Point of law: So far as the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act is concerned, it trite that even the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can be drawn only if an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 30.06.2005, passed in Special (Corruption) Case No. 18 of 2002 by the learned Special Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Valsad, recording the acquittal.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent (original accused) was working as a RTO Inspector at Bhilad Check post in and around June 1996. At the relevant time, complainant Shri Harishchandrasinh Ramsinh Puwar, who was serving as a Police Inspector with Ahmedabad ACB, received a secret information that the respondent and the original accused No. 1 (dead), in connivance with each other, used to collect Rs.50/- towards entry fee from the truck drivers passing through the check post. The original accused No. 1, who was working as an Assistant Inspector and happened to be the nephew of the respondent herein used to help in collecting such money. Accordingly, the complainant, after following due procedure, arranged a decoy trap and on 03.06.1996 at about 23:30 hours the original accused No. 1 was caught red-handed taking such illegal gratification. Further, the ACB official also seized an amount of Rs.21,170/- collected by way of illegal gratification by them. Thereby, the accused, in connivance with each other, committed the offence under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d)(i), (ii), (iii), punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as “the PC Act”) for which, FIR came to be registered against them.

2.1 Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of as many as 4 witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences in question. The learned trial Judge framed the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Since the original accused No. 1 died pending the trial, case against him was ordered to be abated. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2005, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused person. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard, learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya for the respondent.

3.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons, in connivance with each other, used to demand Rs.50/- towards illegal gratification from the truck drivers and caught the respondent red-handed and also collected Rs.21,170/- from the respondent, which was collected as such from different truck drivers and thereby, committed the offence in question.

3.2 The learned APP further contended that the role played by the respondent is higher than what was played by the deceased accused No. 1 for the reason that the decoy had caught hold the respondent collecting such amount of illegal gratification, though was not instructed to do so, but the fact remains that the respondent was caught red-handed. Accordingly, the learned APP submitted that such a minor occurrence may not be fatal to the case of the prosecution.

3.3 It is also submitted by the learned APP that Rs.21,170/- was seized from the spot from the respondent – accused for which, he had explained that such an amount was received from the neighbour, however, the learned trial Judge has failed to take into consideration the fact that the defence has not examined any neighbour as witness.

3.4 It is submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate that PW-1 Iqbalhusen Abdul Karim Shaikh, Exh. 20, who was the panch witness, PW-3 Harishchandrasinh Ramsinh Puwar, Exh. 25, the complainant and PW-4 Ambapratapsinh Chandravijaysinh Jadeja, Exh. 35, all have fully s