LAWS(GJH)-2017-6-38

JYANTIBHAI BHIKHABHAI CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On June 09, 2017
Jyantibhai Bhikhabhai Chauhan Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

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 30.7.2004 rendered by the learned Special Judge and Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Special Case No.16 of 2000, whereby the original accused was convicted for the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 ("the Act" for short) and sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/, in default, to undergo fifteen days imprisonment and also convicted under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/, in default, to undergo one month imprisonment. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that complainantRakeshbhai Kantibhai applied for getting additional connection of PCO and for that purpose, he reached the office of Telecommunication, Amreli and met accused Jyantibhai Bhikhabhai Chauhan who was at that time, serving as EDAClassIII Employee, in the office of Telecommunication Amreli. Thereafter, accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.200/ for grating sanction in favour of the complainant. As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he filed a complaint before Anti Corruption Bureau, Amreli. Thereafter, a trap was arranged and ultimately, the accused was caught red handed. Thereafter, seizure memo and other procedure in relation to the trap was carried out in presence of the panchas. Hence, a complaint came to be lodged against the appellantaccused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.

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