R/CR.A/1604/2005 JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1604 of 2005

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI

=============================================

1

Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be

allowed to see the judgment ?

2

To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3

Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy

of the judgment ?

4

Whether this case involves a substantial question

of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution

of India or any order made thereunder ?

=============================================

THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Versus

JAGDISHBHAI KHODIDAS KHANLA

=============================================

Appearance:

MR RASHESH A RINDANI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for

the PETITIONER(s) No. 1

MR KB ANANDJIWALA WITH MR VISHAL K ANANDJIWALA(7798)

for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

=============================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI

Date : 18/09/2018

ORAL JUDGMENT

1.

Judgment and order dated 12.04.2005 rendered by the

learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Surendranagar recording

acquittal for the opponent for the offence punishable under

Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act (for short “the Act”) in Special Case No.67 of 1997,

Page 1 of 4

R/CR.A/1604/2005 JUDGMENT

is sought to be assailed in this Appeal under Section 378 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.).

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Government

floated the scheme namely, “Kunwarbai Nu Mameru” under which

the eligible bride was entitled to a sum of Rs.1,000/- within one

year of the marriage. The informant – Prosecution Witness-2 is the

father of the bride who got married about a year back and

according to him he made application with the accused person

claiming ‘Mameru”, when two days were left for the dead-line to

expire. The application was rejected on the ground that the dead-

line was over when it was submitted. The informant received the

letter of rejection and pursued the matter with the opponent who

allegedly agreed to manipulate the records by correcting the

rejection, if paid a sum of Rs.300/- as gratification. The informant

did unwilling to pay bribe; therefore, he lodged complaint with the

ACB Police Station, two Panch Witnesses were requisitioned,

contents of the complaint were explained to them and then

experiment with the anthracene powder on the currency notes was

explained to the informant and the Panchas; serial numbers of the

currency notes produced by informant were recorded in the

Panchnama and one of the Panchas being Prosecution Witness-1

was deputed as a shadow witness with the complainant to visit the

house of the opponent where he had allegedly agreed to accept the

illegal gratification for the above purpose. On initial few occasions,

the opponent was not found but eventually, in the evening it is

stated that he was present in the house where the complainant

contacted him. He asked the complainant whether the letter of

rejection which was to be manipulated has been brought by him or

not, to which the complainant replied in affirmation. The opponent

allegedly collected the said letter from the informant. The oral

Page 2 of 4

R/CR.A/1604/2005 JUDGMENT

testimony of Prosecution Witness-1 and Prosecution Witness-2

would show that while according to Prosecution Witness-1 - the

shadow witness, after collection of the above said letter the

informant told him that as agreed earlier he has come with Rs.300/-

to which the opponen