STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PATEL ARVINDBHAI DWARKADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellant State has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge(ACB) (3rd Fast Track Court), Mehsana (for short, 'the trial Court'), Dated : 29.04.2003, rendered in Special (ACB)Case No. 16 of 1993, whereby, the learned trial Court acquitted the original accused the Respondent, herein, of the charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(c) (1 -2 -3) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case of the prosecution, as set out before the trial Court, are that the original complainant, being a landless person belonging to Backward Class, was entitled to have a plot for residential purpose free of cost from the government, and hence, he along with his son approached the accused -present respondent, who, at the relevant point of time, was discharging duties as Talati -Cum -Mantri at Chhatral. The accused asked the complainant to complete the necessary procedure, i.e. taking of photocopies of form, documents etc. The complainant completed all the formalities duly and submitted the forms with the accused. According to complainant, the accused, then, called him at his residence in the evening and told him that for getting fee plot the complaint has to pay Rs.3,000/ - to the accused. However, after some negotiations, the accused settled for Rs.2,000/ -. The complainant had to pay the aforesaid amount in two installments, i.e. Rs.1,000/ - within 15 days and the remaining Rs.1,000/ - at the time of allotment of plot. According to complainant, on 24.06.1993 he went to Panchayat Office to inquire about the status of his application and at that time the accused had asked him have you arranged for money? In response to that the complainant told him that he has only Rs.500/ -, which is accepted by the accused and it was arranged that the complainant shall pay the remaining Rs.500/ - on 28.06.1993 to the accused at his office. The complainant, since, was not desirous of giving bribe to the accused, he lodged a complaint before ACB on 25.06.1993 and a trap was arranged on 28.06.1993. However, the accused was not available on that day, and hence, trap could not be carried out. The complainant, then, lodged a further complaint on 05.07.1993 and a trap was arranged on 07.07.1993, wherein, the accused -respondent, herein, was caught. Pursuant thereto, on finding sufficient evidence, a charge -sheet was filed against the accused.

(3.) AT the time of trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, examined following witnesses; <FRM>JUDGEMENT_127_LAWS(GJH)2_2015.htm</FRM>