IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of innocence, comprehensive appreciation of evidence, and the legal requirements for proving demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

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 in Special Case No. 29 of 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) on 07.04.2004 (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) 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, 1988 (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 FIR No.I-C.R.No.11 of 1996 was filed by the complainant Chamanji Kalaji Thakor on 23.08.1996 before the ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) against the accused mainly stating that the accused was working as an unarmed police constable in Sector-7 Police Station in August, 1996 and 15 days prior to 23.08.1996, the accused had stopped the complainant when he was going on his scooter and checked his scooter but no liquor was found in the scooter and hence he took the complainant to Indroda Circle and demanded Rs.5000/- from him and threatened to file a false case against him, if did not give the amount of Rs.5,000/-. That the complainant bargained and an amount of Rs.2,500/- was fixed, out of which, on the same day, the complainant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,700/- from his friend and gave it to the accused and promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs.800/- on 23.08.1996. That the complainant filed the complaint with the ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) on 23.08.1996 and the panch witness were called and after the due procedure a trap was laid at Indroda Circle and at around 17.45 hours, the illegal gratification of Rs.800/- was demanded and accepted by the accused and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused. That the Investigating Officer investigated the offence and a charge sheet was filed before the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Gandhinagar which came to be was registered as Special Case No. 29 of 1997.

2.2. That the accused was summoned and after following the procedure of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.7 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.8 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 submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and the arguments of both the parties were heard and the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 07.04.2004, gave benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him from all the offences.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 07.04.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), the State has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the prosecution has proved the demand of illegal gratification, acceptance and recovery of the tainted currency notes of Rs.800/- from the accused and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to the evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution. That the learned Trial Court has relied upon minor omissions and contradictions, which do not go to the root of the case and has discarded the evidence of the complainant and the Investigating Officer only on the ground that the panch witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. That the learned Trial Court has erred in concluding that the complainant had hatch