VISHNUBHAI BUDHIYABHAI PATEL 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 28/05/2004 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad in Special Corruption Case No.58 of 2002 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs. 2,500/- and in default to pay fine, simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant-accused is also 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 simple imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs. 2,500/- and in default to pay fine, simple imprisonment for a period of three months. It is also ordered to run both the sentence concurrently.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in the year 1990, the accused was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri at village Rohina, Taluka Pardi, District Valsad. The complainant is also resident of the same village and he had bought a piece of land and he wanted the same to be mutated in his name. Therefore, he met the accused and at that time, the accused demanded Rs. 200/- from the complainant for mutating entry in the record of rights and the same was given by the complainant at the same time in presence of one Kishanbhai Harkhabhai Patel at the office of Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, time and again the complainant met the accused and asked to issue an abstract of record of right but the accused did not reply satisfactorily. Thereafter, a month prior to the incident, the complainant met the accused at the office of Gram Panchayat and inquired regarding mutation entry and got reply that mutation entry is already done but for getting the entry certified, the complainant would have to pay Rs. 1,000/-. As the complainant was not having the said amount with him at that time, he returned from the office of Gram Panchayat. On 03/11/1992, the complainant had gone out for some work. During that time, in the afternoon, the accused visited the house of the complainant and informed Niruben who is wife of the complainant as well as member of Gram Panchayat that she should inform her husband that to get the abstract of record of right, the complainant should come with Rs. 1,000/- on 04/11/1992 as there was a meeting of Gram Panchayat on 04/11/1992. He also warned that if the complainant would not pay Rs. 1,000/-, then his name would not be mutated in the record of rights. Wife of the complainant informed all such things to the complainant on his return to home. As the complainant did not want to give such bribe, he approached the ACB office, Valsad. Accordingly, a trap was arranged and requisition of panchas were made and procedure of trap was made understand to the complainant as well as other members of the raiding party. Preliminary panchnama was also drawn accordingly. During the course of trap, the appellant-accused was caught red handed with tainted currency notes and, thereby the appellant has committed the offence as alleged. Hence, a 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.