THE STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DILIPSINH BHAVANSINH WAGHELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred the present appeal under section 378 (1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.06.2005, rendered by learned Presiding Officer (Fast Track Court No.1), Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad in Special (ACB) Case No. 10 of 2000, whereby the accused has been acquitted from commission of the offences under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act").

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that as per the prosecution case, there was a dispute between complainant - Jivabhai Bhurabhai and Chikabhai Vaghari. In respect of the said dispute, one complaint was lodged with Barvala Police Station. In connection with the same, the complainant was taken to the Police Station and produced before Police Inspector - Mr.Borisagar by the accused. Thereafter, Police Inspector - Mr.Borisagar demanded Rs. 4,000/- from the complainant in presence of the accused for not seeking any remand and for not producing before the Magistrate and also to pay Rs. 2,000/- after he was released on bail. Thereafter, the complainant gave Rs. 4,000/- to Police Inspector - Mr.Borisagar in presence of the present accused. Thereafter, the present accused and Police Inspector - Mr.Borisagar started demanding Rs. 2,000/- and also threatened to implicate him in bogus case, if he fails to give money. As the complainant did not desire to give any amount to the present appellant-accused, the complainant approached the ACB office. After the complainant lodged the complaint, necessary formalities in respect of trap were carried out at ACB Office and the trap was arranged. The present accused was caught red handed while accepting bribe. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondent-accused for the offence 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 charge-sheet against the accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.