is working as Talati cum Mantri of Village Ghunghati, District -Junagadh. That as per the prosecution story, complainant Nanubhai Somabhai Sisodiya of Ghunghati Village, applied for electric connection to the GEB, and was told to produce 7/12, 8 -A extract and certificate of sufficiency of water resources from the Talati. Therefore, the complainant went to the accused for the same but the appellant demanded from the complainant the sum of Rs. 200/ - for giving these certificates and told to come on Monday. On Monday, i.e. on 20/9/99, the complainant went there with panch and police officials, and gave him Rs. 200/ - and the appellant was caught taking gratification in the trap by the ACB officers. Accordingly, the prosecution was moved into motion by the complainant and on investigation being completed the investigating authority lodged the charge sheet under the provisions of Sections 7, 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. When the accused was summoned by the Special Judge, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, he was tried by the learned Special Judge and the prosecution has examined five witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution also relied on fifteen documents in support of its case. The defence has also produced as many as eight documents in support of its case. At the conclusion of the trial, the appellant came to be convicted by the learned trial Judge, which is challenged by the appellant by filing present appeal.

(3.) MR .Samir Dave, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant herein inspite of the fact that prime genesis of demand and acceptance was not proved. Mr.Dave has also taken this Court through the evidence of the complainant and panch witnesses. He submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in holding that the accused demanded bribe from the complainant and thereby committed offence under the Act. He submitted that learned trial Judge has erred in convicting the appellant -accused without there being any direct or circumstantial evidence against him and thus caused grave injustice to the appellant. He submitted that the trial Court ought to have appreciated the aspect that the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused, because the evidence of the complainant is not reliable and it is not proved in this case that the complainant Nanubhai Somlabhai (Ex.19) had approached the accused as alleged by him. He also submitted that the trial court ought to have appreciated the fact that on the day of the raid i.e. on 20 -9 -99 it transpires from the evidence that the complainant and the raiding party had gone in search of accused to Panchayat Office and thereafter to Mamlatdar Office and since they could not trace the accused they had gone to the place where the final raid was carried out. The above fact amply proves that the complainant any how wanted to implicate the accused falsely in a trap. This situation, if logically analyzed, would clearly suggest that the complainant never met the accused before as alleged and that no place for meeting was fixed with the accused. If there had been a previous meeting, the accused would have kept copies ready. Secondly, he would not have demanded bribe in presence of panch no.1. This fact shows that the accused is innocent and the impugned judgment and order is required to be quashed and set aside.