STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. LALJIBHAI BAPUBHAI TALAR ASSTT.

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 08.04.2006, rendered by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.3, Nadiad in Special Case No. 17 of 2003, whereby the accused has been acquitted from commission of the offences under Sections 7, 12, 13 (1) (d), 1, 2, 3 read with section 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 the complainant Bhupatsi Rathod used to earn his livelihood by running jeep and he was also doing agricultural work. He purchased one jeep and gave the same for carring passengers on the route of Kapadwanj-Dakor to Shri Somabhai Amrabhai on hire basis. The complainant was paying some lump sum amount to the concerned Police Sub Inspector with a view to smooth running of his business. When he was going from Patan to Lasundra in his jeep, Mr. Rathod - Police Sub Inspector, Kapadwanj Town Police Station intercepted his jeep with regard to payment of installment. The complainant paid Rs. 1,000/- at that time and rest of the amount of Rs. 500/- was to be paid by him later on. The Police Sub Inspector threatened him to issue memo if he would fail to pay him money towards installment. Since 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 appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13 (1) (d), 1, 2, 3 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.