RAJESHKUMAR RAMKUMAR BANSAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both These Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Incident and involve common questions of law and facts and hence, they are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Criminal Appeal No.1622 of 2009 is preferred by the appellantRajeshkumar Ramkumar Bansal who is original accused No.1 and Criminal Appeal No.1697 of 2009 is preferred by the appellantDuryodhansinh Daultasinh Yadav who is original accused No.2 against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj at Kachchh, in Special (ACB) Case No.45 of 2006 whereby the original accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted for the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (the Act for short) and sentenced them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, for under Section 12 of the said Act, sentenced them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and for under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act, sentenced them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default, to undergo fourth months rigorous imprisonment. Both sentences to run concurrently.

(3.) The Short Facts Giving Rise To The Present Appeals Are that one hotel of original complainantBhanubha alias Tapubha Vikramsinh is situated on public road between Ravapar and Matanamadh. When the accused persons who are police officials conducted raid in respect of liquor, the complainant was not present there. At the time of raid Jalubha and Nanjibha who were the persons of the complainant were arrested and the complainant was shown as absconding. Thereafter, the accused No.1 came to the hotel of the complainant and told him that his name has been revealed in the raid and if he wish his name not to be disclosed in the raid, he would have to give money, otherwise he would be insulted in public and harassed also. The accused threatened the complainant to give them Rs.20,000/- otherwise he would be booked behind the bar. Thereafter the said amount was reduced to Rs.10,000/- and then Rs.5,000/- was agreed to be paid to the accused as illegal gratification. As complainant was not willing to pay bribe amount, he filed a complaint before Anti Corruption Bureau, Bhuj. A trap was arranged and ultimately, the accused were caught red handed.