An appellate court must not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's decision is perverse. In corruption cases, the prosecution must strictly prove a nexus and meeting of minds between the public servant and third parties, as mere accidental presence cannot suffice for a conviction.

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 dated 28-02-2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, Surendranagar (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 02 of 2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as the “ the PC Act).

1.1 During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent No. 1 expired and hence the appeal qua the respondent No. 1 was abated by an order dated 12-02-2026.

1.2 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as they stood in the rank and file 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 No.1 was working as the Executive Engineer (Class – I) in the District Panchayat, Surendranagar on 15-07-2006 and was a public servant. The accused No.2 was a Contractor and a private person. The complainant Lakhmanbhai Laljibhai Shrimali, a resident of Korda, Taluka Chuda, District Surendranagar was doing the administration of Maruti Group Labour Cooperative Society, of which, his younger brother Mohan was the Chairman for the past two years. The work of the Minapur Approach Road worth Rs. 3,23,656.71/- was entrusted to the Maruti Group Labour Cooperative Society on 15-02-2005 and the work was completed, and, about 12 months prior to 15-07-2006, a bill of Rs.1,18,400/- was passed. The work was completed on 24-03-2006 and was examined by the officers of the Surendranagar District Panchayat and the remaining bill of Rs.1,65,710/- was to be passed. On 14-07-2006, the complainant Lakhmanbhai Laljibhai Shrimali went to the office of the accused No. 1 and met the accused No. 1 regarding the outstanding bill. The accused No. 1 called for the bill and told the complainant that as the work was not concluded within the time limit, an amount of Rs.24,233/- was deducted and after deduction of Income Tax Surcharge, the bill was of Rs.1,33,276/- and demanded the amount of illegal gratification at the rate of 3%. The complainant immediately gave an amount of Rs.1,500/- and the accused demanded the remaining amount of Rs.4,000/-, to which, the complainant promised to pay on the next day and the accused No. 1 affixed his signature on the bill. The complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification and went to the ACB Rajkot Police Station and on 15-07-2006, the complaint of the complainant was recorded at Room No. 10, Government Guest House, Muli Road, Surendranagar, by the, Police Inspector, ACB (Field) Rajkot camp at Surendranagar at 9.15 am.

2.2 The Trap Laying Officer called the panch-witnesses and the complainant gave 08 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- each and Head Constable S.P.Jhala, under the instructions of the Trap Laying Officer, conducted the demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and solution of sodium carbonate in the presence of the complainant and panch-witnesses and explained the characteristics of the same to them. All the currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and folded and placed in the right pocket of the Kurta of the complainant. The necessary instructions were given and the Panchnama Part - I was drawn and signatures of all concerned were taken. As decided the complainant, panch witnesses and members of the raiding party left in government Jeep No. GJ-1-G 3553 and went from the Betha Pool of Bhogao river and halted the government jeep at a safe distance away from the District Panchayat Office. The complainant and the Panch No. 1 alighted and walked to the District Panchayat Office and the Panch No. 2 and other members of the raiding party followed them at a safe distance. The complainant and the panch-witness went at ab