IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

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 15.10.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Amreli (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 16 of 1998, whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (gh) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (herein after referred to as ‘the 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 of village Mota Ankadiya, District: Amreli and the complainant viz. Jitendra Lalbhai Patel had property bearing survey No. 137/1 and 137/2 situated in village Mota Ankadiya and the property was in the joint names of Shantaben-mother of the complainant and her brother Savjibhai Bhagvanbhai Kubhani. That the complainant wanted copies of mutation entries of the revenue record and he had gone to meet the accused and asked for the copies of the village Form No. 7 and 12 and village Form No. 8-A of the said property and at that time, the accused had demanded an amount of illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/-. That the complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification to the accused and hence, the complainant went to ACB Police Station, Amreli and filed the complaint under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the same was registered at C.R.No. 4 of 1997 on 05.09.1997.

2.2 That the trap laying Officer called the panch witnesses and after explaining to the complainant and the panch witnesses the procedure of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp conducted the necessary experiment and thereafter a trap was laid and the complainant along with the panch witness went to the office of the accused where the accused demanded the amount of Rs.800/- and accepted the tainted currency notes of Rs.800/- and after predetermined signal was given the members of the raiding party rushed in and the accused was caught red-handed with the tainted currency notes. That, after due investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed before the learned Sessions Court, Amreli, which was registered as Special Case (ACB) No. 16 of 1998.

2.3 That the accused was duly served with the summons from the learned trial Court and the accused appeared before the learned trial Court and after the due procedure of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was followed, a charge at Exh: 6 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh: 7. The accused denied all contents of the charge and the evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.4 The prosecution has filed five oral evidences and 6 documentary evidence in support of their case respectively, which are as under:

ORAL EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES

2.5 After the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh; 47, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded and after the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor