STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DAHYABHAI KALIDAS PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.9.2005 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Surat, in Special (ACB) Case No.6 of 1993, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents Page 1 of 16 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that complainant Thakorbhai Karshanbhai Patel at the relevant time was residing at village Mahuva, district Surat. On 29.11.1991, Police Sub Inspector Khokhar, Mahuva raided the house of the complainant under the Prohibition Act and at that time, the complainant was at Vadodara and he was shown as absconder. On 27.1.1992, Police Constable accused No.1 met with the complainant at S.T. Bus Stand and apprised him regarding the prohibition case lodged against him. Thereafter, accused No.1 Police Constable threatened the complainant to give them Rs. 500/otherwise he would be booked behind the bar. The complainant told the accused that at present, he has nothing to give him to which, accused told the complainant that he would come back tomorrow for obtaining aforesaid demanded amount. As complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he filed a complaint before Anti Corruption Bureau, Surat. Thereafter, a trap was arranged and ultimately, the accused were caught red handed. Thereafter, the 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 respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 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 charge-sheet against the respondent-accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.