IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as a fact in issue, and the presumption of innocence must be upheld. A thorough appreciation of evidence is required before reversing an order of acquittal.

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 (herein after referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.04.2010 passed by the learned 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Surat (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 24 of 2003, 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 P.C. 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 complainant Laxmanbhai Dungarbhai Vasava, resident of village Naren, Taluka Mandavi, District Surat wanted to enter the name of his son Bhimsing as a legal heir of Gomanbhai Dullabhbhai Prajapati, who had executed a registered Will in favour of the Bhimsingh, son of the complainant regarding property bearing Block No. 517 admeasuring 03 Hector - 56 Aare - 08 sq. mtrs. situated in village Naren, Taluka Mandavi, District Surat and Gomanbhai Dullabhbhai Prajapati expired on 12.01.2002. That the accused was working as a Talati-cum-Mantri in Naren Village Gram Panchayat and 2-3 days after the demise of Gomanbhai Dullabhbhai Prajapati, the complainant took the registered Will and met the accused to get the name of his son Bhimsing entered into the revenue record and at that time, the accused took the original Will and demanded an amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification. That the complainant was a poor person and could not afford the huge amount of Rs. 30,000/- and finally after bargaining, the accused demanded an amount of Rs. 7,000/- but as the complainant could not pay the same, he returned back home. That, thereafter, the complainant met the accused on number of occasions and on every occasion, the accused demanded the amount of Rs. 7,000/- and told him to give the amount of illegal gratification at his residence situated at Holi Faliya, Mandavi, where he was residing on the first floor. That the complainant went to the residence of the accused and once again, the accused told the complainant to pay Rs. 7,000/- but when the complainant told him that he is not able to afford such a huge amount, at that time, the accused told him to pay Rs.3,000/- on 20.08.2002 at about 3.00 pm and to pay the remaining amount after the work was done. That as the complainant did not want to pay the amount, he filed a complaint at ACB Police Station, Surat under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act, which was registered as I-C.R. No. 8 of 2002 on 20.08.2002. That the panch witness were called and after the necessary procedure, the trap was laid on 20.08.2002 at about 3.15 pm and in the presence of the witness, the accused demanded for the amount of illegal gratification, which was paid by the complainant and accepted and recovered by the Trap Laying Officer and the other members of the Raiding Party. That after due investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the learned Sessions Court, Surat and the case was registered as Special (ACB) Case No. 24 of 2003.

2.2. That the accused was summoned and after following the procedure of Section 207 of the Code, a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.5 and the statement of the respondent - accused was recorded at Exh.6, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. That after the closing pursis was given by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded and the arguments of both the parties were heard and the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 21.04.2010 in Special (ACB) Ca