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. Rakesh Pal Gobind, appearing as the learned Counsel for the defence/respondent has submitted that from the cross-examination of PW-1, the complainant, it appears that he never approached the office for mutation. The complaint was made after mutation was done. No mutation certificate was seized. It appears from the materials on record that all the formalities in connection with Form ‘K’ were done before lodging of complaint. The record shows that mutation of the record took place on 23.02.2006 whereas the relevant complaint was lodged on 09.03.2006. The shadow witnesses, being PW-2 and PW-3 did not support the prosecution case. Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was not proved in accordance with law. The post trap memorandum was not detailed at the spot. The shadow witness being PW-2 was declared hostile. Another shadow witness being PW-3 did not say anything about the seizure or demand or acceptance of bribe at the instance of the respondent. Those witnesses have admitted that they signed the documents at the police station and not at the spot. Not a single witness saw the respondent to demand and accept the illegal gratification. The evidence of other witnesses is also not very much convincing. Although PW-10 had stated that he received signal from complainant being PW-1, the PW-1 did not depose anything in this regard.

4. The learned Counsel for the respondent has cited several judgments namely 2015 0 Supreme (SC) 71 C. Sukumaran – versus – State of Kerala, 2015 0 Supreme (SC) 871 P. Satyanarayana Murthy – versus – The Dist. Inspector of Police and Another, 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 154 K. Shanthamma – versus – The state of Telangana, 2024 Supreme (SC) 567 Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi – versus – The State of A.P., 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 1864 P. Somaraju – versus – State of Andhra Pradesh and CRA No. 418 of 2016 Shri N. Rajendran – versus – The State, of this Hon’ble Court in support of his contention that when demand and acceptance of gratification was not proved out, the accused is entitled to acquittal.

5. I have gone through the impugned judgment wherein the learned Special Judge has discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also exhibits brought on record.

6. Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is :

“7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed - Any public servant who,-

(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or

(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to p