- (1.)THIS is an appeal by the original accused -appellant, herein, challenging the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge, Court No.2, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (for short, 'the Trial Court'), Dated : 24.06.1999, whereby, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as under;
(1) To undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.250/ - and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short);

(2) To undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.250/ - and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 7 of the Act;

(2.)THE brief facts of the case of the prosecution, as set out before the trial Court, are that a complaint came to be given by the complainant, who was discharging duties as ACB, Ahmedabad city, on behalf of the state, wherein, he stated that they received a definite information on 06.06.1996 that traffic police, local police and mobile police personnel are collecting illegal gratification from the vehicles passing by for not prosecuting them. Hence, a running trap was arranged and for the said purpose the help of a decoy panch was sought, who was a truck driver. Then, after completing the necessary formalities, the truck driver was directed that, if, any police personnel demands any bribe, then, the tainted currency notes be given. It is stated in the complaint that when the aforesaid truck driver along with panch no. 1 and his truck reached near Delhi Darwaja, the original accused -appellant, herein, stopped them and allegedly demanded bribe, whereupon, the truck driver gave him tainted currency notes and at that time the accused was caught. On registration of the complaint, police carried out investigation into the alleged offence and on finding sufficient evidence lodged a charge -sheet against him. At the time of trial, the accused did not plead guilty, and hence, the trial was conducted.
(3.)THE prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined the following witnesses;
ORAL EVIDENCE
JUDGEMENT_277_LAWS(GJH)3_2015.htm
Apart from that the prosecution also produced several documentary evidences, as under;

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
JUDGEMENT_277_LAWS(GJH)3_12015.htm