DINESHKUMAR MOHANLAL RAVAL 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 15.2.2005 passed by the learned Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.8, Palanpur, in Special Case No.66 of 2001, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellant-accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days more.

(2.) The Short Facts Giving Rise To The Present Appeal Are that complainant-Parbatji Pratapji Thakore was residing at Village Jenal, Taluka Deesa, District Banaskantha and he was an agriculturist. As the complainant wanted to take benefit of subsidy for digging tube well in his field, he filled up a prescribed form and completed all formalities of getting subsidy. Thereafter, he approached Gram Panchayat at Deesa and met Gram Sevak-Dineshkumar Mohanlal-accused for the aforesaid purpose. For issuing the subsidy, Gram SevakDineshkumar demanded Rs.23,000/- as an amount of illegal gratification. The complainant gave total Rs.1150/- in three part to the Gram Sevak and thereafter the complainant was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- on 10.10.2000. As the complainant was not willing to pay bribe amount, he filed a complaint before Anti Corruption Bureau, Palanpur. Thereafter, a trap was arranged and ultimately the accused was caught red handed. Thereafter a 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(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) 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 appellant accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.