IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance as crucial elements for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the requirement of valid sanction for prosecution is essential. Lack of evidence to establish these elements beyond reasonable doubt can lead to the quashing of conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Surendranagar at Limbdi, (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special ACB Case No. 1 of 2006 on 05.05.2009, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act”).

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 an Orthopedic Surgeon, Class-I in the R.R. General Hospital, Limbdi at Surendranagar District and the complainant – Bharatbhai Shivubhai Dodiya wanted a disability certificate and he had met the accused for the disability certificate and the accused demanded an amount of Rs. 1300/- as illegal gratification. That the complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification and went to the ACB Police Station at Rajkot and filed the complaint under Sections 7, 13(1)(2) and 13(2) of the PC Act which was registered as C.R. No. 1/2005 on 10.03.2005. That the Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and the characteristics of phenolphthalein powder and solution of sodium carbonate was explained and the experiment was carried out in the presence of the panch witnesses and the complainant and the trap was arranged. That on 10.03.2005 at 18.35 hours, the accused demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs. 1300/- in the presence of the shadow witness and after the predetermined signal was given, the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused red handed. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and drew the necessary panchnamas and after the order of sanction for prosecution was received, the charge-sheet was filed before the Sessions Court, Surendranagar which was registered as Special Case No. 1/2004.

2.2. That 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was followed, a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh. 6 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 7. The accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.3 The prosecution produced the following oral evidence to bring home the charge against the accused.

2.4 The prosecution also produced the following documentary evidence to bring home the charge against the accused.