NAVINBHAI CHANDRAKANT JOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeals have been filed by the appellantsoriginal accused persons under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the common judgment and order of conviction dated 01.04.2000 passed by learned Special Judge, Mehsana in Special (ACB) Case No.10 of 1992, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused persons as under:

(2.) THE common brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant is a businessman serving on business of sugar as a wholesale retailer in the name and style of M/s. Bhagwandas Magandas Patel and Company at Station Road, Kalol. On 03.04.1991, the complainant lodged a complaint with the P.I, ACB, Ahmedabad to the effect that the complainant is an owner of a firm running in the name of Sheetal Suppliers carrying on business of trading of acrylic monomal. The complainant was desirous of starting a new firm by name Purvi Monomal Pvt. Ltd., for manufacturing of acrylic monomal and for this purpose, the complainant decided to buy a plot at Village Chhatral bearing Survey No.613/1 admeasuring 2508.49 sq. mtrs. from one Sandeep Agrawal and Manoj Agrawal. The agreement to sell was executed in December, 1990. The plot, which was bought by he complainant, was N.A. Plot, but the original owners of the plot i.e. Agrawal Brothers had got the plot converted into non -agricultural plot for different purpose, and therefore, the complainant had to place a revised plan for necessary N.A. permission. Thereafter, in March, 1991, the necessary sale deed was executed in favour of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that in connection with N.A. work, he used to visit the office of Taluka Development Officer, Kalol quite frequent and the complainant used to meet one Shri J.D. Patel (original accused no.1) who was serving as a Junior Clerk in N.A. Department. The complainant used to, time and again, request original accused no.1 -J.D. Patel to expedite the matter so that the complainant can obtain the necessary N.A. Permission and start the business. It is the case of the complainant that original accused no.1 -Shir. J.D. Patel used to, time and again, assure the complainant that he would see to it that the necessary permission is approved. At one point of time, original accused no.1 -J.D. Patel informed the complainant that on 27.3.1991, meeting is going to be convened and in that particular meeting, he would see that the papers of complainant are placed for necessary permission. On 27.3.1991 in the evening, the complaint learnt through accused no.1 -J.D. Patel that the revised plan of the complainant was not accepted and the application was rejected. On 31.03.1991, the complainant and his advocate -Shri Jashubhai Motilal Sheth went to the residence of TDO -Shri Vaghela and told TDO that injustice has been done with the complainant by not granting the necessary permission. The TDO, in turn, told the complainant that the complainant should come and discuss the matter in his office on 01.04.1991. On 01.04.1991, the complainant with one M.M Patel, Technical Engineer met Shri Vaghela. Shri Vaghela called for the necessary files from original accused no.1 and he told the complainant that three years had already elapsed from the date first admission was granted, and therefore, the complainant will have to pay some fine to which the complainant readily acceded. The TDO Shri Vaghela directed the complainant to pay a fine of Rs.368.30 ps. which was paid by the complainant on 02.04.1991 in the office of the Gram Panchayat, Chhatral and placed the receipt of the same before the TDO at 11:30 on the next day. At that point of time, complainant is said to have requested original accused no.1 - J.D. Patel with whom the file of the complainant used to remain that original accused no.1 should see to it that the matter is expedited at the earliest and necessary permission is accorded. At that point of time, original accused no.1 -Shri J.D. Patel is said to have told the complainant that if the complainant wants the work to be done expeditiously, the complainant should become little practical. Thereafter, original accused no.1 -J.D. Patel wanted to convey by saying that complainant should become little practical, and therefore, he should clarification from original accused no.2. Original accused no.1 -J.D. Patel is said to have the complainant that if the complainant pays amount of Rs.1000/ - to original accused no.1, he would see to it that the matter is expedited. The complainant was not willing to give bribe. However, ultimately, the matter was settled for Rs.500/ -. The complainant told original accused no.1 that he was not carrying Rs.500/ - with him to which original accused no.1 -J.D. Patel told the complainant that he should pay him on 03.04.1991 before the recess hours and after he receives the money, original accused no.1 would see to it that TDO passes necessary orders of permission in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached the ACB Office and lodged the complaint against the accused. Thereafter, P.I. Shri Mourya of ACB arranged for two panchas. The complainant and members of raiding parties were introduced to the panch witnesses. After the following necessary procedure, the aforesaid aspect was verified and a trap was arranged, wherein the original accused no.2 accepted the bribe amount of Rs.500/ - on behalf of accused no.1. Thereafter, they were caught.

(3.) AFTER completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the learned Magistrate Court. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate Court under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") committed the said case to the Court of learned Special Judge, Mehsana, which was, thereafter, numbered as Special (ACB) Case No.10 of 1992.