VALABHAI VAKTABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal is preferred by the appellant - original accused against the judgment and order dated 21.10.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 7, Palanpur, in Special Case No. 59 of 1999, whereby the appellant - accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act for short) and also convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant - Bedidan Kishandan Charan, Police Inspector ACB P.W.3 received secret information on 3.12.1998 that the employees of Nainava O.P. Check Post and Deesa R.T.O Check Post were collecting Rs. 10/- to Rs.200 as entry fee from the goods carries coming from Sanchor. Thereafter, for laying trap, he arranged two panchas and asked P.B. Pandav, Police Inspector ACB-P.W.-4 to act as lamp operator and disclosed the secret information amongst the panchas, P.B. Pandav, Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau availed service of truck driver, Sonaram Punaji P.W.-2 to act as decoy and laid the trap. During the course of trap, on 4.12.1998 at 3.45 a.m., when the decoy was passing through Nainava O.P. Check Post, at that time, the accused-appellant demanded amount of illegal gratification and the decoy handed over the tainted currency note of Rs. 10/- and raised the pre-arranged signal. At that time, other members of raiding party came over there and caught the accused-appellant redhanded and recovered the tainted currency note of Rs. 10/-.

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