BHUPENDRA JIVABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above mentioned both the appeals arises out of the same judgment and therefore, both the appeals are heard together and decided by this common judgment.

(2.) The present Criminal Appeal No.1423 of 2006 is preferred by the appellant-accused against the judgment dated 15.07.2006 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.10, Nadiad in Special Case No.7 of 2001 whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months with fine of Rs.1,500/- and in default to undergo 1 month of simple imprisonment under Sections 7 , 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('the Act' for short) and also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,500/-, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act, whereas the Criminal Appeal No.2082 of 2006 is preferred by the State of Gujarat seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent accused.

(3.) The short facts giving rise to the present case are that the that the complainant, Nayankumar Praveenbhai Mistry was running a shop for making furniture in the name and style of "Vishwakarma Ply Wood" within the vicinity of Mahuda Nagar Palika which subsequently came to be changed to his residence and while he was carrying out his work at his residence on 02.08.2001, the accused-appellant who was serving as Shop Inspector, inspected his place of business and found certain infirmities like the name of firm was changed which he failed to inform; having no sign board and shopkeeper was not maintaining the visit book. Alleging the above infirmity, a detailed inspection report was carried out and memo was issued and thereof a signature of complainant was also taken and same was handed over to the complainant which came to be produced at Exhibit-28. Thereafter the accused told him that he would be fined for about Rs.10,000/- for the breach of the provisions of Bombay Shop and Establishment Act . Complainant urged that he is not in a position to pay such an amount and asked to show a way out. At that time, he was directed to meet the accused in the office and he went to his office and the accused demanded Rs.1,500/- as amount of illegal gratification. As he was not willing to pay any amount of illegal gratification, he lodged a complaint and a trap came to be held on 09.08.2001 which remained unsuccessful and thereafter another trap was laid on 10.08.2001 and during the course of trap, accused was caught red handed along with tainted currency notes and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 7 , 8 , 12 , 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act.