IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 378(1)(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special ACB Case No. 32 of 1997 on 22.11.2004, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) (1-2-3) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act” for short).

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 Motor Vehicles Inspector at the RTO Check Post at Deesa in Banaskantha District and on 26.06.1996, the accused demanded an amount of Rs. 1000/- as illegal gratification from Kuldeepsinh Gulabsinh – the driver of truck bearing registration no. HR-45-1932 for overload entry fee and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs. 1000/- and an offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) (1-2-3) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as “the PC Act” for short) was registered by the complainant Police Sub-Inspector Mr. S.K. Parmar, ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural and Gandhinagar at the ACB Police Station, District Banaskantha at Palanpur which was registered as C.R. No. 5/1996 on 26.06.1996. That the offence was investigated by the Investigating Officer and after the panchnama was drawn and the statements of the connected witnesses were recorded, the charge-sheet came to be filed before the Sessions Court, Banaskantha which was registered as Special Case No. 32/1997.

2.2 The accused was duly served with the summons and after the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, the procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was duly followed and a charge at Exh. 10 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 11, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.3 The prosecution has produced the following oral evidences in support of their case.

2.4 The prosecution has produced the following documentary evidences in support of their case.

2.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and after the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by a judgement and order dated 22.11.2004 was pleased to acquit the accused from all the offences.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfie