The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for convictions under corruption laws; mere recovery of money is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal at the instance of the State of Gujarat under Section 378 (1)(3) of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 (for short “the Code”) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.07.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge (Fast Track Court No.3), Jamnagar in Special Case No.14 of 1992, whereby the learned trial judge acquitted the respondents-accused of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 7 , 12, 13(1)(D)(1)(2)(3) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”).

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant-Police Inspector of ACB Jamnagar, namely, Shri B.K. Solanki lodged a complaint on 22.10.1992 stating that he received a secret information that on the Jamnagar Victoria Bridge at Jamnagar-Rajkot Highway, the police officials or the employees of the RTO Department were harassing the people by demanding illegal gratification in the form of money as a bribe from the vehicle owners passing through the road as a bribe. Therefore, a decoy trap was arranged by the complainant-Police Inspector as well as the other officials of the ACB, Jamnagar, and during the said trap, the accused persons were caught red handed by the members of the raiding party. Thereafter, on the strength of the said fact, FIR being C.R. No.17 of 1991 came to be lodged against the respondents-accused persons for the aforesaid offences. Pursuant to the registration of the said complaint and after completion of successful trap, the Investigating Agency has recorded statement of the witnesses concerned, drawn necessary Panchnamas and collected all the necessary documentary evidences for the purpose of establishing the guilt of the accused persons and after having found sufficient material against the respondents-accused persons, charge-sheet came to be filed in the court of the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar.

After filing of the charge-sheet against the accused persons, they were summoned by the Special Judge and the accused pleaded not guilty. Hence, charges were framed against them and trial was commenced. In order to bring home charge levelled against the accused, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses and also produced thirteen documentary evidences before the learned Special Judge, more particularly, as described in paragraph-5 of the impugned judgment and order.

3. After completion of recording of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the Special Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondents-accused so as to obtain explanation/answer as provided under Section 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the respondents-accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them as false and further stated that they are innocent and falsely dragged into the offence. After considering and appreciating the materials available on record, the learned Special Judge has passed the order of acquittal. Being aggrieved with the said order of acquittal, the State Government is here before this Court with the present appeal.

4. Mr. K.M. Antani, learned APP appearing for the State has submitted that the learned Special Judge has not appreciated the evidence available on record in true sense and proper perspective. The judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge is contrary to the settled provisions of law and, therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside.

Mr. Antani has further submitted that it is settled proposition of law that for the purpose of proving charge levelled against the accused, prosecution has to lead evidence beyond reasonable doubt.