The need for substantial and compelling reasons to interfere with the trial court's findings in cases of acquittal, and the requirement of proving demand of illegal gratification and its acceptance for establishing the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal 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 18.10.2006, recorded by learned Special Judge, Vadodara in Special (A.C.B.) Case No.04 of 2004, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent – accused from the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Brief facts, leading to the present appeal, are as under: The complainant – Laxshmanbhai Tersingbhai Tathva, was resident of Village: Gambhirpura, Nava Faliya, Jetpur Pavi, Chhota Udepur, Vadodara. The complainant was having ancestral land of 12 Acres, which he was cultivating and his name was also registered in the revenue record. It was case of the prosecution that one Budhiyabhai-uncle of the complainant, had lodged a complaint against the complainant and his family in Jetpurpavi Police Station to get his share in subject land. It was case of the prosecution that respondent-accused wanted to put the complainant in the jail but one Bhimsinh Rathva interfered and pursuant to his intervention, respondent-accused, agreed not to take him in the jail but he demanded Rs.200/- for petrol of his bike. On the next day, when the complainant, his mother and his brother went to Jetpurpavi Police Station, respondent-accused threatened complainant to put them in jail and for not doing so, he demanded Rs.2,000/- as illegal gratification. At that time, the complainant paid Rs.1,000/- to the respondent-accused and balance amount of Rs.1,000/-, was agreed, to be paid next day. It was further case of the prosecution that as the complainant failed to make payment on 16.12.2003, respondent-accused went to the complainant's house and informed to reach at police station with money. Therefore, on 18.12.2003, the complainant approached ACB, Vadodara and filed complaint against the respondent-accused. Pursuant to the said complaint, a trap was arranged by the ACB, Vadodara and during course of trap, respondent-accused was caught with illegal gratification. Therefore, offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act, registered against the respondent-accused.

Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During course of investigation, the respondent- accused was arrested and thereafter released on bail. Ultimately, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Special Judge, where the case was registered as Special (ACB) Case No.4 of 2004. The trial was initiated against the respondent-accused.

3. To prove the case against the present respondent - accused, the prosecution has examined in all five witnesses and also produced several documentary evidences.

4. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent 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 Ms.Dhruti Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent – accused.

7. Appearing for the State, learned APP Ms. Jhaveri submitted that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and learned trial Court ought to have considered the deposition of shadow witnesses, who are independent panch witnesses sufficient to establish the demand. It is contended by learned APP that the learned trial Court has erred in not properly appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution looking to the provisions of the Act which establishes that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of alleged charges against the pr