RASHMIKANT MANGULAL MEHTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') dated 1st September, 1993 passed in Special Case No.19 of 1991 whereby the trial Court convicted the appellant, herein, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. The trial Court also convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii)of the Prevention of Corruption Act punishable under Section 13(2) of the said Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months whereas the other two co-accused were acquitted by the trial Court. The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that one Mr. Babulal Mohanlal Shah-original complainant-P.W.-1 who was residing at Kundan Apartments, Division-II of Vasna Area of Ahmedabad city, was having the problem of supply of water at his residence. Hence, P.W.-1 approached Office of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') at Fatehpur Water Tank from where the water was supplied to the area in which his residence was situated and there he (P.W.-1), for the first time, met accused No. 1-the appellant, herein, and accused No.2 who were working with the Corporation in their capacity as Jr. Supervisor and Sr. Supervisor, respectively. The appellant and accused No.2 told P.W.-1 that they shall send accused No.3 who was working as fitter with the Corporation, at the residence of P.W.-1 and accused No.3 would do needful to solve the problem of supply of water at the residence of P.W.-1. At that time, the appellant and accused No. 2 told P.W.-1 that for the aforesaid work, P.W.-1 has to pay Rs.300/- to accused No.3.

(3.) Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court ought to have held that the amount of Rs.300/- received by the appellant, in two installments of Rs.150/- each, on 26.07.1990 and on 27.07.1990 was towards the payment of supply of meter and was not an illegal gratification.