IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established is that the demand for illegal gratification is a sine qua non for convicting an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove the demand beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

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 01.06.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Joint District and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 8, Sabarkantha @ Modasa (Sabalpur) (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 7 of 1997, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (D), (1, 2, 3) & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent 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 unarmed, First Grade Head Constable Buckle No. 336 in Malpur Police Station at Sabarkantha in 1997 and was a public servant. That Jamnaben, the cousin of the complainant Bhurabhai Punjabhai Damor residing at village Agariya, Tal: Malpur, District: Sabarkantha had filed a complaint against the complainant i.e. Bhurabhai Punjabhai Damor and his brother Hurabhai in Malpur Police Station and the accused had demanded for an amount of Rs. 700/- to release the complainant and his brother on bail and for not beating them and had accepted an amount of Rs. 700/- in the presence of witness witness Laxmanbhai. That the complainant Bhurabhai Punjabhai Damor and his brother had appeared before the Malpur Police Station with their sureties and at that time the accused had demanded Rs. 2,000/- out of which Rs. 200/- was accepted from the complainant and the complainant had stated that he would pay the remaining amount after 3 to 4 days. That the complainant could not pay the amount after 3 to 4 days as financial conditions was not good and the accused had continuously demanded for the remaining amount of Rs. 1100/-. That the complainant promised to pay the amount on 23.04.1997. That as the complainant did not want to give the amount of illegal gratification, he filed the complaint with the A.C.B. Police Station, Himmatnagar under Sections 7, 13(1) (D), (1, 2, 3) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was registered at C.R. No. 3 of 1997 on 22.04.1997.

2.2 That the trap laying officer called the panch witness and arranged the trap on 23.04.1997 and the shadow witness Laxmanbhai went to the Malpur Police Station where the accused demanded for an amount of illegal gratification. That the accused took the complainant, shadow witness and Laxmanbhai into the wireless room and accepted the amount of illegal gratification from the complainant and at that time the complainant gave predetermined signal and the member of the raiding party came and caught the accused red handed. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the connected witnesses and after the sanction was received, charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the Sessions Court, Sabarkantha, which was registered as Special ACB Case No. 7 of 1997.

2.3 That, the accused was duly summoned after the due procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was completed and a charge at Exh.19 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.20, wherein the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.4 The prosecution filed the following oral and documentary evidence in support of their case.

ORAL EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE