A presumption of innocence accompanies acquittal; the prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

S.V. PINTO, J.

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 dated 25/01/2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, Surat (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court) in Special (ACB) Case No. 9 of 2001, whereby, the learned trial Court was pleased to acquit the respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (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] The accused Ramdas Laljibhai Tandel was working as a Detective Inspector at the octroi Check Post, Puna in the year 2000 and was a public servant. The complainant Ajabsinh Mulsinh Rathod, Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, Surat had concrete information that the employees and officers of Surat Mahanagarpalika at the octroi Check Post, under various pretexts were collecting illegal gratification from the drivers of vehicles and to verify the same the complainant decided to arrange for a decoy trap. The complainant called two panch witnesses and one Manojkumar Fulchand Sharma residing in the house of Parvat Kaka, opposite the vegetable Market, 32 Room Building, Puna Village, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat and he was explained about the decoy trap and he agreed to cooperate. The panch witnesses and the decoy were introduced to the members of the raiding party and ASI Manilal was given Rs.1000/-, which consisted of one currency note of the denomination of Rs.500/-, four currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each and two currency notes of the denomination of Rs.50/- each and the demonstration of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was conducted in the presence of the panch witnesses and the characteristics of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was explained to the panch witnesses. All the currency notes were smeared with anthracene powder by ASI Manilal and placed in the left pant pocket of the decoy and necessary instructions were given to the decoy and the panch witnesses. The panchnama Part I was drawn and the panch witnesses and the Trap Laying Officer affixed their signatures on the panchnama Part I. The panch witnesses, the decoy and members of the raiding party sat in government jeep No..GJ-1-G- 3754 and left from the ACB office to Ring Road, Sahara Gates and went onto to the Sardar Market Road to Puna village at the Check Post of Surat Mahanagarpalika and halted the vehicle near NG Complex on the Surat Kadodra Road. They waited for a tempo and halted a three wheel tempo, which was loaded with marble bars and the driver was Gordhanbhai Surajmal Khatri, residing at Room No. 15, Subash Nagar, Puna Village, Taluka Choryasi District: Surat and the tempo had registration No. GJ- 5-V-1289. The panch No. 1, the decoy Manojkumar Fulchand Sharma and driver Gordhanbhai Surajmal Khatri of the three wheel tempo No. GJ-5-V-1289 sat in the tempo and the panch No. 2 and other members of the raiding party sat in government jeep No. GJ-1-G-3754 and went to the octroi Check Post at Puna and the decoy and the panch No. 1 went to window number three, and the decoy, and the accused had a conversation and the accused demanded an amount of Rs.200/- as illegal gratification. The decoy took Rs.200/- from the tainted currency notes and gave to the accused and the decoy gave the predetermined signal, and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused. The tests were conducted and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused and the panchnama Part-II was drawn and the Trap Laying Officer and the panch witnesses affixed their signatures on the panchnama Part-II. The complainant Aajasinh Mulsinh Rathod Police