IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of proving the demand for illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The judgment also underscores the requirement for substantial and credible evidence, proper application of mind in sanction for prosecution, and the significance of witness credibility.

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 dated 28.07.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj in Special (ACB) Case No. 21 of 1994, whereby, the learned trial Court was pleased to give the benefit of doubt and acquit all the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). The respondents 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.

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:-

2.1. That the accused No. 1 was a Deputy Manager in the Account Section of District State Supply Corporation, the accused No. 2 was the Mamlatdar of the District Supply Office and the accused No. 3 was the Supervisor of the godown of the District Supply Office and were public servants. That the complainant Sanjaybhai Maheshbhai Vaishnav was working as the godown Manager of the Gujarat State Supply Corporation at Bhachau and on 30/08/1991, the accused No.1 visited the godown at Bhachau and on the next day i.e. 31/08/1991, the accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 visited the godown. That the complainant had informed them that an entry was required to be made and a note of T.P. was also to be made but as they were not reflected in the account, the accused No. 3 had said that a case was required to be registered. That the complainant had issued the certificate but the accused No. 3 demanded the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- and after bargaining, the complainant gave the accused No. 3 the amount of Rs.600/- and the accused No. 3 left the place. That, on 04/09/1991, the complainant met the accused No. 3 and mentioned about the entry regarding the T.P. dated 26/08/1991 but the accused No. 3 stated that he would have to ask the Superior Officer and called the complainant on the next day. That on 05/09/1991, the complainant went to the house of the accused No. 3 and the accused No.3 demanded the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- and told the complainant that he had spoken with his Superior Officer. The accused No. 3 also told the complainant to give the said amount to him or to the accused No. 2 or the accused No.1. That, the complainant was not willing to give the amount of illegal gratification and hence, the complainant went to the ACB Police Station at Bhuj and filed the complaint, which was registered as C.R.No. 9 of 1991 on 05/09/1991. That the Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and the experiment of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was carried out and the characteristic of the anthrancene powder and ultraviolet lamp were explained to the panch witness and the complainant and the trap was arranged. That on 05/09/1991, the complainant and the shadow witness met the accused No. 1 at 17:30 Hrs. in front of the G.K.General Hospital, Bhuj near the gate of Santuben Patel and the accused No.1 haddemanded and accepted the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.2500/- for himself and on behalf of the other accused and after the predetermined signal was given, the members of the raiding party rushed in and accused No. 1 was caught red handed with the tainted currency notes.

2.2. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and drew the necessary Panchnama and after the orders of sanction for prosecution were received from the competent authority, the charge sheet came to be filed against all the accused before the learned Sessions Court, Kuchchh @ Bhuj, which was registered as Special (ACB) Case No. 21 of 1994.

2.3. That all the accused were duly served with the summon from the learned trial Court and the accused appeared before the learned trial Court and after the due procedure of Section 20