HANUBHAI PITHABHAI KOTILA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Appeal No.1079 of 2004 is preferred by the appellant-accused against the judgment dated 11.06.2004 delivered by the learned Special Judge, Amreli in Special Case No.100 of 2001 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('the Act' for short). The appellant has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months 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 case are that the complainant Vitthalbhai Dudabhai Govaria was the resident of VillageNesdi, Taluka-Savarkundla, District-Amreli. He purchased a parcel of land, and he wanted to construct a house over such land. Therefore, he approached the accused Mr. Hanubhai Pithabhai Kotila, who was serving as Talaticum-Mantri at the relevant point of time. He told the complainant that, if he want to construct the house, he would have to record the rights in the official record and for which he demanded Rs.1,000/- as the amount of illegal gratification about 2 days prior to the date of complaint. As he was not willing to pay the said amount of illegal gratification, he approached the officials of Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajkot and lodged a complaint before them and in pursuance thereof, a trap was laid on 24.07.1998 during afternoon hours and the accused came to be caught red handed during evening hours along with tainted currency notes of Rs.1,000/- in the denomination of Rs.100/- each and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.

(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.