RAMESHCHANDRA CHHAGANLAL JOSHI 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, Court No.3, Ahmedabad (for short, 'the Trial Court'), Dated : 13.08.1996, whereby, the trial Court held the accused No.1 guilty for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month, whereas, acquitted original accused No.2.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they stood before the trial Court, i.e. the original accused, the original complainant etc..

(3.) The brief facts of the case of the prosecution, as set out before the trial Court, are that the husband of the original complainant filled-in a form in the name of their son, as they wanted him to be admitted in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bhavnagar, wherein, original accused No.1 was serving as Clerk. Accused No.2 is the wife of accused No.1. However, when the list of the students who had secured admission was displayed, the name of the son of the complainant did not figure in the same. It is alleged in the complaint that at that point of time accused No.1 told the complainant that, if, she fills-in a fresh form and pays something to him, then, he could do something. Subsequently, the complainant filled-up fresh form and also paid necessary fees and her son was given admission. It is, then, alleged in the complaint that accused No.1 demanded Rs.1200/- on 25.10.1991. However, the matter was settled at Rs.800/-. Since, the complainant did not want to pay the said amount, she approached ACB officials and a trap was arranged, wherein, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to be apprehended. Hence, a complaint came to be lodged against accused Nos. 1 and 2 and on finding sufficient evidence, police filed a charge-sheet against them. At the time of trial, the accused did not plead guilty and they claimed to be tried, and hence, the trial was conducted.