GOPALBHAI OGHADBHAI PAREKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant- Gopalbhai Parekh, serving as an Extension Officer of Bhachau Taluka Panchayat at the relevant time was charged for the offences punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1947 (old Act) by the learned Special Judge, Kutch at Bhuj for accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 150/from the complainant. The original - accused no.2 Khoda Ranchhod Ayer was charged for the offence punishable under section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code for abetting the accused no.1. At the end of the trial, the learned judge, by his judgment and order dated 4th November 1987 passed in Special Case No. 2 of 1985, convicted the accused no.1 for offence punishable under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default, to undergo S.I. for six months. The said accused was also convicted for offence punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year. The learned judge ordered both the sentences to run concurrently. The accused no.2 was, however, acquitted of the offences for which he was charged. The original accused no.1 has filed Criminal Appeal No. 858 of 1987 while the State of Gujarat has filed Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 1988 challenging the order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused no.2. Both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The prosecution case as stated in the complaint Ex. 24 given by complainant Ranchhod Arjan Ayer,and as per the evidence of Investigating Officer Shri Sharma, can be stated as under:

(3.) As stated above, the learned Special Judge, Kutch at Bhuj, who tried the case against the accused, after appreciating the evidence on record, found the case against accused no.1 proved and convicted him for the offence punishable under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 161 of the IPC. However, acquitted the accused no.2 for want of evidence.