CR.A/100619/1996 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1006 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s) Versus KANTILAL RAMABHAI - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, APP, for Appellant(s) : 1, MR HARNISH V DARJI for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 11/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) CR.A/100619/1996 2/3 JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 4.7.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar, in Session Case No. 8 of 1988. 2. Kantilal Ramabhai of village Bodi, taluka Kalavad, was working as a Talati-cum-Mantri of village Savli, Taluka Kalavad. Pursuant to demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 600/- from the complainant Habibhai, a trap was laid against him. On 14.3.1988 he received Rs. 100/- as part payment. It was agreed that the balance amount of Rs. 500/- will be paid on 17.3.1988 as a motive for reward for making mutation entry in the names of respective owners of the land. On 17.3.1988 while he was accepting the same, he was apprehended red handed by the officers of Anti Corruption Bureau. 3. After completion of investigation, charge was framed. The accused did not plead guilty. Trial was conducted. After conclusion of trial, the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar, acquitted the accused by his judgement and order dated 4.7.1996. Against the said judgement, the State has come in appeal. 4. It is contended before us by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that since panch witness has supported the prosecution and the offence is against the society at large, CR.A/100619/1996 3/3 JUDGMENT turning hostile of the complainant would not matter much and the learned trial Judge has erroneously acquitted the respondent accused. 5. We have gone through the judgement and considered the submissions carefully. We find that the learned trial Judge has rightly relied on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement in the case of HARI DEV SHARMA VS. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) reported in AIR 1976 SC 1489 and the judgement of this Court. In a case of this nature what is required to be established first is demand and then the acceptance. When the complainant turns hostile, the demand cannot be said to be established. In absence of demand, acceptance is of no consequence. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge. There is no substance in the appeal. Hence the same is dismissed. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J) (S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J) (pkn)