KIRTIKUMAR RIKHAVACHAND SHAH 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 18/12/2003 rendered by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Fast Track Court, Mehsana in Special (ACB) Case No.6 of 1995 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), (i), (ii), (iii) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to pay fine, simple imprisonment for a period of two 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), (i), (ii) and (iii) read with Section 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. 1,000/- and in default to pay fine, simple imprisonment for a period of two months. It is also ordered to run both the sentence concurrently.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant Bharatkumar Ramjibhai Vaghela is residing near City Police Station, Mehsana. His father was serving in PWD Department, Mehsana and expired on 21/09/1991 during the course of employment. After death of his father, he applied for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the complainant met the accused about 25 times before lodging complaint for processing his application as well as he has fulfilled necessary documentary process. The accused when met the complainant on 21/11/1994, told the complainant that his work is done and his papers are pending before the officer superior to him and would collect the papers on 23/11/1994 and also told to bring Rs. 100/- and told that if that money would be there, his work would be done. As the complainant did not want to give such bribe, he approached the ACB office, Mehsana. Accordingly, a trap was arranged and requisition of panchas were made and procedure of trap was made to understand to the complainant as well as other members of the raiding party. Preliminary panchnama was also drawn accordingly. Thereafter, the complainant as well as members of the raiding party went to the office of the accused and the complainant asked about his work to which the accused demanded the money which the complainant gave and the accused accepted. Thereafter, the complainant raised prearranged signal due to which members of raiding party arrived there and thereby the accused was caught red handed with tainted currency notes 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.