IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of proving the demand for illegal gratification as a crucial element to establish the 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 in Special (ACB) Case No. 04 of 1998 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar camp at Khambhaliya on 18.03.2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.C. 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.

2. That the respondent No. 2 herein-original accused No. 2 has expired on 30.03.2019 and copy of death certificate has been produced on record and hence, the present appeal qua the respondent No. 2 stand abated and the present appeal survives qua the respondent No. 1 herein-original accused No. 1.

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

3.1. The accused No. 1 was working as unarmed Police Constable in Dwarka police station and accused No. 2 was working as unarmed police constable and was under suspension with headquarter of Jodiya Police Station, District Jamnagar. Both the accused were Class-III employees and were public servants in the year 1998. Mr. B.B. Jadeja, Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, Jamnagar has received information that both the accused were illegally collecting the amount ranging from Rs. 5/- to Rs. 20/- from the drivers after halting the trucks on the premise that the truck was overloaded or that the truck had passengers and hence, he filed a complaint and called two panch witnesses and after due procedure, the driver of the truck bearing No. GJ-11-U-8569 was arranged as a decoy punter on 09.01.1998 and the panch witnesses and the ACB police officer sat in the cabin of the truck. That when the truck reached Dwarka Bhathan toll point at 11:13 hours, both the accused halted the truck and demanded an amount of Rs. 10/- which was given by the driver punter Vejabhai Alabhai Rabari to the accused No. 1 and accused No. 1 accepted the said amount and the trap was successful. That the tainted currency note of Rs. 10/- was recovered from the possession of the accused No. 1 and the offence was registered at C.R. No. 1 of 1998 on 09.01.1998 under Sections 7, 12, 13 (1)(D) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act. After due investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Court, Jamnagar, which was registered as Special (ACB) Case No. 4 of 1998.

3.2. The accused were summoned and after following the procedure of Section 207 of the Code, a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.14 and the statements of both the accused were recorded at Exh.15 and 16 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. After a closing pursis was given by the learned APP, the further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded and the arguments of both the parties were heard and the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 18.03.2009 in Special (ACB) Case No. 04 of 1998, gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted them from all the offences.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the acquittal order, the appellant-State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and the evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has erred in concluding that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond the reasonable doubts. The prosecution has examined 5 witnesses and has produced 31 documentary evidence in support of the case and it is proved beyond reasonable doubts. That the accused Nos.1 and 2 were illegally demanding the amount ranging from R