MAHENDRASINH NANSINH RANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellant, accused of Special Corruption Case No.4 of 1997, has challenged the conviction recorded by learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Bharuch, vide judgment and order dated 9.3.2005. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and ordered to pay fine of Rs.2,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months was imposed and for offence under Section 13 (2) of the Act he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and ordered to pay fine of Rs.3,000/ - and, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of four months was imposed.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that the complainant is the resident of Village -Samni. The father of the complainant died on 1.9.1996. Since the complainant is having six brothers and three sisters, he wanted to enter the names of brothers and sisters in revenue record and, therefore, he had preferred an application to the appellant -accused. He approached the accused time and again but nothing was done. On 26.2.1997, when the complainant approached the accused, he asked him to pay Rs.700/ - for entering the names of heirs of his father in the revenue record. Since the complainant was not willing to pay this amount, he approached Bharuch ACB Police Station on 27.2.1997 and a complaint was given against the accused. Thereafter, a trap was arranged and the complainant was caught red handed. Accordingly, the prosecution was moved into motion by the complainant and on investigation being completed the investigating authority lodged the charge sheet under the provisions of Sections 7 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. When the accused was summoned by the Special Judge, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, he was tried by the learned Special Judge and the prosecution has examined five witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution also relied on as many as thirteen documents in support of its case. At the conclusion of the trial, the appellant came to be convicted by the learned trial Judge, which is challenged by the appellant by filing present appeal.

(3.) MR .Majmudar, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant herein inspite of the fact that prime genesis of demand and acceptance was not proved. Mr.Majmudar has also taken this Court through the evidence of the complainant and panch witnesses. He submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in holding that the accused demanded bribe from the complainant and thereby committed an offence under the Act. He submitted that the version of the complainant is an important piece of evidence, which is lacking in the present case, therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside. He submitted that the learned trial Judge has erred in convicting the accused by relying on the evidence of PW -1 and PW -4. He submitted that before filing the complaint prior sanction of the competent authority is required to be obtained, which is not obtained in the present case. He submitted that in the present case, the complainant was declared hostile, therefore also by relying on evidence of PW -1, the learned trial Judge could not have convicted the accused. He submitted that in the present case demand and acceptance is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the complainant has not supported his own version given in the complaint. He also submitted that the panchas have deposed in a mechanical manner and, therefore, by relying upon such witness the accused could not have been convicted by the learned trial Judge. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove demand and acceptance on the part of the accused, therefore, the learned trial Judge has committed an error in convicting the accused. He also submitted that the learned trial Judge has wrongly drawn presumption under Section 20 against the accused, though there is no sufficient evidence on record. In view of above, Mr.Majmudar prayed that this appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may be reversed.