KIRITKUMAR HARIHAR BHATT 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 25.7.2006 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Surendranagar, in Special (ACB) Case No.6 of 2004, 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 one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/, in default, to undergo three months simple 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 three months simple imprisonment. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that complainantHamabhai Sagrambhai Rabari and his two brothers were residing at Village Moti Morsal, Taluka Sayla, District Surendranagar. The father of the complainant passed away six years prior from the date of complaint, due to which, the complainant and his brothers wanted to mutate their names in the revenue record in place of their father. Thereafter, for the purpose of mutating their names in the revenue record, they approached the office of Talaticum MantriaccusedKiritkumar Harihar Bhatt. It is alleged that thereafter, accusedTalaticumMatri demanded Rs.6,000/ from the complainant for entering their names in revenue record which came to be scaled down to Rs.3,000/. It is alleged that at that time, the complainant gave Rs.1000/ to the accused and he further assured the accused to give the remaining amount of Rs.2,000/ later on. As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he filed a complaint on 30th July 2004, before Anti Corruption Bureau, Surendranagar. 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 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(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.