The proof of demand of illegal gratification is essential for establishing the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and in case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favor of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“The Code” for short) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.11.2006, recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court, Junagadh in Special Case No.4 of 1997, wherein, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent – accused from the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Brief facts leading to the prosecution case is that, both respondents no.1 and no.2 herein, at the relevant time were posted at ‘octroi naka’ Junaghadh. On 16.07.1996, respondent no.1 intercepted ‘chakado rikshow’ driven by Rajeshbhai Pragjibhai and asked for the bill for the soda bottles, he was carrying in rickshow. As the driver of ‘rickshow’ was not having the bill, respondent no.1 ask Rs.200/- as deposit. It was case of the prosecution that in response thereto driver of rickshow told respondent no.1 that he had only Rs.100/- and thereafter the amount of Rs.100 was taken by respondentno.1 and given to respondent no.2. Despite acceptance of Rs. 100/- as deposit, no receipt was given either by respondent.no.1 or respondent no.2. Therefore, based on the information received, a complaint came to be filed against respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 by Mr. J.R.Vala, police inspector ACB, police station for accepting illegal gratification. The trap was arranged by Mr. Vala, P.I., where respondent no. 1 and 2 were caught by taking Rs.100/- without giving any receipt. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. Pursuant to the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Special Judge, where the case was registered as Special Case No.4 of 1997, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. The trial was initiated against the respondents.

3. To prove the case against the present respondents, the prosecution has examined in all six witnesses and also produced several documentary evidences.

4. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of respondents under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and after hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge acquitted respondents of all the charges levelled against him by the impugned judgment and order.

5. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by learned trial Court, the appellant- State has preferred the present appeal.

6. Heard Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP for the appellant – State and Mr.Monal Chaglani, learned advocate for the respondents – accused.

7. Appearing for the State, learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri submitted that learned trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence on record. Referring to deposition of PW-2 at Exh-20 – Narmadashankar Manishankar Joshi (independent panch witness), she submitted that as arranged in the trap, the tainted currency notes were lying on the table of respondents and therefore, trial Court ought to have considered the said evidence, which is sufficient to establish the demand raised by the respondents. Learned APP further contended that the learned trial Court had erred in not properly appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution looking to the provisions of the Act which establishes that the prosecution had proved all the ingredients of alleged charges against the present respondents. By taking this Court to various oral and documentary evidence, learned APP further contended that the learned trial Court’s order of acquittal is based on inference not warranted by facts of the present case and it is based on the presumption, which is not permitted by law. She further contended that learned trial Court had not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidences and committed an error in acquitting respondents from alleged offence, which