IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act can only be raised when foundational facts are established.

JUDGMENT :

VIMAL K. VYAS, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) at the instance of the appellant-convict (i.e. the original accused no. 1) and is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.06.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge and Presiding Officer, 15th Fast Track Court, Vadodara, in Special (ACB) Case No. 1 of 2002.

2. By the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the trial court held the present appellant-accused no. 1 guilty and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the ‘Corruption Act’). Consequently, the trial court sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.3,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

The prosecution version, in a nut-shell, is as follows:

3. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as under:

3.1 That on 05.06.2000, the complainant (PW-1) Ramanbhai Vajesinh Patanvadia had entered into an agreement with one Mangalbhai Motibhai Vanand for purchase of an agricultural land bearing Block No. 252 of Revenue Survey Nos.240 and 241 admeasuring 2-Acres-6-Gunthas of village Vadsala in the name of his wife Smt. Manjulaben Patanvadia and paid Rs.50,000.00 as earnest money against the sale consideration of Rs.1,15,000.00 of the said agricultural land.

3.2 That since the land was of new tenure, the land owner Mangalbhai Motibhai Vanand had submitted an application before the Mamlatdar, Vadodara (Rural), for conversion of the said land from new tenure to old tenure.

3.3 That since the complainant had purchased the said land, he had contacted the present appellant-accused no. 1, who was the Talati-cum-Mantri of village Vadsala at the relevant point of time, for the process of conversion of the said land from new tenure to old tenure. It is alleged that the appellant-accused no. 1 had demanded Rs.11,250.00 as bribe for the said purpose and the complainant had paid the said amount as well as agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.11,500.00 for further proceedings after the order is passed converting the land from new tenure to old tenure.

3.4 That on 17.02.2001/03.03.2001, the Mamlatdar, Vadodara (Rural), had passed the order converting the said land from new tenure to old tenure. It is alleged that prior to 13-14 days of filing of the complaint, the appellant had informed the complainant that the Mamlatdar, Vadodara (Rural), has passed the necessary order converting the land from new tenure to old tenure and demanded for the remaining amount of Rs.11,500.00 for making the necessary entry of the said order in the revenue records.

3.5 That on 21.03.2001 (i.e. two days prior to the filing of the complaint), the appellant-accused had come to the residence of the complainant and informed him that he has started the further proceedings of posting the entry of the order of the Mamlatdar in the revenue records and again demanded Rs.11,500.00. Therefore, the complainant had asked him for some time and told him to come to his residence on 23.03.2001 in the afternoon with the copy of the changed entry and to collect the money. At that time the complainant had also requested him to give some discount, therefore, the appellant-accused had told him to pay atleast Rs.10,000.00.

3.6 That since the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe, he had approached the Police Inspector, ACB, Vadodara, on 22.03.2001, and on the strength of the complaint, the ACB laid a trap, and in furtherance to the same, they applied anthracene powder on 20 currency notes each of Rs.500 denomination, to be used in the trap.

3.7 That on 23.03.2001 at about 5:45 in the evening the appellant-accused no. 1 and the accused no. 2 were caught redhanded accepting the bribe money in presence of the panchas at the residence of the