RAMESH MANILAL RAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have preferred the present appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 25.1.2001 rendered by learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Gandhinagar in Special Case No.5 of 1994.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that complainant Hemtuji Shivaji Makwana is residing at village Navapura, Taluka District Gandhinagar and is giving honorary services as Preacher in Jan Shikshan Kendra and this Jan Shikshan Kendra is being run in Primary School at Vankanerda village. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant is being paid Rs.200/- per month towards honorarium and the complainant was discharged after office hours on 30.6.1993 as the tenure of his services was over. Thereafter, again the complainant was to be given the appointment order, but the same was not received by the complainant and hence he approached the office of Adult Education, Sector 30, Gandhinagar along with Ranjitsinh Lilaji, Preacher of Dabhoda where he met the accused and asked them to give the new appointment order and in turn, the accused demanded Rs.500/- (Rs.250/- for each person). It is alleged that thereafter accused No.2 demanded the money at the house of Ranjitsinh at Dabhoda and in the presence of complainant, Ranjitsinh gave Rs.250/- to accused No.1 and in turn, accused No.1 gave the said amount to accused No.2. It is alleged that thereafter the complainant went at the office at Gandhinagar for inquiring regarding his appointment order, but the accused were not found there. It is alleged that thereafter accused No.1 again demanded Rs.250/- from the complainant. As the complainant did not want to give the said amount of illegal gratification, he lodged the complaint before the ACB office.

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