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

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. Both these criminal appeals are arise out of the same impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Valsad in Special Corruption Case No. (New) 52 of 2002 [Special Corruption Case No. (Old) 5 of 2001] on 29.03.2006 and hence, both these appeals are decided by this common judgment.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 890 of 2006 has been filed by the appellant-original accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and order of conviction in Special Corruption Case No. (New) 52 of 2002 [Special Corruption Case No. (Old) 5 of 2001] passed by the learned Special Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Valsad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) on 29.03.2006, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.C. Act’).

2.1. Criminal Appeal No. 1591 of 2006 has been filed by the State under Section 377 of the Code against the impugned judgment and order of conviction in Special Corruption Case No. (New) 52 of 2002 [Special Corruption Case No. (Old) 5 of 2001] passed by the learned Special Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Valsad for enhancement of the sentence of the respondent-original accused.

2.2. The appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 890 of 2006 and the respondent of Criminal Appeal No. 1591 of 2006 is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

3. The relevant facts leading to filing of both the appeals are as under:

3.1. That the accused Khandubhai Chhanabhai Patel was working as a Talati-cum-Mantri in the Valsad Kasba Talati Office, Taluka and District Valsad and was a public servant. That Ahmedji Mahammadhusen Sema, the father of the complainant Bashir Ahmedji Sema, had filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Valsad for cancellation of the mutation entry, whereby, the name of Shamshuddin Mahammadhusen Sanagara, the son-in-law of Ahmedji Mahammadhusen Sema was mutated in the revenue record and the appeal was allowed and the order to cancel the entry was passed. That the complainant had asked the accused for making the necessary entry on 22.11.2000 and at that time, the accused demanded an amount of Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification for making the entry and had told to pay the amount in the afternoon on 27.11.2000 in his office. That as the complainant Bashir Ahmadji Sema did not want to give the amount of illegal gratification, he went to the ACB Office at Valsad and filed a complaint under Sections 7, 13(2)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act, which was registered as C.R. No. 5 of 2001 on 27.11.2000. That the panch witnesses were called and the characteristic of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp were explained to the panch witnesses and the complainant and the demonstration was carried out and the trap was arranged. That the complainant and the shadow witnesses went to the office of the accused and at that time, the accused demanded the amount of Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification and accepted the same and after receiving the predetermined signal, the members of the raiding party rushed in and the accused was caught red handed. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the connected witnesses and drew the panchnama and after the order of sanction for prosecution was received, the charge sheet was filed before the learned Sessions Court, Valsad, which was registered as Special Corruption Case No. (Old) 5 of 2001 [Special Corruption Case No. (New) 52 of 2002].

3.2. The accused was 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.10 and the statement of the a