IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the need to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the requirement for direct or circumstantial evidence and the presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.11.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Tack Court No. 6, Gondal (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 3 of 2000, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

2.1. That the accused was working as a Talati-cum-Mantri (Class-III) in the Patidar Gram-Panchayat and was a public servant and at that time the complainant Rameshbhai Devajibhai Vekariya, who residing at Vaniyavad, Sheri No 1, Flat No. 10, Divya Apartment, Rajkot had purchased agricultural land situated in Kolithad village. The name of the complainant was required to be mutated in the revenue record and when the complainant went to meet the accused, the accused demanded an amount of illegal gratification of 1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification, he went to the ACB Police Station at Rajkot to file the complaint, which was registered as IC. R.No 8 of 1999 on 11/05/1999 under sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. That, the trap laying officer called the independent panch witnesses and explained the procedure of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp and conducted the experiment. That, the complainant gave 10 currency notes of Rs.100/- each which were laced with anthracene powder and given to the complainant to give to the accused, when he had demanded for the same and the shadow witness Dhirubhai Jivrajbhai Timbadiya was sent with the complainant and the trap was laid. That, after the accused demanded and accepted the tainted currency notes, the predetermined signal was given and the members of the raiding party rushed and the accused was caught and the tainted currency notes were recovered from his possession. That after due investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Sessions Court, Rajkot which was registered as Special ACB Case No. 3 of 2000.

2.2. That the accused was duly served with the summon and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and after following the procedure of Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, a charge was framed at Exh:42 against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at exhibit 43, wherein, the accused denied all the allegations made in the charge and the trial came to be conducted before the learned Trial Court. That the prosecution produced the oral evidence of six witnesses including the complainant, the panch witnesses and the police witnesses and also produced 22 documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the evidence of the prosecution was recorded, a closing pursis was filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor at Exh 92-A and the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 was recorded. The accused denied all the evidences against him pointed out in the evidence of the prosecution and he stated that the tax of the property of the complainant was pending and the same was demanded from the complainant but the complainant started a verbal altercation with the accused and thereafter an amount of 1100/- was given to the Rs.100/- and as the complainant did not want to pay accused as an amount of 1115.45 paisa was due as Tax. That the Rs.1000/- and as the complainant did not want to pay complainant has filed a false case and the amount that was taken from the complainant was towards the outstanding amount of pro