IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and any delay in arrest or infirmities in the evidence can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. Both these criminal appeals are arising out of the same impugned judgment and order in Sessions Case (ACB) No. 8 of 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Fast Track Court, Rajkot on 15.06.2005 and therefore, both these appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 1351 of 2005 has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order of conviction in Sessions Case (ACB) No. 8 of 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Fast Track Court, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) on 15.06.2005, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) 1, 2, 3 read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.C. Act’). The appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1351 of 2005 and the respondent of Criminal Appeal No. 2506 of 2005 is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused No. 1’ as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

3. Criminal Appeal No. 2506 of 2005 has been filed by the Appellant-State under Section 377 of the Code against the impugned judgment and order of conviction in Sessions Case (ACB) No. 8 of 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Fast Track Court, Rajkot for enhancement of the sentence of the respondent-the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1351 of 2005.

4. Criminal Appeal No. 2507 of 2005 has been filed by the appellant-State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal in Sessions Case (ACB) No. 8 of 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Fast Track Court, Rajkot, wherein, the accused No. 2 was acquitted. During pendency of the appeal, the accused No. 2 has expired and by order dated 12.06.2023, the appeal qua accused No. 2 has been disposed of as abated.

5. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeals are as under:

5.1. That the accused No. 1 was working as an Additional Public Prosecution in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajkot and the accused No. 2 was working as a police constable in the police department, Rajkot and were the public servants. That truck bearing registration No. GTX 8496 was in the ownership of the complainant Viraf Nadarshah was seized by the Rajkot Taluka Police Station for the offences under the Prohibition Act in connection with C.R. No. 102 of 1993 and the complainant Viraf Nadarshah made an application for releasing the truck before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajkot. The accused No. 1, who was the Additional Public Prosecutor, had demanded an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as illegal gratification to give a positive opinion for releasing the muddamal truck and as the complainant did not want to give the amount of illegal gratification, he went to the ACB Police Station at Ahmedabad and filed the complaint under Sections, 7, 13(1)(d) 1, 2, 3 and 13(2) of the P.C. Act on 16.12.1993 at around 14.30 hours. That on the day of the trap, the accused No. 1 had demanded the amount of illegal gratification outside the court compound near Seva Transport Company and made a sign that the amount of illegal gratification be given to the accused No. 2, who accepted the amount of illegal gratification and the same was recovered from the custody of the accused No. 2. Both the accused were caught red handed by the members of the raiding party after the complainant had given the predetermined signal and after due investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Sessions Court, Rajkot, which was registered as Sessions Case (ACB) No. 8 of 1995.

5.2. The accused were duly summoned and after following the procedure of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a charge was framed by the learne