VITTHALBHAI AMBALAL PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal is preferred by the appellant original accused against the judgment and order dated 5.11.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Valsad, in Special Case No. 37 of 2002, whereby the appellant accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for five months for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short) and also convicted the applicant and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.7,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for seven months for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)of the Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the father of the complainant Parshottambhai Tandel, resident of Kolak, Taluka, Pardi, Dist.- Valsad had filed a suit, therefore the Mamlatdar and Krushi Panch wherein the parties had voluntarily entered into a compromise on 9.2.1995, for which notices from the Mamlatdar and Krushi Panch was received on 21.09.1998. At that time, the accused was working as Mamlatdar and Krushi Panch. In furtherance to the notices, the complainant met the accused, who told that the father of complainant had executed false document and that he will get the land confiscated in Government and it was allegedly conveyed by the accused that to settle the cases, the complainant would have to understand and pay the bribe amount. As the complainant was not willing to pay bribe amount, he lodged the complaint before Anti Corruption Bureau, Valsad and in pursuance of the said complaint, a trap came to be laid by the Officers of Anti Corruption Bureau and the accused was caught red handed alongwith tainted currency notes and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(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.