In appeals against anti-corruption acquittals, the prosecution must strictly prove the foundational facts of demand and acceptance. Absent the complainant’s testimony or conclusive evidence, the appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal, as the accused benefits from a double presumption of innocence.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Court, Presiding Officer, 2nd Fast Track Court, Surat (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special (ACB) Case No. 02 of 1999 on 04.08.2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act” for short).

1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as “the accused” in the rank and file 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 At the relevant time in the year 1998, the accused was serving as the District Ayurvedic Officer in the office of the District Panchayat, Surat, situated at Nanpura and was thus, a public servant within the meaning of law. The complainant, Maheshkumar Kantilal Joshi, was then posted as a Medical Officer at the Ayurvedic Hospital, Sayla, Taluka Nizar, District Surat. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant had submitted an application to the District Development Officer seeking his transfer to the Kamrej Ayurvedic Hospital at Taluka Segva, District Surat, through the accused and had also applied for pay fixation and grant of higher grade benefits on 05.08.1998. In connection with the said official work, the accused allegedly demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1000/- from the complainant on 15.08.1998. On that occasion, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.500/- in cash, comprising five currency notes of Rs.100/- each and assured the accused that the remaining amount of Rs.500/- would be paid subsequently upon availability of funds. It is further alleged that the accused also demanded a cordless telephone from the complainant. Being unwilling to accede to the illegal demands, the complainant approached the ACB Police Station, Surat on 17.08.1998, whereupon his complaint came to be recorded.

2.2 Pursuant to the said complaint, the trap was arranged by the ACB authorities. Two independent panch witnesses were summoned and in their presence, the complainant produced five currency notes of Rs.100/- each. The Trap Laying Officer conducted a demonstration of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp, explaining its properties to the complainant and the panch witnesses. Thereafter, the currency notes were smeared with anthracene powder, noted in the preliminary panchnama and placed in the left-side pocket of the complainant with appropriate instructions. The complainant and the shadow panch proceeded towards the District Ayurvedic Office located in Bahumali Compound on the main road near Dutch Garden, Nanpura, Surat, followed by the other panch witnesses and remaining members of the raiding party. Upon reaching the office, the complainant and the shadow panch witness met the accused, whereupon the accused reiterated his demand for illegal gratification. The complainant thereupon took out the tainted currency notes and handed them over, which the accused accepted with his right hand and without counting, transferred to his left hand and kept in his left-side pocket while assuring the complainant that his transfer work would be attended to and directing him to settle the remaining amount. The complainant had also showed a cordless telephone to the