JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st September 2012 delivered by the Special Judge, Silvassa, in Special Case No.1 of 2009, convicting the appellant who was the accused in the said case of offences punishable under sections 7 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge sentenced the appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/, in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three months in respect of the offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C. Act'); and to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/, in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months in respect of the offence punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. The learned Judge directed that the substantive sentences would run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, as put forth before the trial court may be stated as under Amrutbhai Patel (PW 1), a resident of Baldevi, had entered into an agreement to purchase a certain piece and parcel of land situate at Silli, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, from one Satish Chandra Tamboli for Rs.1,25,000/per acre. The said land was agricultural land, and therefore, for purchasing the same, permission from the Collector was required under the provisions of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Land Reforms Regulations and Rules. Amrutbhai Patel and Satish Tamboli had therefore, filed an application seeking such permission for execution of the sale deed. The said application was pending and the file was lying in the office of the appellant who was then the Resident Deputy Collector (RDC) Silvassa, for inquiry. Amrutbhai Patel had approached the appellant on 16th November 2006 and had made inquiries about his pending file when the appellant had assured him that he would look into the file.

(3.) The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge of the said offences that came to be framed against him. The defence of the accused is of false implication. According to him, Amrutbhai had some grudge against him as the accused had recorded some findings in an inquiry in the matter of escape of some prisoners from Silvassa jail, which findings were not liked by Amrutbhai. According to the accused, Vijay Matera had also some grudge against the accused, as the accused had given a memo to him. The accused had also suggested that he had, on assuming the charge of RDC Silvassa, issued a circular which provided for a better and proper scrutiny of the proposals for sale and purchase of agricultural lands,seeking permission of the collector, and has suggested this might not have been liked by Amrutbhai.