The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special ACB Case No. 1 of 2006 on 30.10.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant to two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as “the PC Act” for short) and two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/-and in default, simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

The appellant 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 the accused was working as an ASI in Vadnagar Police Station at Vadnagar, District Mehsana and was a public servant and the complainant had filed M Case No. 1/2005 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadnagar and the accused was conducting an inquiry into the M Case. That some affidavits were filed by some trustees in favour of the persons against whom the complainant had filed the M Case and the complainant had demanded copies of the said affidavits from the accused. That the accused had demanded for an amount of Rs. 1500/- as illegal gratification from the complainant but after bargaining, the amount was fixed at Rs. 500/- and the accused had told the complainant that he would come to Mehsana Court on 08.08.2005. That the complainant did not want to give the amount of illegal gratification to the accused and hence, went to the ACB Police Station, Mehsana and filed a complaint on 08.08.2005 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act which was registered at C.R. No. 5/2005. That the Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and after the characteristics of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution was explained and the experiment was conducted in the presence of the panch witnesses and the complainant, a trap was arrangedon 08.08.2005. That the complainant and the shadow witness went to the court compound at Mehsana and at that time the accused took the complainant and the panch witness to the tea stall just near the gate of the court compound and demanded for the amount of Rs. 500/- and the complainant took the tainted currency notes and offered it to the accused and the accused accepted it with his left hand and took the tainted currency notes in his right hand and placed it in his right side shirt pocket. That the complainant gave the predetermined signal and the Trap Laying Officer, panch witness no. 2 and the members of the raiding party came and the accused was caught red handed. That the Investigating Officer investigated the offence and after the statements of the connected witnesses were recorded and the necessary panchnamas were drawn and after the order of sanction for prosecution was received, a charge-sheet was filed before the Sessions Court, Mehsana which came to be registered as Special ACB Case No. 1/2006.

2.2 The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and after the due procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was followed, a charge at Exh. 11 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 12, wherein, the accused denied all the allegations made in the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.3 The prosecution has produced the following oral evidences in support of their case.