STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BABUBHAI GOVABHAI RAVALIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant original complainant, State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 28.01.2004 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Panchmahal, Camp at Dahod, in Special Case No.9 of 1998. The said case was registered against the present respondent -original accused for the offence under Sections -7, 13(a)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, respondentaccused - Babubhai Govabhai Ravaliya of this case was discharging his duty as Talati -cum -Mantri of Garbada Gram Panchayat and as such he was a public servant. The complainant of this case had purchased piece of land which was originally of the ownership of an Adivasi and in respect of which, proceedings were initiated in the Court and ultimately, he succeeded in the said case. Thereafter, he paid required stamp duty for transferring the land in his ownership permanently and in respect of the said transfer of the land in question, he approached the respondentaccused for making necessary entry in the record of rights. However, the respondent -accused, though it was his duty being the Talati -Cum -Mantri, demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/ -from the complainant. However, after bargaining, it was reduced to Rs.2,000/ -. The complainant informed the accused that he would pay the same in two installments and he was called by the respondent -accused on 03.10.2007 to pay Rs.1,000/ - at Chora. As the complainant did not want to pay the said amount of bribe, he approached Sub -Divisional Office of Dahod Police Station and registered his complaint before Chamanbhai Khatrabhai Parghi, Dy.S.P. Thereafter, Chamanbhai Khatrabhai Parghi, Dy.S.P, called two panchas. Both the panchas were introduced with the complainant and facts of the complaint were disclosed to both the panchas. In presence of members of raiding party, search of the complainant and panchas was made. Then, Police Inspector called Head Constable, Fatesinh was called to explain uses of the anthracene powder and ultra violate lamp. First part of the panchnama was drawn and signatures of panchas were taken. Then, the trap amount of Rs.1,000/ -, was presented by the complainant under the instructions of the Trapping Officer and anthracene powder was applied on the trap amount. The complainant was directed not to touch the said amount prior to demand made by respondent -accused. Panch No.1 was advised to stay with the complainant and listen all talk took place between the complainant and the respondentaccused while panch No.2 was advised to stay with the members of raiding party. The complainant was also instructed to give signal after the demand made by the accused. After completing necessary formalities, they went to the place of trap. The complainant and panch No.1 went to the office of the respondent -accused and other members of raiding party and Trapping Officer took their position. Then, as decided earlier, signal was given by the complainant and Trapping Officer alongwith members of raiding party rushed to the place of trap and respondentaccused was instructed not to do anything. The amount which was inserted into the pocket of the respondentaccused was searched out by panch No.1 and amount was recovered from the pocket of the respondent -accused and anthracene powder was found from the fingers, tips and pocket of the respondent -accused. Thereafter, second part of the panchnama was drawn and signatures of the panchas were taken. The respondent -accused was arrested and seizure memo was given to him. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and statements of the witnesses and panchas were recorded by the Investigating Officer. To prosecute against the respondent -accused, sanction was obtained from the competent authority. Then, charge -sheet was filed against the respondentaccused for offence under Sections -7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was numbered as Special Case No.9 of 1998.

(3.) ON the basis of above allegations, charge was framed vide Exh.2 and read -over and explained to the accused for the offence punishable under Sections -7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused pleaded not guilty vide Exh.3 to the charge and claimed to be tried.