STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BALDEVBHAI PATEL
LAWS(GJH)-2016-9-139
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on September 26,2016

STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
VERSUS
Mahendrakumar Baldevbhai Patel Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta for the petitioner State being prosecuting agency and learned advocate Mr. Y. M. Thakkar for the respondent. Perused the record.
(2.) State wants to challenge the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent dated 13.01.2016 in Special (ACB) Case No. 1 of 2013 by the learned Special Judge of Dahod. Therefore, this application for leave to appeal is preferred. For the purpose of determination of such application compilation of relevant evidence is placed on record.
(3.) The case of the prosecution is to the effect that complainant Bablabhai Mangabhai has on 30.08.2012 lodged a complaint with ACB police station of Dahod, which is registered as I C. R. No. 1 of 2013 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging that though there was a grant of Rs.21,000/- in his favour for constructing his house and that he is entitled to its installments of Rs.15,000/-. When he inquired for such cheque in the office of the respondent, respondent being additional joint engineer of Taluka Panchayat, Garbada has demanded Rs.1500/- towards illegal gratification. Based upon such FIR investigating agency has managed a trap / raid and after executing such activity charge sheet is filed. The details and history of FIR and charge sheet is very well on record, so also details of preparation for trap by the raiding party and, therefore, I do not wish to reproduce all those factual details. Because, at this stage, what is material is to be verified that whether there is cogent, reliable and sufficient evidence, as alleged in charge sheet, by the respondent or not. It is settled legal position that for constituting the commission of offence as alleged, there must be positive evidence for all four issues or point viz; (1) prior demand of illegal gratification/bribe, (2) actual demand at the time of trap; (3) existence of tainted currency notes and (4) possession of tainted currency notes by the accused.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.