LAWS(GJH)-2018-3-89

CHANDRAKANT BACHUBHAI KYADA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On March 27, 2018
Chandrakant Bachubhai Kyada Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Appeal No.945 of 2000 is preferred by the appellant-accused against the judgment dated 21.09.2000 delivered by the learned Special Judge, Court No.2, Ahmedabad City in Special Case No.57 of 1995 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months with fine of Rs.2,000/- and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('the Act' for short). The appellant has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.3,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months under Section 13(2) of the Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present case are that the accused was serving as Sales Tax Officer in the department of Sales Tax, State of Gujarat, whereas complainant Kiran Mohanlal Shah was running his business in the name and style of "Kiran Oil Industry". During the course of assessment years 1992-1993 and 1993-1994, the complainant was called in the office of accused and during the course of assessment, the demand was raised for Rs.3,000/- and thereafter on 30.03.1995, the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- was handed over to the accused and remaining Rs.2,000/- was required to be paid on 31.03.1995. As the complainant was not willing to pay the said amount of illegal gratification to the accused, he lodged a complaint and in pursuance of the said complaint, a trap came to be laid by the officers of Anti Corruption Bureau on 31.03.1995 and the accused was caught red handed along with tainted currency notes of Rs.2,000/- and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) 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.