IMPORTANT POINT
The demand and recovery of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Both these criminal appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned Special Judge and Sessions Judge, Amreli in Special Case No. 6 of 2000 on 29.11.2003 and therefore, both these appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Both the Criminal Appeals have been filed by the appellants – original accused under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and order of conviction in Special Case No.6 of 2000 passed by the learned Special Judge and Sessions Judge, Amreli (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) on 29.11.2003, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.C.Act’). The appellants are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ in the rank and file as they stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

3. The relevant facts leading to filing the present conviction appeals are as under:

3.1. That the accused No.1 Yunushbhai Habibbhai Taili was a Class-III officer in the office of the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Bahumali Bhavan, Amreli and was a public servant. The accused No.2 Munno @ Maheshbhai Maganbhai Tank was a private person and a friend of the accused No.1. That complainant Jagubhai Merambhai Boricha had purchased a house in the name of his wife Ramjuben Jagubhai Boricha and the sale deed was executed and was sent for stamp valuation to the accused No.1 and a notice under Section 32(a)(1) of the Mumbai Stamp Act was given to the wife of the complainant. That the complainant had met the accused No.1 and had given the reply of the notice but the accused No.1 had demanded an amount of Rs.1000/- as illegal gratification and as the complainant did not want to give the amount of illegal gratification, the complainant went to the ACB Police Station, Amreli and filed the complaint under Section 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C.Act, which was registered as C.R.No.6 of 1999 on 19.12.1999. That the panch witnesses were called and the characteristic of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp was explained and the demonstration was carried out in the presence of the panch witnesses and the complainant and the trap was arranged on 18.02.1999. That the complainant and the panch witness went to the office of Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Bahumali Bhavan, Amreli and the accused No.1 demanded an amount of Rs.1000/- as illegal gratification, which was accepted by the accused No.2 and the accused No.2 took scooter bearing registration No.GJ-14–A-6534 and fled away on the scooter. That both the accused in connivance with each other had committed the offence and the accused No.1 was arrested on the same day and the accused No.2 was arrested on the next day. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and drew the necessary panchnama and after receiving the order of sanction for prosecution, a charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Sessions Court, Amreli, which was registered as Special Case No.6 of 2000.

3.2. The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and after due procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was followed, a charge was framed against the accused at Exh.5 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 6 and 7 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the oral as well as the documentary evidence of the prosecution were taken on record. That the closing pursis was filed by the learned APP at Exh.31, further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code were recorded, wherein, the accused No.1 has stated that a false case has been filed against him and he did not want to examine any