In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court cannot interfere unless the trial court’s finding is perverse or ignores material evidence. For corruption offences, the prosecution must strictly prove the foundational facts of prior demand and voluntary acceptance, as mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. Pinto, J.

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 (ACB) Judge, Surat (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special (ACB) Case No. 8 of 1998 on 17.01.2007, 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” 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 was working as an Assistant Electrical Inspector in the Department of Industry, Mines and Power Development, Surat and was a public servant. The complainant Ajabsinh Mulsinh Rathod, Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, Surat had received secret information that the accused was demanding amounts of illegal gratification ranging from Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- for giving temporary electricity connection to persons who required the same and the complainant decided to arrange for a decoy trap to verify the same. Head Constable Gulabsinh Pagi was asked to call for a person who would cooperate and he brought one Pravinbhai Dahyabhai Kahar, a resident of Nanpura, Khanderavpura, Surat and the complainant called the panch witnesses. Everyone was introduced to each other and the complainant prepared the necessary documents for the temporary electricity connection. Four currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- each was given by the complainant Ajabsinh Mulsinh Rathod to Head Constable Digambar Shinde and under his instructions, Head Constable Digambar Shinde conducted the experiment of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp in the presence of the decoy and the panch witnesses and smeared all the currency notes with anthracene powder and placed them in the left shirt pocket of the decoy - Pravinbhai Dahyabhai Kahar. Necessary instructions to all concerned were given and the Panchnama Part-I was drawn and the signatures of all concerned were taken. As decided, the decoy Pravinbhai Dahyabhai Kahar and the panch No.1 went from Surat Multistoried Building Block-C from the 6th floor to the Office of the Assistant Electric Inspector and the panch No.2 and other members of the raiding party including the Trap Laying Officer followed them. The decoy and panch witness went into the chamber of the accused No.1, but the accused was not present and they came out of the office and waited for the accused. At around 12:20 hours, the accused came and went into his cabin and the decoy Pravinbhai Dahyabhai Kahar and the panch No.1 went into the cabin of the accused. The accused was seated at his table and the decoy told the accused that he had arranged for an entertainment program of Seven Star Orchestra and required a temporary electricity connection. The decoy gave the documents to the accused who verified the papers and returned the same and asked the decoy to sit outside for some time. The decoy and panch No.1 came out of the chamber and sat outside and after some time the peon called them and they went into the chamber of the accused. The accused made a gesture to the decoy to sit on a stool near him and once again took the papers from his hand and had a discussion regarding the papers. The decoy told the accused t