IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, and the reluctance to interfere with acquittal unless there are substantial and compelling reasons.

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 24.07.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kachchh-Bhuj (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 11 of 2001, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 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 in the year 2000, the accused was working as a Deputy Engineer (Class-I) in Gujarat Electricity Board (for short G.E.B.) Sub Division, Madhapar Madhye, Taluka: Bhuj, District Kachchh and was a public servant and at that time, the electricity connection of Shree Krishna Marbles Works, which belonged to Karshan Hirji Bhudiya was disconnected for theft of electricity and a bill of Rs. 2,37,641/- was given to Shree Krishna Marbles Works. That Karshan Hirji Bhudiya was a friend of the complainant Balram Jayantilal Varu (Mistry) and both of them went to meet the accused who told them to pay 30% of the amount of bill i.e. Rs. 71,000/- and on payment of 30% of the bill amount, the re-connection would be done. That at that the time the accused demanded for an illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/- and after bargaining, an amount of Rs. 7,000/- was decided which was to be paid on 29.06.2000 at around 09:00-09:30 AM at the G.E.B. office in Madhapar. That the complainant and Karshanbhai Hirjibhai Bhudiya did not want to pay the amount and hence they went to ACB Police Station, Bhuj-Kachchh on 29.06.2000 and First Information Report being I-C.R. No. 5 of 2000 was registered under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. That, the trap laying officer called the panch witnesses and after explaining the entire procedure of Anthracene Powder and the Ultraviolet Lamp, a trap was laid and in the presence of the panch witnesses, the accused demanded for the said amount, accepted the same and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused on 29.06.2000 at 13:25 hours. That the Investigating Officer investigated the offence and the charge sheet was filed before the Sessions Court, Bhuj-Kachchh, which came to be registered as a Special Case (ACB) No. 11 of 2001.

2.2 That the accused was duly summoned and after following the procedure of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a charge was framed against the accused at Exh.5 C and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.6/C wherein the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

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

ORAL EVIDENCE

PANCH WITNESS

POLICE WITNESS

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES