IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the fundamental legal principle that the prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and that suspicion alone cannot lead to a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

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 15.06.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Porbandar (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 3 of 1999, whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). That, in all, the appeal was filed against four Armed Police Constable and during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent No. 1 – original accused No. 1 Osman Alibhai Hathaliya, Armed Police Constable, Porbandar expired and hence the appeal qua Respondent No. 1 was abated by an order dated 14/10/2008 of this Court. The respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ in the rank and file as they stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

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

2.1 That all the accused were working as Armed Police Constables in the Police Station at Porbandar and Mr. Rustambhai Amirbhai Belim, Police Inspector, ACB (field), Rajkot had received information that the accused were halting vehicles in the Porbandar city area and threatening the drivers and demanding for illegal gratification of the amount ranging from Rs.20/- to Rs.50/-. That the complainant arranged for a decoy trap on 17/11/1998 and called the independent panch witnesses and explained to them about the decoy trap and thereafter went with the panch witnesses from Rajkot to Porbandar via Gondal, Jetpur and Virpur. That on the Porbandar- Mangrol Road, Truck No.GTY-8911 was halted and the driver Hemanhai Nagabhai was halted and the arrangement for the decoy trap was explained to him and he agreed to cooperate in the decoy trap. That five currency notes of the denomination of Rs.10/- were taken and the characteristic of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp were explained to the panch witnesses and the complainant and the five currency notes of the denomination of Rs.10/- were laced with anthracene powder and placed in the shirt pocket of the panter driver- Hemabhai Nagabhai. That the panter driver, panch witness No. 1 and the members of the raiding party sat in the truck and the panch witness No. 2, and Police Inspector, Mr. Belim followed them in their government jeep. That while the truck was going from Birla towards Khambhi of Veer Hanubhai, two constables in uniform halted the truck. That the truck driver and the panch witness No. 1 got down from the truck and when they went to the two constables, they told them to meet their superior officer who was sitting in the government vehicle and they went to the government vehicle, and at that time, the driver was asked what was filled in the truck, to which, the driver replied “cement”. That the officer asked him how much weight was filled and he replied 15 tonnes and the officer told him to give an amount of Rs.100/- as entry fee. That the decoy panter bargained and the amount was settled at Rs.50/- and the panter driver took the tainted currency notes and gave it to the officer. That the predetermined signal was given and the members of raiding party rushed and caught the accused red handed. That the necessary panchnama was drawn and the complaint was filed at the ACB Police Station Junagadh, which was registered at I- C.R.No. 8 of 1998 on 18/11/1998 under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act. The Investigating Officer took over the investigation and after the orders of sanction for prosecution were received, a chargesheet came to be filed before the learned Sessions Court, Junagadh, which was registered as special ACB Case No. 03 of 1999.

2.2 That all the accused were duly served with the summons from the learned trial Court and all the accused appeared before the learned trial