KHANDELWAL GOPAL RAMJILAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused, two in numbers, were arraigned for commission of offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, 'the Act') read with Sections 12, 13(1)(d)1,2,3 and Section 13(2) of the Act. On the trial being over, they were sentenced and convicted for two years' imprisonment each under the above head, which has aggrieved the original accused Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they stood before the trial Court, i.e. accused No.1, the complainant etc.

(3.) SPECIAL (ACB) Case, which came to be numbered as 13 of 2001, was tried by the learned Special Judge(ACB), Gandhinagar, who, after examining the witnesses and despite the fact that the original complainant did not support the case of the prosecution and the fact that Panch No.1, who had accompanied the complainant, did not hear the conversation, has convicted both the accused. With this prelude, it would be necessary to scrutinize, the judgment of the trial Court on the touchstone of the different judgments of the Apex Court and of this Court. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that the original complainant is engaged in the business of tourism in the name Jirawala Tourism and for the said purpose, the complainant is required to take license from the Gujarat Tourism, Gandhinagar, and has to renew the same each year. The complainant had obtained such a certificate in April, 1999, which was expiring on 12.04.2000. Hence, for the purpose of renewal, the complainant furnished necessary documents and also paid necessary fees. It is alleged in the complaint that on 11.04.2000, while the complainant was present at his office, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 -appellant, herein, and after checking certain documents, they went away. Then, on 15.04.2000, accused No.1 went to the office of the complainant at Paldi and asked him, do you want to take license or not? To which the complainant replied that they have been taking license every year. Accused No.1, then, asked him as to how much are you going to pay this time and to that the complainant replied that Rs.1500/ -. In reply to that accused No.1 alleged to have stated that he is not alone and that others also have to be given. However, the complainant showed his inability to pay any amount at that time. The accused, then, gave his telephone number and told the complainant to bring Rs.5,000/ -. Since, the complainant did not want to give the aforesaid amount to the accused, he approached the ACB and a trap was arranged, wherein, the accused were apprehended. At the end of the investigation, on finding sufficient evidence, charge -sheet was filed against the accused Nos. 1 and 2. In to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the following witnesses; PROSECUTION WITNESS NUMBER NAME OF THE WITNESS