JUDGMENT:

APURBA SINHA RAY, J.

1. Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar, learned Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the respondent/accused was a Revenue Officer and Patwari. He was charged with demand and receipt of illegal gratification from the complainant who filed an application for mutation of land in his name along with others. The accused demanded Rs. 5,000/- from the Complainant for performance of his public duties. The complainant informed the Anti Corruption Unit and thereafter all formalities were complied with for laying tracking evidence and ultimately the accused was caught red handed.

2. Mr. Karmakar has argued that the prosecution adduced 12 witnesses in support of its case and there is no infirmity in the evidence of those prosecution witnesses apart from some minor contradictions. However the learned Special Judge did not consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other materials on record in proper perspective and the order of acquittal of the accused from charges of the case that is under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 7/13(2) and13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not sustainable in law.

3. Mr.