IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be established for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

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 31.03.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Valsad (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 1 of 2002, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as they stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

1.1 During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent No. 2 expired and hence the appeal qua the respondent No. 2 was abated by an order dated 10.10.2022.

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

2.1 That in the year 1987, the accused No. 1 Raghubhai Sayajibhai Nayak was working as the District Manager, at Valsad and the accused No. 2 was working as the Assistant Manager in the Gujarat Tribunal Development Corporation at Valsad. That at that time, Vinodbhai, the son of the complainant Zinabhai @ Jayantibhai Shivjibhai Patel had applied for a loan for purchase of welding works equipment and an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was sanctioned on 21.07.1987. That a subsidy of Rs. 3,000/- was available on the loan amount and the necessary documents were sent to the office of the accused from UCO Bank, Valsad. That the accused No. 2 had issued the certificate on 16.11.1992 for the subsidy and the accused No. 1 had signed the said certificate. However, the said certificate was not issued and was kept in custody of the accused for two months. That both the accused in connivance with each other, demanded an amount of Rs. 200/- and Rs. 100/- for as illegal gratification for issuance of the said certificate and had stated that they would process the documents only after the amount was paid. That the complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification and hence approached the ACB Police Station, Valsad and a complaint at C.R. No. 1 of 1988 was registered on 04.01.1988 under Sections 161, 165A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 5(1)(d) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. That the trap laying Officer called the panch witnesses and after explaining and doing the experiment of anthracene power and ultraviolet lamp, the trap was laid on 04.01.1988 and between 14:10 and 14:15 hrs, the accused No. 1 in the presence of the shadow witness had demanded and accepted the amount of Rs. 200/- and the accused No. 2 had demanded and accepted the amount of Rs. 100/- and the trap was successful. That the tainted currency notes were recovered from the custody of both the accused and after due investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the Sessions Court at Valsad, which was registered as Special Case (ACB) No. 1 of 2002.

2.2 That the accused were duly summoned after the due procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and a charge at Exh.2A was framed against the accused and the statements of both the accused were recorded at Exh.3 and Exh.4 respectively, wherein both the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution has examined three witnesses and has produced 25 documentary evidences on record and after the closing pursis was filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor at Exh.45, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was recorded, wherein, both the accused have stated that they are innocent and they have not demanded and accepted any illegal gratification from the complainant. That the learned trial Court on appreciating the evidence of the prosecution found that the demand and acceptance was not proved by the prosecution and by a judgment and order dated 31.03.2