In an appeal against acquittal for corruption offences, the prosecution must prove demand and acceptance as foundational facts. Unless the trial court's judgment is perverse or based on a misreading of material evidence, the appellate court shall not interfere, maintaining the double presumption of the accused's innocence.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. Pinto, J.

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 the order of acquittal passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 11th Fast Track Court, Kheda at Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No.11 of 2004 on 14.03.2006, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent – original accused from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.C.Act’).

1.1. The respondent hereinafter is referred to as ‘the accused’ as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. The accused was working as the Talati-cum-Mantri of Kansari Gram panchayat and was a Public Servant. Chunilal Haribhai Patel, the father of the complainant, owned 36 guntas of land of Survey No. 146, Paiki, which was new tenure land and the land was converted to old tenure land on 18-07-2002. Chunilal Haribhai Patel had executed a sale deed in the name of the complainant - Chetankumar Chunilal Patel, his mother Kamalaben and his sister Vimalaben. On the basis of the sale deed and the index, the complainant had given an application for mutating their names in the revenue record to the Talati-cum-Mantri of Kansari and the accused had given the notice under Section 135-D of the Land Revenue Code. The outstanding dues of the land was paid on 24.06.2003. On inquiring from the accused, the complainant was told that the entry would be certified, but on 19.02.2004, when the complainant went to the Gram Panchayat Office and met the accused, he was told that the entry was rejected by Macwan Saheb, the Circle Officer, and demanded an amount of illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- for himself and for Circle Officer, Macwan Saheb. The accused told the complainant to give an amount of Rs.2,000/- in the first instance and the remaining amount of Rs.2,000/- after the entry was certified and demanded the amount of Rs.2,000/- on 23.02.2004. The complainant did not want to give the amount of illegal gratification and on 23.02.2004, went to the ACB Police Station, Nadiad and the complaint of the complainant was recorded between 5.00 to 5.30 hours.

2.2. The Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and the demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and solution of Sodium Carbonate was carried out in the presence of the complainant and the panch witnesses and the characteristics of phenolphthalein powder and solution of Sodium Carbonate were explained to the panch witnesses and the complainant. The complainant gave twenty currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each and all the currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and placed in the left shirt pocket of the complainant and the trap was arranged. The complainant, the panch witnesses and the members of the raiding party started in Government Jeep No.GJ-1-G-3365 from Nadiad to village Kansari, and thereafter, the complainant and the panch witness no. 1 reached the office of Gram Panchayat, Kansari and at about 14:00 hours and met the accused. The complainant inquired from the accused about the cancellation of entry to be mutated in the revenue record of land bearing Survey No.146, the accused told t