MOHANBHAI CHHITABHAI VANKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present conviction Appeal has been filed by the appellants original accused under Section 374(2) of the Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 29.05.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Special Case No.03 of 1994, whereby the appellant -accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/ -, in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of 2 months and for the offence punishable under Sections -13(1)(d) read with Section -13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentence to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/ -, in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of 2 months.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, complainantRemla Saliya Rathwa, resident of Chorwana, Chhota Udepur was agriculturist and was doing agriculture work on his land. His grander father had expired and because of inherent rights, complainant and his brothers became owners of the land. The land was in the name of complainant's father and uncle Kaliyabhai. Both were residing separately since long and cultivating land separately. But actually, the land ran in the name of uncles of the complainant. During that period, uncles of the complainant namely Tetiyabhai and Kaliyabhai expired and therefore, son of Kaliyabhai came to Talati -Mohanbhai Parmar to enter his and his mother's name on record. In the year 1993, Civil litigation was filed by son for land bearing block No.73 and notice was served upon the complainant. As the advocate of the complainant demanded copy of the land bearing Block No.73, the complainant approached Mohanbhai Parmar, Talati, resident of Bhilpur -appellant accused herein and got the copy and for the said copy, the appellant -accused demanded Rs.100/ - and complainant paid Rs.30/ -. Thereafter, the advocate of the complainant asked for the copy of Block No.62. Then, on 06.06.1993, the appellantaccused came in village for the meeting and the complainant asked regarding the copy of block No.62, but the appellant -accused demanded Rs.150/ -including Rs.70/ - of earlier copy. The complainant told him that due to pendency of the civil Court, copy was required and later on he would pay money, but the appellant -accused was not ready to give the copy and told the complainant that he would give the copy only if the complainant paid Rs.150/ - to him. On 14.09.1993, the complainant met the appellant -accused at Bhilpur Bus -stand and complainant requested to give the copy, but the appellant -accused did not agree without making payment of Rs150/ -. On 20.09.1993, the appellant -accused told the complainant to come at Tejpur to get the copy. The appellant -accused was of Bholpur Gram Panchayat, but he was carrying his office in rental house. On 20.09.1993 upto noon, it was told by the appellant -accused to pay of Rs.150/ -. As the complainant did not want to pay the amount of bribe, he approached ACB Office, Vadodara and lodged the complaint before Police Inspector. Then, PI called two panchas and Trapping Officer introduced both the panchas with the complainant. Then, trap amount of Rs.150/ -was produced before the Police Inspector ACB. PI, ACB instructed one Constable Jayvir Jadeja to demonstrate the use of anthracene powder as well as ultra violate lamp. So, Mr. Jadeja explained the use of anthracene powder and ultra violate lamp. Then, trap amount of Rs.150/ - was tainted with anthracene powder and the same was put into the left pocket of the shirt. Thereafter, the complainant was instructed not to touch the trap amount unless the demand made by appellant -accused. Panch No.1 was advised to stay with the complainant and to hear the talk took place between the complainant and appellant -accused while panch No.2 was advised to stay with the members of raiding party. Then, preliminary panchnama was drawn and they went to the office of appellant -accused, where, the appellant -accused was doing some work and two other persons were also present. After the completion of work, on being asked regarding the copy of 7/12, the appellant -accused prepared the same and gave the complainant and trap amount was given to accused. Then, pre -decided signal was given and members of raiding party rushed to the place and trap was carried out by Police Inspector and in presence of both the panchas, search was made and from the pent of the appellant -accused, the trap amount was recovered and from the pant, fingers, palm anthracene powder was found. Then, second part of the panchnama was drawn and statement of the witnesses were recorded and appellant -accused was arrested and seizure memo issued to appellant -accused. Then to prosecute against the appellant -accused, sanction was obtained from the competent authority and charge -sheet was filed against the appellant -accused for the offence punishable under Section -7, 13(1)(d) read with Section -13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, which was numbered as Special Case No.03 of 1994.

(3.) ON the basis of above allegations, charge was framed against the appellants -accused vide Exh.5 and read -over and explained to the appellant -accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section - 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Then plea was recorded, wherein, appellant -accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. In support of the prosecution case, prosecution has examined following oral evidences : -