Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ramjibhai Valjibhai Gohil on 29 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1795 of 2005
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 342 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMJIBHAI VALJIBHAI GOHIL
================================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DHARMESH D NANAVATY(2396) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent.
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 29/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Criminal Appeals Nos.1795 of 2005 and 342 of 2005 have been preferred under Sections 377 and 384 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') by the State and the convict, respectively, and are directed against the judgment and order dated 28.01.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.6, Jamnagar, in Special Case No.10 of 1997. Page 1 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined
2. By the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the trial court has held the appellant-accused guilty and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and consequently, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under :-
Section Imprisonment Fine In default of
(Rs.) payment of fine
7 Imprisonment for one 1000 Simple Imprisonment
year for six months
13(2) Imprisonment for one 1000 Simple Imprisonment
year for six months
3. Since both these appeals arise from a selfsame judgment and order passed by the trial court, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of sentence awarded by the trial court, the State has preferred the Criminal Appeal No.1795 of 2005 under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for enhancement of the sentence, Page 2 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined mainly on the grounds that the sentence awarded by the trial court is inadequate and disproportionate to the offences committed by the accused and the same is less than the minimum prescribed for the offences with which the appellant- accused has been convicted.
5. The Criminal Appeal No.342 of 2005 has been preferred by the convict under Section 384 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for one year.
PROSECUTION'S CASE IN A NUT-SHELL :
6. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.03.1997, the complainant (PW-1) Dipsang Ranaji Sodha had filed a complaint, inter alia, stating that since he was intending to install an electric submersible pump into the well in his agricultural land, he had contacted the accused Ramjibhai Valjibhai Gohil, who was discharging his duties as Gram Sevak of Aliyabada Group Page 3 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined Panchayat, for the purpose of obtaining subsidy on the pump. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused had demanded Rs.2,000=00 for preparing the documents for obtaining the loan and the subsidy. It is alleged that the accused had obtained signatures of the complainant on the loan papers and sent it for further process to the Central Bank of India, Aliyabada Branch as well as the Taluka Panchayat Office, Jamanagar. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant had received the cheque amount of Rs.22,000=00 from the Central Bank of India, Aliyabada Branch, therefore, the accused had demanded Rs.2,000=00 from the complainant, and when the complainant expressed his inability to pay the entire amount at the time, the accused suggested him to pay him Rs.500=00 after eight days and the remaining amount to be paid as early as possible, therefore, the complainant had paid him Rs.500=00 as instructed, but the accused had further demanded for Rs.1,500=00 from the complainant.
7. It is alleged that since the complainant was not willing to pay the amount of bribe, he approached the Police Inspector Shri Bhikhubha Balubha Jadeja, A.C.B., Jamnagar, and lodged a complaint on 20.03.1997, and on the strength of the complaint, Page 4 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined a trap was laid, and the accused was caught red-handed accepting the amount of bribe. The raiding party, thereafter, recovered the currency notes smeared with anthracene powder from the possession of the accused.
8. On the basis of the complaint, the accused was arrested, and he was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
9. The trial court, after following due procedure as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., framed the Charge vide Exh.5 against the accused person. The charge was, thereafter, read over and explained to the accused, who abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10. To bring home the charge, the prosecution had examined eight witnesses and adduced twenty-two documentary evidence in support of their case, which are as follows :-
NO. WITNESSES NAME EXHIBIT 1. Dipsang Ranaji Sodha 11 2. Piyushbhai Amineshbhai Vora 13 Page 5 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined 3. Laljibhai Keshavjibhai 17 4. Shankarlal Januji Bhatt 34 5. Navinchandra Valjibhai Mandaliya 36 6. Bhikhubha Balubha Jadeja 38 7. Vrajlal Jadavbhai Hirpara 42 8. Rajendrakumar Chandrashankar Yagnik 46 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SR. DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENT EXHIBIT NO. 1 Complaint 12 2 Panchnama of the proceedings regarding arrest of 14 the accused with the bribe amount. 3 Forwarding Letter along with the information 18
regarding the papers sent to the P.I., A.C.B. by the Taluka Panchayat Office, Jamnagar.
4 Letter addressed to the Branch Manager, Central 19 Bank, by the Taluka Panchayat.
5 Acceptance Form 206 District Village Development Agency Form 21 7 Affidavit by the Loanee-Complainant. 22 8 Certificate regarding land. 23 9 Office Order of the Taluka Development Officer. 24 10 Revenue Tax Receipt. 25 11 Electricity Bill of the Complainant. 26 12 Receipt of the Electricity Bill of the Complainant. 27 13 Abstract of the Village Form No.7/12. 28 Page 6 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined 14 Abstract of the Village Form No.8. 29 15 Original copy of the Record of Right 30 16 Statement of Village Form No.17. 31 17 Statement of Service Roll of the accused. 32 18 Transfer Order of the District Development Agency. 33 19 Letter by the Central Bank, Aliyabada Branch. 35 20 Application filed by the Complainant. 37 21 Seizure Memo. 39 22 Sanction Letter to initiate criminal proceedings 43 against the accused.
11. On completion of the recording of the evidence, the trial court explained the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused. The accused, in his further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., denied the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution of accepting the bribe and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence.
12. On completion of the trial, the trial court, vide judgment and order dated 28.01.2005, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Page 7 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined
13. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the convict has preferred the captioned Criminal Appeal No.342 of 2005 before this Court, which came to be admitted on 25.02.2005 vide order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED :
14. Learned advocate Mr.Dharmesh Nanavaty appearing for the accused, while taking this Court through the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the impugned judgment, has submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated. It is submitted that the prosecution has not led any cogent and convincing evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of the offence, more particularly, demand, acceptance and recovery.
15. Learned advocate Mr.Nanavaty has submitted that as per the case of the prosecution since the complainant was intending to install an electric submersible pump into the well in his agricultural land, he had contacted the present accused Page 8 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined Ramjibhai Valjibhai Gohil, who was discharging his duties as Gram Sevak of Aliyabada Group Gram Panchayat, for the purpose of obtaining subsidy on the pump. It is further the case of the prosecution that for the said purpose, the present accused had demanded Rs.2,000=00 for preparing the papers for obtaining the subsidy as well as for obtaining the loan. It is alleged that the accused had obtained signatures of the complainant on the loan papers and sent it for further process to the Central Bank of India, Aliyabada Branch as well as the Taluka Panchayat Office, Jamanagar. As per the case of the prosecution, the present accused had demanded Rs.2,000=00 from the complainant after he received the cheque of Rs.22,000=00 from the Central Bank of India, and when the complainant expressed his inability to pay the entire amount at the time, the accused suggested him to pay him Rs.500=00 after eight days and the remaining amount to be paid as early as possible, therefore, the complainant had paid him Rs.500=00 as instructed, but the accused had further demanded for Rs.1,500=00 from the complainant.
16. Mr.Nanavaty, while referring to the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) Dipsang Ranaji Sodha, has contended that Page 9 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined the conduct of the complainant, as reflects from the evidence, raises reasonable suspicion about the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that the entire evidence of this witness is vague and lacking specific details. For instance, the complainant stated that the accused had demanded Rs.2,000=00 for the preparation of the loan documents during their first meeting, to which he had agreed. However, no specific date and time of the meeting has been provided. The complainant further claimed that after the loan was approved, and he collected the cheque amount of Rs.22,000=00 from the bank, the accused again had demanded Rs.2,000=00 outside the bank and at that time he had paid Rs.500=00 to the accused towards the bribe amount, but again he had failed to specify as to when this had happened. Learned advocate Mr.Nanavaty has submitted in this regard that the case of the prosecution is solely based upon the complainant's uncorroborated verbal statement.
17. Mr.Nanavaty has further submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution regarding the entire process of the trap is completely unreliable. It is submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, after the lodgment of the complaint, one Mr.Sodha, a Police Constable, had demonstrated the process of anthracene Page 10 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined powder and its effect under the ultraviolet light, and he then smeared the currency notes with the anthracene powder. But, the prosecution has not examined him as a witness. Furthermore, the evidence of the shadow witness (PW-2) Piyushbhai Amineshbhai Vora clearly reveals that the entire incident of trap had occurred at a pan shop and the shopkeeper present at the pan shop had overheard the conversation between the accused and the complainant and had also witnessed the exchange of the bribe money. However, he has also not been examined as a witness.
18. Learned advocate Mr.Nanavaty, while referring to the evidence of three star-witnesses, i.e. the complainant (PW-1) Dipsang Ranaji Sodha, the shadow witness (PW-2) Piyushbhai Amineshbhai Vora, and the trapping officer (PW-6) Bhikhubha Balubha Jadeja, has submitted that the evidence of all these witnesses regarding the presence of anthracene powder on the currency notes of the accused after the trap is quite contradictory to each other and, therefore, not reliable. It is submitted that despite the fact that such evidence cannot be relied upon to convict a public servant for such a serious charge, the trial court fell in error in relying upon it. Page 11 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined
19. Learned advocate Mr.Nanavaty has submitted that it is an important factor to bear in mind that, whether the accused had received the illegal gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing any favour or disfavour in the exercise of his official function ? In the case on hand, it is alleged that the accused had demanded a bribe of Rs.2,000=00 for preparing the documents for obtaining the loan as well as the subsidy. However, the evidence clearly reveals that all the loan documents had already been submitted to the bank about 15 days prior to the alleged incident and the loan had also been sanctioned and even disbursed to the complainant. Therefore, there was no reason for the accused to demand the bribe regarding the preparation of the loan documents thereafter. This also casts a serious doubt on the complainant's version. Further, it is not the case of the complainant that the accused had ever stated that if the amount of bribe is not paid, the loan would not be sanctioned.
20. Learned advocate Mr.Nanavaty has submitted that the trial court, while appreciating the evidence, has laid much emphasis on Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which raises Page 12 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined presumption once it is established that the accused accepted the amount. However, for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion whether the accused accepted the amount of illegal gratification or not, the totality of the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial is required to be appreciated. It is settled legal position that in absence of any proof of demand, the legal presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would not arise since the proof of demand and its subsequent acceptance is a sine qua non for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)
(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, only on the basis of acceptance of amount without there being any proof of demand, the accused cannot be held guilty of the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is submitted that the trial court, while appreciating the evidence in this regard, has completely lost sight of the aforesaid settled legal position. It is further submitted that except the bare averments in the complaint, no evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of the offence, more particularly, the proof of demand of illegal gratification and its subsequent acceptance.
21. Thus, it is submitted that considering the entire evidence Page 13 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined on record, it clearly establishes that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential elements of the offence, i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery, and in absence of proof of demand and its acceptance, the trial court fell in serious error in raising a presumption under Section 20 of the Act. In such circumstances, learned advocate Mr.Nanavaty has implored the court to allow the present appeal, set-aside the impugned judgment and direct the acquittal of the appellant from the charges levelled against him.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
22. Vehemently opposing the appeal filed by the appellant- convict and the submissions canvassed by learned advocate Mr.Dharmesh Nanavaty appearing for the appellant-convict, learned APP Mr.Bhargav Pandya appearing for the State has submitted that the trial court has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and consequently, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year along with fine of Rs.2,000=00, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for six months. He has submitted that the prosecution has Page 14 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined proved all the three essential elements of the offence, i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery, beyond reasonable doubt through the convincing evidence of the star-witnesses, i.e. the complainant (PW-1) Dipsang Ranaji Sodha, the shadow witness (PW-2) Piyushbhai Amineshbhai Vora, and the trapping officer (PW-
6) Bhikhubha Balubha Jadeja. Learned APP Mr.Pandya has, therefore, urged that the conviction recorded by the trial court does not call for any interference by this Court and the criminal appeal preferred by the appellant-convict, challenging his conviction and sentence, may be dismissed.
23. Learned APP Mr.Pandya, while referring to the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) Dipsang Ranaji Sodha and the shadow witness (PW-2) Piyushbhai Amineshbhai Vora along with the evidence of the witness (PW-6) Bhikhubha Balubha Jadeja, who laid the trap, has submitted that the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) Dipsang Ranaji Sodha and the evidence of the shadow witness (PW-2) Piyushbhai Amineshbhai Vora, who had accompanied the complainant at the time of the trap, are clear, cogent and convincing. It is further submitted that the evidence of both these witnesses have remained unshaken and the same are in corroboration with the evidence of the witness (PW-6) Page 15 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined Bhikhubha Balubha Jadeja, the police officer who laid the trap. It is also submitted that the evidence of all these witnesses are in corroboration with the allegations made by the complainant (PW-
1) Dipsang Ranaji Sodha in his complaint at Exh.12.
24. So far as the quantum of sentence awarded by the trial court to the appellant-convict is concerned, learned APP Mr.Pandya has submitted that despite there being overwhelming evidence against the appellant-convict, the trial court has, without assigning adequate and special reasons, awarded inadequate and improper sentence. It is a settled position of law that while awarding the punishment, the court should take into consideration the nature of the offence, the circumstances under which it was committed and the degree of deliberation shown by the accused. Thus, the measure of punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. In the facts of the present case, the accused has been held guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years along with a fine. Despite there being overwhelming evidence against the accused, the trial court has awarded a meager sentence of Page 16 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined imprisonment for one year only upon the accused. Learned APP Mr.Pandya has, therefore, submitted that awarding a meager punishment to the appellant-convict for the alleged offence will result in travesty of justice and also spread a wrong message to the society.
25. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned APP Mr.Pandya has urged before this Court to modify the sentence imposed by the trial court by imposing the maximum punishment for the offence with which the appellant-accused has been charged and convicted. Hence, he has urged that the order of sentence recorded by the trial court is required to be interfered with, and the appeal preferred by the State for enhancement of the sentence may be allowed.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS :
26. Before adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be apt to reiterate the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence as affirmed by the highest court that, in criminal trial it is for the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused since the burden of proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt always rests upon the prosecution. It is also Page 17 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined settled that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and cannot take advantage or undue advantage of the defence put forth by the accused. The Supreme Court, in the case of Rabindra Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 170, reiterated three cardinal principles, namely, (i) that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and it cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defence version while proving its case;
(ii) that in a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty; and (iii) that the onus of the prosecution never shifts. Thus, it is well-settled that in criminal trial, the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in order to convict him.
27. The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Krishna Gopal, reported in (1988) 4 SCC 302, has held that the person has, no doubt, profound rights not to be convicted of an offence, which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
28. Bearing in mind the aforesaid legal position, this Court has considered the submissions canvassed by the respective Page 18 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined parties and carefully perused the materials produced on record. It is well-settled that for establishing the commission of an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the proof of demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance is sine qua non. Moreover, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be invoked only on proof of facts in issue, namely, the demand of illegal gratification by the accused and the acceptance thereof. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731 has, in paragraph-68 of the judgment, held as under :
"68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under :
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of Page 19 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1) Page 20 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined
(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)
(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject Page 21 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption of law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature."
29. Thus, it is held by the Supreme Court that in order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has to prove the Page 22 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined "demand of illegal gratification" and the "subsequent acceptance" either by direct or by circumstantial evidence.
30. The cases of corruption largely depends on the testimonies of three crucial witnesses; (i) the complainant, (ii) the shadow witness, and (iii) the trapping officer. These witnesses play a decisive role in determining the fate of the accused. As such, their testimonies must be examined with great care and caution. It is expected that their statements should be consistent, credible and of sterling quality. If there are significant contradictions in their evidence on material aspects, such discrepancies cannot be overlooked. In such circumstances where the evidence allows for two possible interpretations, the one which is in favour of the accused, must be considered. This is because the law firmly upholds the principle that "no innocent persons should be wrongfully punished".
31. Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal position of law and also keeping in mind the ratio of the above-mentioned judgments, the evidence led by the prosecution, in the instant case, is to be analyzed to find out, whether the prosecution has proved the fact that the appellant-accused demanded and accepted the amount Page 23 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined of illegal gratification from the complainant.
32. This Court has given anxious consideration to the evidence on record. It appears that there are glaring inconsistencies in the evidence led by the prosecution. As per the original complaint at Exh.12 and the charge at Exh.5, it is the case of the prosecution that complainant (PW-1) Dipsang Ranaji Sodha, a Forest Guard, approached the accused Ramjibhai Valjibhai Gohil, a Gram Sevak of Aliyabada Group Panchayat, to obtain loan and government subsidy of Rs.5,000=00 to install an electrical submersible pump on the well in his agricultural land. The appellant accused promised to get it approved if the complainant paid him Rs.2,000=00 from the subsidy amount. Thereafter, as instructed by the appellant accused, the complainant submitted a quotation and other necessary loan documents. The accused forwarded the same to the Taluka Panchayat, Jamnagar, and the Central Bank of India. Later on, the Central Bank of India, Aliyabada Branch, issued a cheque of Rs.22,000=00 to the complainant. The appellant-accused met the complainant outside the bank and asked whether he received the cheque ? He, then, reminded the complainant about their prior agreement and again demanded Rs.2,000=00 from him. When the Page 24 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined complainant told that he could not pay the entire amount immediately, the accused then suggested him to pay Rs.500=00 after 8 days and the remaining amount of Rs.1,500=00 to be paid as soon as possible. At that time, the complainant paid Rs.500=00 as instructed by the appellant-accused. Later on, on 19.03.1997, the appellant-accused again contacted the complainant demanding Rs.1,500=00 and told him to pay the amount at the Bapu's Pan Shop in the Nagnath area on the following day, i.e. on 20.03.1997. Since the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe, he reported the matter to the ACB, Jamnagar, on 20.03.1997, prompting a trap. It is alleged that during the trap, the accused was caught red-handed accepting the amount of bribe. In view of the aforesaid allegations regarding the factum of demand and the subsequent acceptance of illegal gratification, the evidence laid by the prosecution; both, ocular and documentary, as well as the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the respective parties, are required to be considered.
33. First and foremost, it is noteworthy that at the time of the incident, the complainant himself was a Government employee serving as a Guard in the Forest Department. However, his Page 25 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined evidence lacks specific details. On a careful evaluation of his evidence, it appears that the complainant seems to have intentionally concealed the key information concerning the date, time and place of the events. For instance, the complainant - Dipsang Ranaji Sodha, in his complaint at Exh.12 and in his evidence at Exh.11, has stated that he had contacted the accused - Ramjibhai Valjibhai Gohil, who was serving as Gram Sevak of Aliyabada Group Panchayat at the time of the incident, for assistance in securing the loan and subsidy to install submersible pump on the well in his agricultural land. The accused, at that time, allegedly demanded Rs.2,000=00 as a bribe for preparing the required loan documents and ensuring approval of the loan and subsidy.
34. It is important to note that the complainant, who is also a Government employee, did not provide any details regarding the exact date, time or place, where this initial demand was made. The complainant further stated that after the loan was approved, he collected a cheque of Rs.22,000=00 from the Central Bank of India, Aliayabada Branch. At that time, the accused met him outside the bank and demanded Rs.2,000=00 as agreed upon, and when the complainant expressed his inability to pay the Page 26 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined entire amount at a time, he instructed to pay him Rs.500=00 after 8 days and the remaining amount to be paid as soon as possible. He, therefore, paid Rs.500=00. Again, the complainant could not provide any details as to on which date and time this had happened nor has he provided any details as to on which date, at what time and at which place the payment of Rs.500=00 towards the illegal gratification was made.
35. So far as the elements of demand and acceptance of the bribe amount is concerned, the prosecution's evidence is inconsistent and contradictory. The testimonies of the three star- witnesses, i.e. the complainant, the shadow witness and the trapping officer, are mutually inconsistent which creates reasonable doubt towards the prosecution's version. In this context, the complainant - Dipsang Ranaji Sodha, in his evidence at Exh.11, has stated that after filing of the complaint (Exh.12), the trapping officer (PW-6) Bhikhubha Balubha Jadeja called two panch witnesses and introduced them to the complainant. The complainant then handed over the currency notes worth Rs.1,500=00 to the trapping officer Bhikhubha Jadeja, who noted down the serial number of the notes. Thereafter, one Mr.Sodha, a Police Constable, had applied Page 27 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined anthracene powder on the currency notes and demonstrated its impact under the ultraviolet light. The notes were then kept in the pocket of the shirt of the complainant. After completing the first part of the panchnama, they all left in a Jeep at around 4:20 pm to reach the place of the incident. The complainant and the shadow witness were waiting for the accused at the Bapu's pan shop in the Nagnath area. After some time, the accused arrived and asked the complainant, whether the payment has been arranged, to which the complainant replied in the affirmative, adding that he had no choice. When the complainant requested to reduce the bribe amount, the accused refused. The complainant then gave the tainted currency notes from his pocket to the accused, and while the accused was counting the notes, the complainant passed on the prearranged signal. After counting the notes, the accused then placed the same in his pocket, and immediately thereafter, the trapping officer Shri Jadeja and his team arrived at the place, detained the accused and brought him to the ACB office, where the accused had voluntarily taken out the notes from his pocket. When the notes were examined under the ultraviolet light, the finger marks were clearly visible. Considering the aforesaid evidence of the complainant, it appears that he attempted to support his Page 28 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined complaint as well as the case of the prosecution. However, in his evidence, nowhere he has stated that after the accused was taken to the ACB office, both of his hands were also examined under the ultraviolet lamp and fluorescent marks of anthracine powder were visible on both his hands. This seems to be a crucial omission so far as the acceptance of the bribe amount is concerned.
36. In this context, if we look at the evidence of the shadow witness (PW-2) Piyushbhai Amineshbhai Vora, he, in his evidence at Exh.13, has stated that in his presence as well as in presence of another panch witness Bharatbhai Janmshankar and others, one Police Constable Mr.Sodha had applied the anthracene powder to the currency notes worth Rs.1,500=00 provided by the complainant and also explained its impact under the ultraviolet light. After completing the first part of the panchnama, they all left in a Jeep to reach the place of the incident. Thereafter, the Police Inspector Shri Jadeja had instructed him to remain with the complainant and overhear the conversation between the two, that is, the complainant and the accused. Later on, when he, along with the complainant were waiting at the Bapu's pan shop, the accused had arrived and demanded the bribe amount from Page 29 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant requested him to reduce the amount, but the accused had refused, saying the amount is fair. The complainant then took out the currency notes from his pocket and handed over it to the accused, who counted the notes with both his hands and put it in the left-side pocket of his shirt. Meanwhile, the complainant passed on the prearranged signal. Upon receiving the signal, P.I. Shri Jadeja and his team arrived and detained the accused and brought him to the ACB office. As per the instruction of Police Inspector, he took out the currency notes from the pocket of the accused, and upon examination under the ultraviolet light, fluorescent marks were found on both the hands and shirt of the accused. The notes and the shirt were seized and then the second part of the panchnama was completed. During his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the conversation between the accused and the complainant, which he had heard, was also heard in the same manner by the pan shop owner. It is noteworthy that the pan shop owner has not been arraigned as a witness and even not examined by the prosecution to support the contention of this witness. Thus, as per the evidence of this witness, after the accused accepted the amount of bribe from the complainant, upon examination under the ultraviolet lamp, fluorescent marks Page 30 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined were found on both of his hands.
37. Now, in the same context, if we consider the testimony of the trapping officer (PW-6) Bhikhubha Balubha Jadeja, he, in his evidence at Exh.38, has stated that after completing the first part of the panchnama, they all left in a Jeep to reach the place of the incident. The complainant and the shadow witness were standing at the Bapu's pan shop, while other team members were positioned nearby in a scattered manner. Later on, upon receiving the prearranged signal from the complainant, they quickly reached the scene of the incident, and after inquiring as to what had happened, they brought the accused at the ACB office. Upon examining both the hands of the accused under the ultraviolet light, fluorescent marks were found only on the right hand of the accused and similar marks were also found on his shirt. Subsequently, the currency notes and the shirt were seized and the second part of the panchnama was completed. Thus, according to this witness, after accepting the bribe from the complainant in the form of the tainted currency notes, under the ultraviolet light examination, fluorescent marks were found only on the right hand of the accused and not on both his hands. Page 31 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined
38. It, therefore, clearly appears from the aforesaid evidence that the testimonies of all the three-star witnesses are highly contradictory. The complainant does not mention that any ultraviolet light examination had been conducted on both the hands of the accused after he accepted the tainted currency notes; the shadow witness (PW-2) Piyushbhai Amineshbhai Vora states that fluorescent marks were found on both the hands of the accused under the ultraviolet light; whereas, the trapping officer (PW-6) Bhikhubha Balubha Jadeja testifies that such marks were visible only on the right hand of the accused and not on both the hands. Thus, all the three-star witnesses gave conflicting and contradictory evidence of the ultraviolet light examination of the hands of the accused after he allegedly accepted the currency notes from the complainant. These inconsistencies naturally raises serious doubt whether the accused had accepted the alleged amount of bribe from the complainant.
39. The Supreme Court, in the case of Mallappa vs. State Of Karnataka, reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544, has held thus :-
"26. It may be noted that the possibility of two views in a Page 32 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined criminal case is not an extraordinary phenomenon. The two- views theory has been judicially recognized by the Courts and it comes into play when the appreciation of evidence results into two equally plausible views. However, the controversy is to be resolved in favour of the accused. For, the very existence of an equally plausible view in favour of innocence of the accused is in itself a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it reinforces the presumption of innocence. And therefore, when two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action...."
40. In view of the aforesaid, and considering the discrepancies in the evidence of the three-star witnesses regarding the acceptance of the illegal gratification, when two views are possible, certainly, the one in favour of innocence of the accused, must be considered.
41. Thus, on examination of the entire evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt, the essential element of demand of bribe and acceptance of illegal gratification. The law in this regard is well settled that for an offence to be constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the proof of Page 33 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant, as a fact in issue by the prosecution, is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused. A mere recovery of the tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused if the core evidence in the case is unreliable, unless there is a proof that the money was voluntarily accepted as a bribe.
42. Since the prosecution has failed in establishing the foundational fact by leading cogent and convincing evidence regarding the aspect of demand and its subsequent acceptance, the question of presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not arise in the present case.
43. In view of the aforesaid discussion and re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and convincing evidence and the trial court has not appreciated the entire evidence in its true perspective. Further, when the essential elements of demand and its subsequent acceptance, i.e. the fact in issue, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, mere recovery of the currency notes cannot constitute the offence punishable under Page 34 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act since it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had voluntarily accepted the amount knowing it to be the illegal gratification. Therefore, the appellant-accused cannot be held guilty by taking aid of the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, more particularly, when the basis and the foundation of the prosecution case, i.e. the demand and its acceptance, has not been proved.
44. Before parting with the judgment, it would be apt to reiterate the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence as affirmed by the highest court that, in criminal trial it is for the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused since the burden of proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt always rests upon the prosecution. It is also settled that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and cannot take advantage or undue advantage of the defence put forth by the accused.
45. As noted earlier, the Supreme Court, in the case of Rabindra Kumar Dey (supra), has reiterated three cardinal principles, namely, (i) that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and it Page 35 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defence version while proving its case; (ii) that in a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty; and (iii) that the onus of the prosecution never shifts.
46. Keeping in mind the cardinal principles of the criminal jurisprudence as stated herein above and considering the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the instant case it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and convincing evidence and, therefore, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellant-accused. Thus, it appears that the trial court has made an error while convicting the present appellant for the alleged offence and, therefore, interference by this Court is warranted.
47. In the result, the appeal preferred by the appellant-convict succeeds, and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.01.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.6, Jamnagar, in Special Case No.10 of 1997, is hereby quashed and set-aside. Bail bonds Page 36 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1795/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2025 undefined stand cancelled. The amount of fine paid, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant-convict. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the State for enhancement of the sentence, fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J.) /MOINUDDIN Page 37 of 37 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 30 00:26:36 IST 2025