IMPORTANT POINT
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and without clear, cogent, and reliable evidence of demand, no conviction can be recorded.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-original accused under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and order of conviction in Special (ACB) Case No. 3 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court Judge, Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) on 06.09.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as ‘the P.C. 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 relevant facts leading to filing of the present conviction appeal are as under:

2.1. That the accused was working as a Junior Supervisor in the office of Standard Weights and Measurement Department, Keshod and the complainant Amit Rameshbhai Joshi had a license for repairing scales of customers. On 01.08.2001, the complainant Amit Rameshbhai Joshi had given six scales for verification, certification and stamping to the accused, and the accused calculated the charges, which came to Rs. 342/-. That the accused demanded 80% amount of the bills as illegal gratification, which came to Rs. 278/- and in all, the accused told the complainant to pay an amount of Rs. 620/- That the accused also told the complainant to give the amount on the next day and as the complainant did not want to give the amount of illegal gratification to the accused, he went to the ACB Police Station, Junagadh on 02.08.2001 and filed a complaint, which was registered as C.R. No. 17 of 2001 under Sections, 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act. The Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and after a detailed explanation about the use of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp to the complainant and the panch witnesses, the experiment was done and the trap was laid and the complainant and the shadow witness went to the office of the accused on 02.08.2001 at around 14.40 hours. That the accused demanded and accepted the amount of illegal gratification and the complainant gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party rushed in and caught the accused red handed. The Investigating Officer investigated the offence and after drawing the necessary panchnama and recording the statements of the panch witnesses, a charge sheet was filed before the learned Sessions Court, Junagadh, which came to be registered as Special (ACB) Case No. 03 of 2002.

2.2. The accused was duly summoned and after following the procedure of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.7 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.8, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.76, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused were heard and the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.2007, convicted the accused and sentenced the accused to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, imprisonment of three months for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed in Special (ACB) Case No. 3 of 2002 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court Judge, Junagadh on 06.09.2007, the appellant has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the impugned judgment and order is illegal, improper and unjust and without considering the material on record. That the learned Trial Court has not