IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue, and the credibility of witness testimony is crucial in establishing guilt.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 378(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 4th Fast Track Court, Banaskantha at Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special ACB Case No. 78 of 2004 on 16.05.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) 1, 2, 3 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as “the PC Act” for short).

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

2.1 That the accused no. 1 was the In-Charge Resident Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Palanpur and the accused no. 2 was a peon at the Civil Hospital, Palanpur and they both were public servants. That the complainant – Azizahmed Khan Firozkhan Sindhi – Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, Palanpur had received secret information that the government employees/officers were taking illegal gratification and had decided to arrange for a decoy trap at the Civil Hospital, Palanpur. That the Police Inspector - Azizahmed Khan Firozkhan Sindhi had received information that the Medical Officers at Civil Hospital at Palanpur were taking illegal gratification for issuing certificates and the same was verified and found to be correct and hence, Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav who was working in the Locust Regulation Officer was confidentially contacted and taken into confidence and he had agreed to cooperate in the matter. That on 16.03.2004, the trap was arranged and the panch witnesses were called to the ACB Office on 17.03.2004. That the decoy - Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav was told to go along with the shadow witness to the Civil Hospital and get his case registered at the window for issuance of cases and to contact the Medical Officer and demand for a medical certificate for rest of one month and if the demand for illegal gratification was made, to give the tainted currency notes and give the predetermined signal. That the decoy was given four currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- and two currency notes of Rs. 50/- each which were laced with phenolphthalein powder and the decoy - Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav and the panch witnesses were explained about the characteristics of the phenolphthalein powder and the solution of sodium carbonate. That the tainted currency notes were placed in the shirt pocket of the decoy - Kailashprasad Dukhanprasad Yadav and the decoy and the shadow witness went to the Civil Hospital and the other panch witnesses and the members of the raiding party followed them. That the accused no. 1 had demanded for the amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 250/- and the accused no. 2 had accepted the same and after the predetermined signal was given, the members of the raiding party rushed and caught the accused red handed. That the complaint was filed under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) 1, 2, 3 and 13 (2) of the PC Act at the ACB Police Station, Palanpur which was registered as I – C.R. No. 1/2004 on 17.03.2004. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses, drew the necessary panchnamas and after the order of sanction for prosecution was received from the Competent Authority, the charge-sheet against the accused was filed before the Sessions Court, Banaskantha at Palanpur which was registered as Special ACB Case No. 78/2004.

2.2 The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and after the procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was followed, a charge at Exh. 17 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused nos. 1 and 2 were recorded at Exh. 18 and Exh. 19 respectively, wherein, the accused have den