IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt to establish the guilt of the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.11.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anand (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 36 of 2006 (Old Case No. 3 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’ at 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 a Talati-Cum-Mantri, Class-III, at Khadodhi Gram Panchayat, Taluka, Khambhat, District Anand and was a public servant. That Motibhai Chauhan, the father of the complainant Ganpatbhai Chauhan and Mohanbhai Chauhan, the uncle of the complainant Ganpatbhai Chauhan, had purchased a house from Gangaben, daughter of Bhaiba Aatabhai, resident of village Khadodhi, Taluka Khambhat, District Anand by a Registered Deed dated 17.01.1968 for a consideration amount of Rs.501/-. That the house had fallen down and Mohanbhai Chauhan, the uncle of the complainant Ganpatbhai Chauhan had filed necessary papers in the Gram Panchyat, Khadodhi for constructing the residence under the scheme of “Sardar Awas Yojna”. That it was found that the name of the father of the complainant was not entered in revenue the record. That the complainant had contacted the accused to get the name of his father mutated in the revenue record and at that time, the accused demanded an amount of Rs.1,500/- as illegal gratification and after bargaining, the amount was fixed at Rs.1000/-. That the complainant contacted the ACB Police Station, Nadiad and filed the FIR being I-C.R.No.10 of 2002 on 25.11.2002 under Sections 7, 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the P.C.Act against the accused. That the Trap Laying Officer Mr.A.R.Patel, Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, Nadiad called the panch witnesses and the entire procedure of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate was explained to the complainant and the panch witnesses and the trap was laid on 27.11.2002, wherein, in the presence of the panch witnesses, the accused demanded and accepted the tainted currency notes laced with phenolphthalein powder and after receiving the predetermined signal, the members of the Raiding Party came and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused. That after due investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the accused before the learned Sessions Court, Anand, which was registered as Special (ACB) Case No.36 of 2006 (Old Case No.3 of 2003).

2.2. That the accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and a charge was framed against the accused at Exh. 4 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.5. That the accused denied all the contents of the charge at Exh.4 and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. That the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses and produced 10 documentary evidence on record and after the closing pursis was filed by the learned APP at Exh.24, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the allegations made against him and submitted that in fact, the outstanding revenue of the property of the complainant was due and the outstanding revenue was collected from the complainant and no illegal gratification was ever demanded from the complainant by the accused. That the learned Trial court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 20.11.2006, has acquitted the accused from all the charges.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order p