MAHESHBHAI CHHAGANBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by appellant original accused against the judgment and order dated 7.3.2005 passed by learned Special Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in Special (ACB) Case No.7 of 2000 whereby the original accused appellant herein was convicted for the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and also convicted her for the offence under section 13(2) of the said Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant was carrying on his business of pesticides and fertilizers in the name and style of Shreeji Agro Industries and he was also licensed till 31.12.1999. It is alleged that as the license was expiring, the complainant met to the accused who was at the relevant time, serving as Agriculture Inspector at Mater for getting renewal of license as well as for getting change in the license as Shreeji Agro Chemicals. At that time, the accused asked the complainant that for getting change of the name, no renewal of license can be accorded and for change of the name, the new license was required to be asked for and it is alleged that for which, the accused demanded Rs.1300/- as the amount of illegal gratification from the complainant. As the complainant was not willing to pay the said amount of bribe, he lodged the complaint on 1.1.2000. The trap was laid on 3.1.2000 and during the course of trap, the accused was caught red handed along with tainted currency notes and, thereby, the accused committed the offence, as alleged.

(3.) In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the original accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.