The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution in evaluating trap evidence, the admissibility of testimony from trap witnesses, and the application of the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shivan Desai, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Mahesh Amonkar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State/CBI.

2. This appeal questions the judgment and order dated 9th July 2014 in Special Case No. 15/2013/T (Special Case No. 2/2010 (old) made by the Special Court for CBI in Goa at Mapusa, convicting the Appellant-Accused under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the said Act) and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for each of the offences and fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

3. The prosecution case is that on 29th December 2009 at around 22.05 hours the accused while functioning as a Junior Passenger Assistant in Konkan Railway Corporation Limited being a public servant demanded a bribe of Rs. 150/- from P.G. Naik, PC, CBI/ACB Goa at Margao Railway Station for facilitating him and two other passengers to travel in the Sleeper Class of train No. 0112, U.P. Konkan Kanya express against the current ticket purchased by Naik for the journey from Margao to Ratnagiri by not charging any deferential amount for the journey and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 7 of the said Act.

4. It is further the case of the prosecution that on the same date, time, and place, the accused accepted the amount of Rs. 150/- towards his illegal demand from P.G. Naik, thereby abusing his position as a public servant and obtaining for himself a pecuniary advantage thereby committed offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d)(ii) and Section 13(2) of the said Act.

5. The charge was framed against the accused on 30th April 2011 to which the accused did not plead guilty. Accordingly, the trial ensued in which, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. Thereafter, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. in which he denied the prosecution case. However, neither did the accused examine himself nor lead any defence evidence in this matter.

6. By the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 9th July 2014, the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the accused. Therefore, this appeal.

7. Mr. Shivan Desai, learned counsel for the Accused submits that the prosecution, in this case, has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the commission of offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the said Act by the accused. He submits that the FIR registered against the accused was false and in any case, the same was not at all proved by the prosecution. He submits that there is absolutely no evidence on the aspect of demand. He relies on Mukhtiar Singh (Since deceased) through his Legal Representatives vs. State of Punjab, 2017 (8) SCC 136, to submit that before the presumption under Section 20 of the said Act can be raised in such matters, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the demand for illegal gratification was made by the accused person.

8. Mr. Desai points out that though it is the case of the prosecution that the demand for illegal gratification was made at the Margao Railway Station from P.G. Naik (PW-2) between 17.40 hours and 17.50 hours within the hearing distance from two panchas. However, one of the panchas examined by the prosecution denied any knowledge about the conversation between PW-2 and the accused. The second Pancha was not even examined by the prosecution. Based on this Mr. Desai submits that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the alleged demand made by the accused between 17.40 hours and 17.50 hours at Margao Railway Station. He submits that the very foundation of the prosecution case therefore collapses and the impugned judgment and order deserves to be interfered with.

9. Mr. Desai without prejudice to the aforesaid submits that the prosecution in the present case has failed to establish the so-called second demand for illegal gratification by the accused on board the train. He poin