MUSTUFAKHAN AHMEDKHAN PATHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has challenged his conviction by impugned judgment and order dated 14.8.2002 by Special Judge of Court of No.2 of City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad City in Special Case No.18 of 1999. The Court has awarded sentence of 6 months R.I with fine of Rs.1,000/- and S.I of one month, in default of payment of such fine for the offence punishable u/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in addition to sentence of one year R.I with fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, two months S.I u/s.13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, but with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) Pursuant to the submission of the chargesheet with allegations of commission of offence under above sections, the Special Judge has on 24.1.2001, framed charge against the appellant to the effect that on the next day of 25.10.1998, the appellant has misused his post as Constable by demanding Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification and bribe for not to ask for remand of complainant's son, who was arrested on 25.10.1998 under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and on 28.10.1998, he has accepted the amount of bribe. To prove such charges, prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses and produced eight documentary evidence with four muddamal articles to prove its case. The Special Judge has on appreciation of such evidence awarded sentence as above confirming that appellant has committed offence as alleged in the chargesheet.

(3.) In such appeal, basically now, the law is well settled whereby to verify that whether conviction is proper or not, we have to scrutinize the evidence to see that whether following four basic ingredients to confirm commission of offence under the Act has been proved or not.