The court highlighted that mere acceptance of a bribe does not constitute an offense without proof of a prior demand for illegal gratification, reaffirming the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, Kutch at Bhuj, (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Case No. 47 of 1992 on 18.08.2005, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act”).

1.1 During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant-Kanji Keshavji Harijan (Dafda) expired on 23.02.2018 and hence, the legal heirs had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 7341/2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 1770/2005 to be joined as legal heirs and pursue the appeal and by an order dated 11.04.2018, the legal heirs were permitted to be joined in the appeal.

1.2 The deceased appellant 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-Kanji Keshavji Harijan (Dafda) was the Talati Cum Mantri of Maska Village, Taluka Mandvi, District Kutch and was a public servant. That the complainant Umiyashankar Shyamji Mota was a resident of village Bagh, Taluka Mandvi, District Kutch and his uncle Pragjibhai Kalyanbhai was the owner of an agricultural land bearing Survey No. 108, Khata No. 145 and the land was to be transferred to the name of the mother of the complainant. That the application for mutating the name of the mother of the complainant was given and the complainant met the accused and the accused had demanded for an amount of Rs. 100/- as illegal gratification to mutate the name of the mother of the complainant in the revenue record and give the Khatavahi. That the complainant did not want to give the amount of illegal gratification and hence, the complainant went to the ACB Police Station, Bhuj, District Kutch and filed the complaint under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act which was registered at C.R. No. 6/1991 on 31.07.1991. That the Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and the experiment of anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp was carried out and explained to the panch witnesses and the complainant, and the trap was arranged. That on 31.07.1991 at 11.50 hours, the accused demanded for the amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- in the Panchayat Office, accepted the same and after the predetermined signal was given, the accused was caught red handed. The Investigating Officer, recorded the statements of the connected witnesses, drew the necessary panchnamas and after the order of sanction for prosecution was received, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the Sessions Court, Kutch at Bhuj which was registered as Special Case No. 47/1992.

2.2. That the accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and after the procedure under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.5 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.6. The accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.3 The prosecution produced the following oral evidence to bring home the charge against the accused: