THE STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. THAKARDA PRATAPJI HIRAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Gujarat 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 15.09.2004 rendered by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Fast Track Court No.1, Mehsana, in Special (ACB) Case No.1 of 2003, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d), (1), (2), (3) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that complainant Rajendrasinh Jilubha Vihol was residing at village Vadasan, Taluka Vijapur, District Mehsana and was studying in 3rd year of L.L.B. course. In March 2003, the complainant got a telephone connection in the name of his younger brother - Balvantsinh from the telephone exchange at Village Vadasan and telephone number was 47266. Accused-Pratapji Hiraji Tahakarda was working in telephone exchange as lineman. The accused had demanded Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification from the complainant for the purpose of getting connection and providing good service but at that time, complainant refused to pay the same. Before eight months from date of the complaint, the telephone exchange changed first two digit of telephone number i.e. from 47 to 42, therefore, the dynamic lock of the telephone was not working for which the complainant made a complaint for restarting the said dynamic lock. Thereafter, at that time, the accused told the complainant firstly to pay earlier deposited amount of Rs. 500/- which was agreed between them at the time of getting connection. The complainant felt that the demanded amount is very excessive, therefore, he negotiated and the accused agreed to accept Rs. 200/. As the complainant was not willing to pay bribe amount, he filed a complaint before Anti Corruption Bureau and a trap was arranged and ultimately, the accused was caught red handed.

(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. 3. 1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined several 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 CrPC, 1973 and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above.