STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BACHUBHAI MOHANBHAI BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 5.2.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vadodara in Special Case No. 7/1988, whereby, the learned trial Judge acquitted the original accused the respondent herein, of the charges for the offence punishable under Section section 161 of IPC and under section 5(1) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant is residing at village Katarvant, Chhota -udepur, Dist. Vadodara and doing agricultural work and is also growing water -melon on the land near Orsang river. The said land was to be auctioned and thereafter on making necessary payment, the said land is allotted to the complainant. From 1986, the concerned Mamlatdar had stopped auctioning of the land, therefore, no legal permission was granted to anybody to grow watermelon. However, many persons have grown watermelon in the said land and therefore, Mamlatdar had initiated proceedings against them and directed the Talati -cum -Mantri - present accused to enquire and report. Therefore, according to the complainant, around eight days before the FIR, he met the accused at his house because of the said proceedings, who allegedly demanded Rs. 300/ - for not initiating any proceedings against the complainant. On 19.1.1986, again the complainant went to the house of the accused to meet him but he was not present, therefore, on 20.1.1986, when the complainant was going to meet the accused, he met at the bus stand itself. The complainant said that he could not manage for money. He allegedly said that he would give half of the amount on the next day and remaining after two days. The accused told him to give him rs. 150/ - latest by 10.00am on 21.1.1986, failing which, the papers for proceedings would be submitted. As the complainant did not want to give the amount of bribe, on 21.1.1986 the complainant approached the ACB, Office, Vadodara and lodged the complaint. Thereafter, the Panchas were called and the said Panchas were introduced to complainant. Police Constable Mr. Jadeja explained the anthracene powder treatment properly and working of Ultra violet lamp. Thereafter, after following necessary procedure, the Raiding party arranged the trap and on success of the trap, detailed panchnama was drawn. The currency notes numbers were tallied with first part of the panchnama. These notes were signed by the panchas. Detailed panchnama was signed by the panchas who were there and also by the Investigating Officer. The currency notes were attached. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, the offence was registered and during the course of investigation, respondent was arrested and, ultimately, charge -sheet was filed against him, which was numbered as Special Case No. 7 of 1988. The trial was initiated against the respondent.

(3.) TO prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.