- (1.)BY way of present appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant-original accused has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21st May, 1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kutch-Bhuj, in Special Case No.02 of 1990 whereby the learned Judge was pleased to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one-and-half-year, and also imposed fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine; sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year, and fine of Rs.400/-, and in default of payment of fine; sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.
(2.)AS per the case of the prosecution, the appellant was serving as Superintending Engineer in the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board since February, 1988 and since then he was discharging his duties at Kutch. AS per the case of the prosecution, the complainant had allotted contract work of Rudramata Operator Quarter and A-one Quarter near Inspection Bungalow at Bhuj in the year 1987. It is also the case of the original complainant that thereafter he was assigned extra work of wire-fencing of Rudramata Operator and A-one Quarters. The original complainant did the said work with expectation of approval of the same. It is the case of the prosecution that the original complainant has received the bill amount of contract work assigned to him; however, the bill amount of extra work done by him was not paid to him and according to the bill amount, the complainant had done total work of Rs.78,700.76 paisa. AS per the case of the prosecution, the said bill for extra work were sent to the office of the Superintending Engineer by the Executive Engineer for sanction and the same were pending in the office of the Superintending Engineer. It is the case of the prosecution that on 03rd May, 1989 when the original complainant visited the office of the Superintending Engineer and contacted him with regard to his pending bills, the present appellant had demanded Rs.500/- by way of illegal gratification from him and he has paid the said amount, which was accepted by the appellant. It is further alleged by the original complainant that on 06th July, 1989 in the afternoon, he had gone to the office of the Superintending Engineer and contacted the appellant and requested him to sanction the pending bill. At that point of time, as alleged, the appellant told the complainant that he should come to him on Friday in the afternoon, and if the bills are to be passed, then he would have to make the payment of Rs.500/-. At that time, as alleged by the original complainant, he told the appellant that he would be coming on 07th July, 1989, i.e. on Friday, in the afternoon with Rs.500/- and left the office.
Thereafter, as the complainant was not willing to make the payment, he approached the ACB Office on 07th July, 1989 and lodged his FIR before the police. Thereafter, the services of two panchas were sought. The facts of the case were narrated to them and thereafter the experiment was made on the currency notes with the help of anthracene powder. The basic ingredients of the anthracene powder were made understood to the panchas as well as the complainant. After performing the experiment, preliminary part of the panchnama was drawn. The currency notes were smeared with anthrecene powder, i.e. five notes of Rs.100/- each. Thereafter, the complainant, panchs and members of the raiding party proceeded towards the office of the appellant in two rickshaw. Thereafter, the complainant and the panch No.1 went inside the chamber of the appellant. The appellant asked the complainant as to for what purpose he had come, to which the complainant replied that he had come for the bills of extra work being done by him. It is also the case of the complainant that at that time, as alleged, the appellant told the complainant that if the bills are to be sanctioned, it would cost Rs.1,200/-. Therefore, the complainant had given the cover containing Rs.500/- and told that the remaining amount of Rs.700/- would be paid after passing of the bill. Thereupon the appellant told that his bills would be passed and the same would be sent. Thereafter, the complainant came outside the room and gave signal to the members of raiding party. Thereafter, the amount was recovered from the pocket of the pant of the appellant in a cover. The said cover was taken out and from that cover, amount of Rs.500/- was recovered. Thereafter the second part of the panchnama was drawn.

Thereafter, the Investigating Officer lodged FIR, registered the offence and recorded the statement of the complainant. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer carried out investigation and recorded statements of various persons. Thereafter, after obtaining sanction, charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant-accused.

(3.)THEREAFTER, charge at Exhibit 9 was framed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellantaccused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In order to bring the home the charges levelled against the appellant-accused, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses and also produced documentary evidence in support of its case.