Legal Articles | Court & Judgment Updates

High Court of Gujarat Acquits Junior Engineer in Corruption Case

Background

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has acquitted Rameshkumar Bababhai Prajapati , a Junior Engineer with the Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB), who was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case stemmed from allegations that Prajapati demanded illegal gratification from Shivlal Kikabhai Purohit , the owner of a mosaic tile factory, in exchange for services related to an electricity connection.

Arguments

The prosecution argued that Prajapati had demanded a total of ₹10,000 from Purohit for sealing an electricity meter and for previous services rendered. They presented evidence including witness testimonies and a trap operation where tainted currency notes were allegedly recovered from Prajapati .

In contrast, the defense contended that Prajapati had been wrongfully implicated. They highlighted that he had been transferred to Mehsana and had no jurisdiction over the Kalol GEB Sub Division where the alleged demands were made. The defense argued that the complainant had a motive to fabricate the charges due to a prior financial dispute.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The court meticulously analyzed the evidence presented by both sides. It emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish a clear demand for bribes by Prajapati . The court noted that the complainant admitted to feeling pressured by relatives to file the complaint and acknowledged that he had not received any direct demands from Prajapati in person. Furthermore, the court found inconsistencies in the testimonies and procedural lapses during the investigation, including the lack of verification regarding the ownership of the electricity connection.

Decision

Ultimately, the High Court quashed the conviction of Rameshkumar Bababhai Prajapati , stating that the prosecution had not proven the essential elements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt. The court's decision underscores the critical importance of establishing a clear demand in corruption cases, reinforcing the principle that mere possession of tainted money is insufficient for conviction without proof of demand.

This ruling not only acquits Prajapati but also serves as a reminder of the stringent standards required for prosecuting corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.