( 1 ) THE appellant-orig. convict (hereinafter referred to as the appellant ) has preferred this appeal under Section 374 read with Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31st July 1991, passed by the learned Special Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad City, in Special Case No. 12 of 1989, whereby the learned trial Judge has held the appellant guilty of the charge of offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

( 2 ) THE legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been challenged on various grounds as mentioned in paragraph no. 7 of the memo of the appeal. Shri A. D. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri A. J. Desai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, have taken this Court through the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under challenge and so also the basic facts which were placed by the prosecution before the learned trial Judge. At the conclusion of the trial, it has been held that the appellant has committed the said offences on 22nd September 1988 as a public servant in discharge of his duty as Inspector of Food and Civil Supply Department, Zonal Office, Rakhial, Ahmedabad. Ex. 2 is the charge framed by the learned trial Judge against the appellant. It would be beneficial to narrate the gist of the said charge framed by the learned trial Judge because it also reflects salient basic features of the story of the case of prosecution, which is as under :

( 3 ) YOU, the accused, were discharging your duties as Supply Inspector in the Rakhial Zonal Office, Food and Civil Supply Authority in the month of September, 1988 and thereby, you were a public servant.

( 4 ) ON 20th September 1988, you were In-charge Zonal Officer in the Rakhial Zonal Office of the Food and Civil Supply Department. The complainant of this case had made an application to you for obtaining permission and you had told him to come on the next day; and when the complainant met you even on the next day, you had told him to come on the next day, and the complainant had met Shri Solanki, Zonal Officer of the Zonal Office and the said Shri Solanki had instructed you on telephone that as the Government godown would be closed for a period of eight days, if any businessmen come for obtaining permit, then he should be given permit and his application should not be rejected. On that day i. e. on 21st September 1988 at about 01-45 p. m. , this complainant had also asked you, the accused, to give him permit. At that time, you had told him that today I am giving you permit but you don t understand the custom. You will have to give the amount of Rs. 200/- per month and if the same is not given, you will not be given permit in future, and by checking your shop occasionally, the stock will be checked and if a minor mistake will be there, then a report will be made to the Director of Food and Civil Supply for cancellation of your licence. Therefore, the complainant had agreed to give you the said amount per month. Therefore, when you had asked to pay the said amount today only, the complainant had said that as the amount at present lying with him is to be deposited in the Bank, no arrangement can be done. Hence, you had told him to pay you the said amount on the next day between 01-00 p. m. and 03-00 p. m.

( 5 ) THAT on 22th September 1988, when the complainant met you in your office in the noon, you had called him outside your room in the balcony and after calling him in the balcony, when you had demanded the aforesaid amount, the complainant had given the said amount of Rs. 200/- which was accepted by you.

( 6 ) THUS, by doing so, you the accused have committed offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by taking illegal gratification being the Government employee from the complainant with a view to give him permit.

( 7

Click Here to Read the rest of this document