KANTILAL AMRUTLAL THAKKAR 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 01.07.2000, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Mehsana, in Special Case No. 04 of 1993, wherein the appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d), (1) (2) (3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo one and a half month rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that the appellant - accused was serving as a Medical officer at the Government Hospital, Mehsana. The appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 400/- for giving false certificate of injuries exaggerating them, which were sustained by his brother Abuji as there was a quarrel with Patels and cross cases were filed. The quarrel took place on 13.01.1991 and Abuji sustained injuries in the said quarrel. He was admitted in the hospital, but was discharged on the next day. With a view to strengthen his case, exaggerated injuries were to be shown in the certificate. Therefore, the complainant met the accused and requested him to show exaggerated injuries in the said certificate. Therefore, the appellant - accused demanded Rs. 400/- from him for doing the same. As the complainant did not desire to give any amount to the accused, the complainant approached the ACB office and lodged the complaint on 19.01.1991. After following necessary formalities in respect of trap, the trap was conducted. The accused was caught redheaded while accepting the amount towards illegal gratification. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the appellant accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) (1) (2) (3) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the accused person. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.