AMRISH BALSHANKAR PANDYA 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 16/01/2006 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Junagadh in Special Case (ACB) No.5 of 1993 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1) (d) 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. 2,000/- and in default to pay fine, simple imprisonment for a period of three 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(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default to pay fine, simple imprisonment for a period of three 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 was serving as Secretary of Pikhor Village Milk Co-operative Society whereas the accused was Sub Auditor and he was in-charge of carrying out the audit of the co-operative society. While carrying out the audit, the accused had shown certain irregularities and demanded Rs. 1,000/- for correcting the same and on 30/08/1992, while carrying out such audit work, he accepted Rs. 200/- and rest of the Rs. 800/- was directed to be paid on 02/09/1992. As the complainant was not willing to pay such bribe, he lodged a complaint before the ACB office, Junagadh. 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. During the course of trap, the appellant-accused was caught red handed with tainted currency notes and, thereby the appellant committed the offence as alleged. Hence, a 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. 3. 1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined about five witnesses and also produced several documentary evidences. 3. 2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above.