SURAGBHAI TAPUBHAI MANJARIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred the present appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 09.07.2004, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Amreli, in Special Case No. 05 of 1990, wherein the appellant-accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for further one month for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for further two months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that the complainant was drilling tube well in the agricultural land of Jinabhai Khodabhai of village Nagadra and while he was going towards the agricultural land of Jinabhai Khodabhai, the tractor belonging to the complainant was intercepted by the appellant - accused at village Lakhapadar and he was detained for several hours. The present appellant - accused examined the relevant papers of the tractor and after making verification of the papers, the present appellant - accused asked the complainant that as the driver was having learning license, the tractor was required to be seized. Thereafter, the present appellant - accused demanded Rs. 150/- towards illegal gratification for not doing the same. The complainant paid Rs. 50/- to the accused and Rs. 150/- was for not seizing the tractor and the present appellant - accused told the complainant that if he intends to continue his profession within his limit, he would have to pay Rs. 200/- per month to him. Since the complainant did not desire to give any amount, the complainant approached the ACB office, Rajkot. After the complainant lodged the complaint, necessary formalities in respect of trap were carried out at ACB Office and the trap was arranged. In this way, the present appellant - 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, 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. 3. 1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined four 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.