The demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and consistent and credible evidence is essential to establish the demand.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 19.07.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 4, Nadiad in Session Case No. 10 of 2004. By the aforesaid judgment and order, the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the charges for offense under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(1)(2)(3) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. The offense was registered being C.R. No. 13 of 2003 with Nadiad ACB Police Station on 18.10.2003 with an allegation that the respondent who was discharging his duty as a Jailer in the District Jail, Nadiad being a public servant had demanded a bribe for release of the relatives of the complainant, who were detained in PASA and ordered by this Court to be released. In this connection, charge-sheet was filed on 09.04.2004.

3. It is the case of the State that sufficient evidence was established on record to meet with the ingredients of sections for which the respondent was charged, still the Special Court has committed an error in acquitting the respondent-accused.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Special Court has not taken into consideration the evidence of member of the raiding party, who had deposed that when he was present alongwith the raiding party, he had witnessed a conversation between the complainant and the respondent before handing over the tainted currency notes.

5. It is submitted that the Court has not taken into consideration the evidence of PW-2 Jaswantbhai Mafabhai Chunara who has deposed that the recovery of tainted notes was made from the respondent-accused and therefore, the recovery was also established though this witness as well as the Panchnama.

5.1 It is submitted that once the panchnama is established, the panchanama thus recorded each and every step during the course of running panchnama and it also demonstrate how the tainted notes were produced with the Investigating Agency were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and in the exact manner in which the complainant was explained to behave in front of the accused. This witness has deposed that the complainant had conducted himself in exactly the same manner and thereafter, when the notes were recovered from the accused, the same matched with the currency notes, which were mentioned in the panchnama and the traces of phenolphthalein powder were also found and therefore, the trap was successful in all aspects and there was no scope of holding otherwise.

5.2 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Special Court has not appreciated the evidence of PW-4 complainant in a correct perspective, as this witness has clearly deposed about the demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000/- from him for the purpose of facilitating the release of his cousin brother after the order of the High Court. It is submitted that evidences of this witnesses aforementioned are sufficient to establish the offense against the respondent. Not only that the panchnama as well as the FSL reports corroborates and supports the case of the prosecution against the respondent, which has not been taken into consideration.

6. As against this, learned advocate Mr. Y.M. Thakkar appearing for the respondent-accused submitted that the judgment and order is a well reasoned order and in correct appreciation of the evidence which has come on record. It is submitted that the entire trap as well as the investigation is under the cloud on suspicion only on the ground that by the time, the offense was reported and FIR was filed even before that on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution itself, the panch witnesses were summoned and were explained about the raid. This conduct of the Investigating Officer is indicative of predetermined mind to target the respondent-accused. It is submitted that the prosecution has filed to establish that there was a illegal demand, as even according t