IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of innocence, comprehensive appreciation of evidence, and the requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential principles in cases 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 against the judgment and order of acquittal in Special (ACB) Case No.18 of 1997 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar on 28.11.2006 (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 10, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as ‘the P.C.Act’). The respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as they stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. That the respondent No.3 herein – original accused No.3 has expired on 26.09.2009 and thereafter, the respondent No.2 herein – original accused No.2 has expired on 26.05.2013 and copies of death certificates have been produced on record and hence, the present appeal qua the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 stand abated and the present appeal survives qua the respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 6 herein – original accused Nos.1 and 4 to 6.

3. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

3.1. That the accused Nos. 1 to 5 were working in Bhavnagar Mahanagarpalika and were public servants, whereas, the accused No.6 was Armed Police Officer was on duty and also a public servant. That the complainant had illegally placed an electric motor for drawing water at his house and an amount of Rs.500/- was demanded by the accused as an illegal gratification for not taking any legal action for the illegal electric motor. That on 18.04.1997, all the accused went to meet the complainant and demanded the amount of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification and hence the complainant to the ACB Police Station, Bhavnagar and filed the complaint which was registered as I-C.R.No.10 of 1997 registered with A.C.B. Police Station under Sections 7, 10, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C.Act. That the Trap Laying officer called the panch witnesses and after explaining the procedure of the anthracene power and ultraviolet lamp and the test was done and a trap was laid and on 18.04.1997, the complainant gave the illegal gratification of Rs.500/- to the accused which was accepted and at that time, as the trap was laid, the members of the Raiding Party came and all the accused were caught red handed. That the Investigating Officer investigated the offence and the charge sheet was filed against the accused before the Sessions Court, Bhavnagar, which was registered as Special (ACB) Case No. 18 of 1997.

3.2. That all the accused were duly summoned and they appeared before the learned Trial Court and after following the procedure of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused No.1 Prajajan Bhupatbhai Gordhanbhai gave an application to be treated as a witness, which was allowed on merits and by an order dated 21.11.2004, the accused No.1 was treated as a witness and his statement was recorded. That a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.14 against the accused Nos. 2 to 6 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh.15 to 19, 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 all 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 28.11.2006, gave the benefit of doubt to all the accused and acquitted them from all the offences.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order in Special (ACB) Case No.18 of 1997 passed by the learned Trial Court on 28.11.2006, the State has filed the present appeal mainly contending that in fact, the accused had demanded Rs.700/- and ultimately, after bargaining an amount of Rs.50