YASHWANTRAO HANDURAO BORSE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the original accused, challenging the judgment and order of the learned Addl. Special Judge, Valsad at Navsari (for short, 'the trial Court'), Dated : 31.05.2002, rendered in Special Case No. 12 of 1992, whereby, the trial Court convicted accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('the Act', for short) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ - and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. The trial Court also convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ - and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they stood before the trial Court, i.e. the original accused, the complainant etc.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case of the prosecution, as set out before the trial Court, are that the original complainant lodged a complaint, wherein, he stated that on 15.11.1991, while he was undergoing treatment in a hospital, his servant came and informed him that police had arrested his brother -in -law, i.e. PW -4. The complainant, hence, called PW -5 and send him to the concerned police station. On returning from police station, P.W. -5 informed the complainant that the accused, herein, demanded Rs.50,000/ - for releasing and not lodging an FIR against PW - 4, however, the matter was settled at Rs.15,000/ -. The complainant, then, paid Rs.10,000/ - to the accused through PW -5. It is alleged in the complaint that on the very same day, the complainant and PW -5 went to the quarter of the accused, as the accused had insisted for remaining amount and at that time, since, the complainant requested for sometime, the accused told him to give remaining Rs.5,000/ - in four five days either at the police station or at an ice cream shop, where the accused used to sit during evening hours. Since, the complainant did not want to given the aforesaid amount, he approached the ACB officials and a trap was arranged, wherein, the accused was allegedly apprehended. At the end of the investigation, on finding sufficient evidence, charge -sheet was filed against the accused. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the following witnesses;