SHANTILAL HARIBHAI VANKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the original accused No.1 -appellant, herein, challenging the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge, Panchmahal, Godhra (for short, 'the trial Court'), Dated : 07.01.2000, whereby, the learned trial Court convicted the accused No.1 -appellant, herein, for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(3) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/ - and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year, whereas, acquitted original accused No.2 by giving him benefit of doubt.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case of the prosecution, as set out before the trial Court, are that the original complainant received a secret information that bribe is being accepted by the personnels discharging duties as Primary Health Centre, Garbada. The accused No.1 - appellant, herein, was, at the relevant point of time, discharging duties as Peon, whereas, accused No.2 was discharging duties as Pharmacist. Hence, a trap was arranged and for the said purpose help of a decoy witness, i.e. PW -2, was sought, who was sent to Garbada to get herself and her daughter medically treated. On reaching there, accused No.2 asked PW -2 about the details of illness and noted down the same on the case papers and then, asked accused No.1 to give her medicines, after giving injection to both PW - 2 and her daughter. Accused No.1, then, gave medicines to PW -2 and explained to her as to how said medicines were to be taken. PW -2, then, gave Rs.20/ - towards bribe to accused No.1, in the presence of pancha, which was allegedly accepted by accused No.1 and then the accused were apprehended. Subsequently, charge -sheet came to be filed against both the accused Nos. 1 and 2. At the time of trial, since, the accused did not plead guilty, the trial was conducted.

(3.) AT the time of trial, in order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the following witnesses; <FRM>JUDGEMENT_274_LAWS(GJH)3_20151.html</FRM>