IMPORTANT POINT
The demand for illegal gratification is a prerequisite for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

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 06.06.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, (ACB), Mehsana (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 2 of 1999, whereby, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default one month simple imprisonment under Section 7 of the the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default six months simple imprisonment for Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant 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 was working as Talati-cum-Mantri of village Mahadevpura (Gavada), Taluka Vijapur and District: Mahesana and was a public servant. That the complainant intended to purchase agricultural lands from Swami Jaswantgiri Mangalgiri and Pravingiri Somgiri and the lands were of new tenure land and had to be converted to old tenure lands before purchasing the said lands. That Thakor Babuji Revaji of his village intended to purchase lands from Gandabhai Balchanddas Patel and the said land was also of new tenure land and had to be converted to old tenure land before purchase of the same. The complainant met the accused and had asked him for the revenue record and for conversion of the land and at that time, the accused had demanded the illegal gratification of the amount of Rs.1,000/- each for the land of the complainant and the land of Thakor Babuji Revaji and had also demanded Rs.500/- for part of the land of the brother of the complainant. That the amount was demanded as illegal gratification and as the complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification, the complainant approached to ACB office at Mehsana and filed the complaint, which was registered at C.R.No. 2 of 1998 for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 07.01.1998.

2.2] That the Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and after the experiment of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp was done and the procedure was explained to the panch witnesses and the complainant, a trap was arranged and the complainant gave one (01) currency note of the denomination of Rs.500/- and seventeen (17) currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each, on which, anthracene powder was smeared and the tainted currency notes were placed in the left side pant pocket of the complainant. That the complainant and the shadow witness went to the Taluka Panchayat Office but the accused was not there and they found the accused seated at the hotel and at that time, the accused demanded for the amount of illegal gratification and the complainant gave the tainted currency notes of Rs.2200/- to the accused and the accused had returned Rs.600/- to the complainant through another person, who was seated there. That the predetermined signal was given and the Trap Laying Officer and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused red-handed with the tainted currency notes of Rs.1,800/-. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and drew the necessary panchnama and after the order of sanction for prosecution was received, a charge- sheet was filed before the Sessions Court, Mehsana, which was registered as Special ACB Case No. 2 of 1999.

2.3] That the accused was duly served with the summon from the learned trial Court and the acc