Point of law: So far as the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act is concerned, it trite that even the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 30.08.2006, passed in Special Case No. 15 of 2002 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 15, Vadodara, recording the acquittal.

2. The facts, in brief, are that a complaint was filed against one Ganpatbhai Budhabhai by Ibrahimbhai Malek, resident of Bhayali village being application No.96/2002, investigation of which, was with accused No.1 – Dahyabhai Kalidas Parmar, who was Writer – Constable and accused No.2 – Punambhai Kishanbhai Bhaliya, Unarmed Head Constable, was the Assistant Writer of the accused No. 1 and the accused No.3 – Smt. Lilaben Ramsinh Chauhan, ASI, was working as a Writer Head in the Taluka Police Station as well as was being Police Station Officer, had been handling the Station Diary duty. The accused No.1 allegedly called the respondent in the said application – Jayantibhai Budhabhai at the Taluka Police station and demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- for bail related procedures, which, after bargaining, eventually, finalized at Rs.400/-. The respondent of the said application was asked to remain present on 29.05.2002 at the Taluka Police Station along with a surety and the amount of bribe. The complainant, since, did not want to pay the bribe, approached Shri I.B. Vyas, Police Inspector, ACB, Vadodara on 28.05.2002, who, after completing preliminary procedures, arranged the trap. The accused No. 1, through the accused No. 2 received an amount of Rs.50/- for helping in investigation as well as the accused No. 3 also received Rs.50/- for necessary registration in the record and thereby, all the accused, in connivance with each other, committed the offence punishable under Section 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as “the PC Act”) for which, FIR came to be registered against him.

2.1 Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of as many as 6 witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences in question. The learned Judge trial Judge framed the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2006, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard, learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the appellant – State and learned advocate Ms. Kruti M. Shah for the respondents.

3.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is legal sanction under Section 19(1) of the PC Act for prosecuting the accused. The learned trial Judge has also erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No. 1 demanded Rs.400/- from the complainant for bail and also induced to give Rs.50/- to accused No. 2 and Rs.50/- to accused No. 3 and also caught red-handed by accepting bribe and committed the offence in question.

3.2 The learned APP further contended that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate that PW-1 Dhirubhai Mahijibhai Parmar, Exh. 21 has clearly stated in his complaint that one complaint given by Ibrahimbhai Malek against Jayantibhai Budhalal to the Taluka Police Station, in which, prosecution was carried out by accused No. 1 being in-charge of the police station. He called Jayantibhai Budhabhai and demanded Rs.1,000/- bribe for releasing him on bail. The said deal eventually finalized for Rs.400/- and hence, he lodged the complaint before the PI, ACB and in the trap arranged by them, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 found to have received Rs.50/- each whereas, the accused No.