2017 Supreme(Guj) 385

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.P. Dholaria, J.
Kiritbhai Thakorelal Shah – Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 879 and 1020 of 2004
Decided On : 15-02-2017

Headnote:

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 -Section 7,13,12 -Criminal Procedure Code -Section 313 -Present appeal are that complainant was residing at Dhabe. Before one year from the date of complaint, Gram Sewak- informed the complainant that a farmer who is below poverty line can get subsidy of Rs. 42,000/- for constructing well under the Jivan Dhara Scheme issued and for that scheme, he can contact the District Development Officer,. As the complainant agreed to take benefit of scheme/subsidy, he filled up a prescribed form of the scheme and completed all formalities of getting subsidy. Thereafter, Taluka Development Officer verified the said form and application of the complainant was approved. After approving application, he informed to begin the construction of well and payment of subsidy of digging well would be given in installments to which, the complainant started construction of well and during the construction of well, he got installments of the subsidy amount and in total he got Rs. 37,000/- towards the subsidy. It is further the case of the prosecution that the complainant went to Small Irrigation Sub-division Panchayat, Dakor for the purpose of clearing his last installment amount and met original accused No. 1-K.T. Shah who was working as Additional Assistant Engineer but he demanded Rs. 1000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification for clearing the last installment. As complainant was not willing to pay bribe amount, he filed a complaint before Anti Corruption Bureau. A trap was arranged and at the time of trap, accused No. 2- was working as peon in the same department and he took the illegal gratification from the complainant upon instruction from his superior officer-original accused No. 1 and was caught red handed. Hence, a complaint came to be lodged against the appellants-accused for the offences punishable. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against both the appellants accused. charge was framed against the accused. accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced several documentary evidences. the end of the trial, after recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeals before this Court -Held On going through the evidence of the complainant as well as panch No. 1, it revels that neither accused No. 2 had knowledge regarding the pre-demand nor he had knowledge that accused No. 1 demanded any amount from the complainant. In that view of the matter, no concrete evidence comes out from the evidence of the complainant and panch regarding main ingredients i.e. demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.On overall analysis of the evidence on record, it neither proves that accused No. 2 was acting at the behest of accused No. 1 nor it proves that accused No. 2 accepted the tainted currency notes as an illegal gratification nor it proves that he had knowledge regarding any illegal gratification was demanded by accused No. 1. In that view of the matter, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the vital ingredients as regards demand of illegal gratification and acceptance. It also reveals from the evidence of the complainant wherein he has admitted that he did not know whereabouts of accused No. 1 till the date of recording evidence and whatever identity.In view of the above discussion, the following final order is passed: Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2004 preferred by the appellant original accused No. 1 and (ii) Criminal Appeal No. 1020 of 2004 preferred by the appellant- -original accused No. 2 are allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Camp in Special (ACB) Case No. 13 of 1999 is quashed and set aside. Both the appellants - accused are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Bail bond stands discharged. Fine, if any, paid by them be refunded to them. R & P be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith."