(1.) This appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Sabarkantha, Himmatnagar on 11th March, 2005 in Special Case No.5 of 1999 whereby the accusedappellant has been found guilty of commission of the offences under Section 7, 13(1)(d), (i), (ii), (iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the aforesaid offences.
(2.) According to the prosecution, the complainant Chhaguji Lalaji Dabhi was resident of Village Gujarava and was cultivating his agricultural land and under the scheme of 'Jivandhara', an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was sanctioned to dig a Well in his field. On the basis of the documents and papers prepared by Gram-Sevak, Rural Development Agency sanctioned the Well and at the time of filing of complaint, digging work was going on. After digging the well upto 30 hands deep, for the purpose of measurement, the complainant contacted the appellant-accused. Thereafter, the appellantaccused told the complainant to give Rs.1,200/- firstly and then only he would come for taking measurement. The complainant gave the said amount to the present appellant accused and he accepted the same. Thereafter, on 05.02.1999, for the second time, the complainant met the present appellant-accused for taking measurement for digging work of well. The present appellantaccused again demanded the amount of Rs.2,500/- and told the complainant that he would measure the well only after he would receive the amount.
(3.) After preparing panchnamas and seizure memo, statement of various witnesses were recorded and ultimately charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellant on completion of investigation after obtaining necessary sanction from the Competent Authority and a case was registered as a Special Case No.5 of 1999 and trial was initiated against the present accusedappellant.