PREMJIBHAI HIRABHAI GOHIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the 'Act') read with Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.05.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Special A.C.B. Case No.1-2/2005, whereby appellant - accused came to be convicted under Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'P.C. Act') and was ordered to undergo two years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation that in failure to pay the fine amount, to suffer further six months simple imprisonment.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, the appellant - accused during the period from 10.06.2002 to 01.10.2002, while serving as Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Pardi, Valsad in abetment with accused No.2, brother-in-law of accused No.1 and No.3 the wife of accused No.1, while serving as a public servant, abused the position and illegally demanded and accepted bribe from prosecution witnesses.

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. J.M. Panchal assisted by Advocate Mr. Vaibhav A.Vyas for the appellant - accused, submitted that the case under Sections 7, 12 and Section 13(1)(a) of the P.C. Act has not been believed. The conviction against the appellant is under Section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the P.c. Act, where actually the demand acceptance or recovery of any bribe money has not been believed. The transaction by way of gift amount with P.W.17 and P.W.18 in the name of the wife of the appellant, who have been acquitted in the matter is legal, as it was by way of cheque and there was no transaction in cash. Senior Advocate Mr. Panchal, thus, wanted to submit that none could enter into the bribe or gratification by payment of cheque transaction. It is also submitted that since wife of the appellant as accused No.3 was acquitted and when the prosecution has accepted the acquittal by not filing appeal against the wife of the appellant, nothing now remains against the accused to consider his case for conviction, and submitted that the witnesses examined by the prosecution have not been declared hostile nor there is any re-examination, no suggestion of any obligation of any parties of any work by the appellant to prove that the amount received by the wife of the appellant was in gratification of some judicial work done by the appellant.