IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the necessity of proving ownership and demand in corruption cases, as well as the importance of witness credibility and corroborating evidence.

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 in Special Case No.10 of 1999 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Khambhaliya (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) on 15.06.2006, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.C.Act’). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ at he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. That the accused was working as an Unarmed Police Head Constable in Dwarka Police Station, District Jamnagar and was a public servant and the complainant Hadubha Varjangbhai, residing at village Vanchhu, Taluka Dwarka, District Jamnagar had purchased a Chhakdo Rickshaw bearing registration No.GJ-11-V-1146 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rickshaw’) on installments from ‘Chandan Finance Company’ at Keshod. That the said rickshaw was used for transportation of passengers and goods and the accused had demanded the amount of Rs.250/- as monthly installment from the complainant and had threatened to file a false case against the complainant, if he did not pay the monthly installment. That on 05.04.1999, the rickshaw of the complainant was detained and the complainant was threatened and the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.250/- was demanded to be paid by the evening between 5:00pm to 7:00pm. That the complainant did not want to give the amount of illegal gratification and hence, he filed a complaint on 06.04.1999 at the ACB Police Station, Jamnagar, which was registered as C.R.No. 4 of 1999 under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C.Act. That the panch witnesses were called by the Trap Laying Officer and use of the anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp were explained and the experiment was carried out in the presence of the panch witnesses and the complainant and the trap was arranged. That the complainant and the panch witnesses and the members of the raiding party went to the temple of Goddess ‘Khodiyar’ and reached there at about 17:15 hours and left for Dwarka Bhathan Chowk, but the accused was not present and hence, they went to Rupen Port. That they reached Rupen Port at about 18.55 hours and the accused demanded the amount of Rs.250/- of illegal gratification and the complainant gave the tainted currency notes to the accused who accepted the same and the complainant gave the pre-determined signal and the members of the raiding party came and the accused was caught red handed with the tainted currency notes of Rs.250/-. That the Investigating Officer investigated the offence and recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and after the order of sanction for prosecution was received, a charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Sessions Court, which was registered as Special Case No. 10 of 1999.

2.2. The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and after the due procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was completed, a charge was framed against the accused at Exh.3 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 4, wherein, the accused denied the allegations made in the charge and the evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. That after the learned APP filed closing pursis, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence of the prosecution and stated that he wanted to examine the witnesses on his behalf. The accused stated that the complainant was never the owner of the rickshaw and on the date of the trap, he was in the ‘bandobast’ duty as it