IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence must be cogent and reliable for a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.01.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 7, Surat, (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 43 of 1995, whereby, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offenses punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 1, 2, 3 & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

1.1 During the pendency of appeal, the appellant expired on 09.01.2011 and his legal heirs preferred an application for setting aside the order of abatement and permitting them to be brought on record and pursue the criminal appeal and the same has been allowed by way of an order dated 21.01.2018. The deceased-appellant is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as the 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 was working as an Unarmed Police Head Constable in the L.I.B. Office, Surat (Rural) and was a public servant and the complainant Shabbir Mohammed Limbada resident of Nani Naroli, Taluka: Mangrod, District: Surat had approached the accused as the Visa of one Mohammad Dawood Bhagat was to expire and the application for extension of the visa was given by the complainant Shabbir Mohammed Limbada. That the Visa of Mohammed Dawood Bhagat was to expire on 07.04.1995 and the complainant had met the accused on 24.04.1995 at 04:00 pm and at that time the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.500/-. That the complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification and hence he went to the ACB police Station, Surat and filed a complaint under Section 7, 13 (1)(d) 1,2,3 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which was registered at C.R.No. 4 of 1995 on 26.04.1995.

2.2 That the Investigating Officer called the independent panch witnesses and the entire experiment of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was carried out and explained to the panch witnesses and the complainant and the trap was laid. That on 26.04.1995, the complainant and the shadow witness went to the office of the accused where the accused demanded the amount of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification and accepted the same at 13:45 hours and the predetermined signal was given by the complainant and the member of the raiding party came and the accused was caught red handed with the tainted currency notes. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the connected witnesses, drew the necessary panchnama and filed the charge sheet before the Sessions Court, Surat, which was registered at Special (ACB) Case No. 43 of 1995.

2.3. That, the accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned trial Court and after the procedure of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the learned trial Court framed a charge at Exh. 6 against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.7, wherein the accused denied all the allegations made in the charge and the evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.4. The prosecution has filed the following oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case.

ORAL EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE