( 1 ) THE appellant-orig. accused has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (old Act) [hereinafter referred to as the Act ]. The appellant has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22nd April, 1988, passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol, in Special Case No. 8 of 1986, whereby he has been asked to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 250/ -,n default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Act. No separate sentence was ordered for the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code proved against the appellant.

( 2 ) THE judgment and order under challenge is assailed on various grounds mentioned in paragraph no. 2 (B) of the memo of the appeal and the learned senior counsel Shri M. R. Barot, appearing with Shri J. M. Budhbhatti, has taken me through all these grounds and has submitted that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is erroneous and the learned trial Judge ought to have acquitted the appellant. At least the appellant could have been given benefit of doubt in view of the facts emerging from record. I have heard Shri A. J. Desai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, who has also replied to all the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant.

( 3 ) TO appreciate these submissions, it would be first necessary to have a look on the basic facts which were placed before the learned trial Judge. According to the prosecution, the appellant was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri at village Santhal of Taluka Dholka. The complainant-Becharbhai had approached him as he wanted to get the name of his brother and himself entered in the record of rights after the death of his father. As the complainant and his brother had inherited all the properties of their late father, the names of complainant and his brother were required to be mutated in all the relevant revenue records. For this purpose, the complainant had given an application on 07th February, 1986. But the appellant instead of accepting the application asked the complainant to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- for doing the said work towards illegal gratification and assured him that his work shall be done. As the complainant was not in a position to make the payment, it is alleged that he negotiated with the complainant and ultimately agreed that the appellant would be paid an amount of Rs. 150/- and the names of the complainant and his brother shall be mutated in the record of rights. This demand of Rs. 150/- was an amount of bribe/ illegal gratification. It is further the say of prosecution that the complainant was of the opinion that he should not succumb to the demand of illegal gratification of the appellant and the appellant will not be paid. The complainant, therefore, approached the Anti Corruption Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the ACB ) at Ahmedabad and lodged a complaint stating the details and after necessary preliminary inquiry and procedure, the ACB Inspector arranged for the trap. It is alleged that the complainant was asked to go on 14th February, 1986 and, therefore, he had gone to the office of the ACB on that day and at about 03-00 p. m. , the appellant was trapped. It is stated by the prosecution that the complainant and the Panch no. 1-Rameshbhai Kantilal Modi entered into the office of the Panchayat, where according to the prosecution, the appellant demanded the amount of illegal gratification and on such demand, the muddamal currency notes stained with anthracene powder and marred numberwise were passed over to the appellant, who accepted the same and put them into the drawer of his table. Soon thereafter, on receipt of the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document