IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear evidence of demand and acceptance to establish the offence of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

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. 15 of 2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 6th Fast Track Court, Surat (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) on 19.04.2006, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 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 the conviction appeal are as under:

2.1. That the accused in the year 2001 was working as Talati-cum-Mantri in Takarma Gram Panchayat and was a public servant and the complainant Mahendrabhai Maganbhai Patel had property bearing Survey No. 292 in Takarma village. The complainant wanted the name of his wife Kanchanben and his son Bharatbhai to be mutated in the revenue record as joint owners and had submitted the partition deed as also the pedigree to the accused and had orally told the accused to get the names mutated but the accused did not get the names entered in the revenue record. That on 18.07.2001, the complainant gave a written application and at that time, the accused demanded an amount of Rs. 4,000/- as illegal gratification and after bargaining, the amount was fixed at Rs. 3,000/- The complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification to the accused and hence, he went to the ACB Police Station, Surat on 19.07.2001 and gave the complaint against the accused, which was registered at C.R. No. 9 of 2001 under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act. That the amount of illegal gratification was to be paid on 23.07.2001 and hence, the Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and the entire experiment of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp test was done and the trap was laid down and the complainant and the shadow witness went to the office of the accused on 23.01.2001. At that time, the accused gave a notice under Section 135(d)(2) of the Land Revenue Code and the statements of the wife and the son of the complainant to the complainant and told him to bring the signatures of his wife and son on the statements. That the accused did not demand for any amount and the trap was failed The accused called the complainant on 24.07.2001 with the documents and the complainant went to the ACB Police Station, where, his further complaint was recorded. On 24.07.2001, the complainant and the shadow witness once again went to Takarma Gram Panchayat at about 12.20 hours and at that time, the accused demanded the amount of Rs. 3,000/- as illegal gratification, which was given by the complainant and accepted by the accused and the complainant gave the pre-determined signal and the members of the raiding party rushed in and caught the accused red handed. The complaint under section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act was recorded and after due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the learned Sessions Court, Surat, which came to be registered as Special (ACB) Case No. 15 of 2001.

2.2. The accused was 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. The prosecution has produced the following oral as well as documentary evidence in support of the case.

ORAL EVIDENCE: