The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient for conviction.

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 20.02.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 7, Rajkot (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 6 of 1994, whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent 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 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 a Talati-cum-Mantri of Raiya Gram Panchayat in the year 1994 and was a public servant. That the complainant Hussainbhai Sultanbhai Saiyad was residing at Nooranipara Mafatiyapara, Rajkot and was a tenant of Qismat Cement Centre and his father was doing the business in that shop. That the shop needed some repairing and he had filed an application for loan in Lakshmi Sahkari Sarafi Mandali and the certificate of Talati-cum-Mantri of the Raiya Gram Panchayat was required. That he had met the Talati-cum-Mantri of Raiya Grama Panchayat for the certificate and at that time, the accused had demanded for an amount of Rs. 100/- as illegal gratification for the certificate, and the accused had told him that he would come to the shop in the evening between 4 and 5 PM and at that time, to give the amount of Rs. 75/- as illegal gratification. That the complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification. Hence the complainant went to the ACB office at Rajkot and filed the complaint under sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act, which was registered at C.R. No. 4 of 1994 on 8/3/1994. That the Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and the characteristic of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp were explained to the panch witness and the complainant and the experiment was carried out and the complainant had given the currency note, which were one currency note of the denomination of Rs. 50/- two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10/- each and one currency note of the denomination of Rs. 5/- and anthracene powder was applied on the currency notes and given to the complainant and the trap was arranged. That on 8/3/1994 at 16:25 hours, the accused came to Qismat Cement Center situated at Brahma Samaj Society at Rajkot and demanded for the amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 75/- and accepted the same, and after the pre-determined signal was given, the accused was caught red handed.

2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and drew the necessary Panchnama and after the order of sanction for prosecution was received from the competent authority, the charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Session Court, which was registered as Special ACB Case No. 6 of 1994.

2.3 That the accused was 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 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was followed, a charge at Exh.6 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.7. The accused denied all contents of the charge and the evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.4 The prosecution has examined 5 witnesses and has produced 14 documentary evidence in support of their case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh.48, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded and after the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused was heard, the learned Special Judge & Presiding