BAVABHAI BACHUBHAI HIRPARA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred the present appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 08/03/2004 rendered by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Amreli in Special (ACB) Case No.26 of 1992 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to pay fine, to under go one month simple imprisonment. The appellant has been further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to pay fine, to under go three months simple imprisonment. It is also ordered to run both the sentences concurrently.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the present appellant-accused was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri in the village Khadkhad, Taluka Kukavav of District Amreli in the year 1990-1991. That complainant Panubhai Jagubhai Vala of the same village had purchased a house from one Nathiben Jivabhai of the same village and for transferring the said house in the name of Panubhai Jagubhai Vala, the present accused demanded bribe of Rs. 500/- which was scaled down to Rs. 300/-. The complainant gave Rs. 200/- and remaining Rs. 100/- was agreed to be given on Monday. As the complainant did not want to give such bribe, he approached ACB Office and lodged complaint. Accordingly, a trap was arranged and in the trap, the accused caught red handed accepting bribe and, thereby the appellant committed the offence as alleged. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the appellant-accused.

(3.) In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the appellant accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3. 1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced several documentary evidences. 3. 2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above.