Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Natvarbhai Chhaganbhai Patel on 3 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1818 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
NATVARBHAI CHHAGANBHAI PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No.
1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ESHA S BHAVSAR(12116) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 03/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the State under Section-378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 19.04.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.11, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in ACB Case No.03 of 2007. By way of the impugned judgment and Page 1 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined order, the Accused has been acquitted of all the charges levelled against them under Sections-7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Corruption Act").
2. The respondent no.2 herein happens to be the Accused no.2 reported to be died pending the appeal, hence appeal qua respondent no.2 stands abetted.
3. The short facts emerging from the record, reads as under:-
3.1. It is the case of the complainant that the Accused having demanded sum of Rs.300/- as a bribe for obtaining copy of sale deed which was of the year 1953, he has lodged complaint before the Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vadodara, thereby complaint came to be registered against the Accused.
3.2. As per the case of the complainant, who has been examined as PW-1, the complainant was running a provision store bearing Tika No.10 Note No. 545 having area of total 300 sq.feet in the name of his mother Savitaben which he purchased on 07.07.2000 from one Abdul Sattar Ismail Sheikh Page 2 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined for consideration of Rs.6500/-. The name of her mother was entered into the record of Desar Gram Panchayat, however, in the office of City Survey, Savali, the shop was shown in the name of original owner i.e. Nandlal Amrutlal. Hence, to enter the name of the mother as the owner of the shop in the record of office of City Survey, Savali, the complainant made application at the office of Deputy Collector, Narmada Bhuvan annexing the Hak Patrak No.6 alongwith the 7/12 extract.
3.3. The Deputy Collector Office vide its letter dated 24.06/07.2006 informed the complainant that his application was canceled for want of sufficient documents being the papers of original land in question. It was further informed to the complainant that he should file appeal paying the necessary Court Fee Stamp alongwith the letter dated 24.06/07.2006. Hence, on 18.08.2006, to get the papers of original land, the complainant approached the office of Sub Registrar, Savali.
3.4. It is the case of the complainant that, on 18.08.2006, when he informed the Accused no.1 about him wanting the papers of original land, the Accused no.1, serving as Sub Registrar, demanded a bribe amounting to Rs. 300/- informing Page 3 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined that the papers which the complainant want is of very old record i.e. of the year 1953. Accused no.1 further asked the complainant to come with the bribe of Rs.300/- on 25.08.2006 at about 11.00 a.m. and told that thereafter the complainant would get all the papers which he wanted.
3.5. Hence, the complainant not wanting to pay bribe, approached the Police Inspector, ACB, Vadodara and narrated entire incident to the ACB Officer which was followed by filing of complaint against the Accused by the complaint.
3.6. On filing the complaint, ACB followed the necessary procedure, called Panchas, introduced them with the complainant and made them understood about the complaint.
The ACB, thereafter explained the characteristics of anthrecene powder and experiment of ultra violet lamp to the Panchas and the complainant. Thus, after completing necessary preliminary Panchnama as per law, ACB raiding party along with Panchas, staff members and the complainant went to office of Sub Registrar Savali. The ACB prepared a trap and sent the complainant and Panch Witness No.1 to the Accused.
3.7. Thereafter, seeing the complainant and Panch Witness Page 4 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined No.1, the Accused in the presence of Panch Witness No.1 told the complainant that all the necessary documents as the complainant wanted were ready and also asked whether the complainant had come with an amount of Rs.300/- as fixed between them, to which, the complainant had given currency notes which were already smeared with anthrecene powder at the time of preliminary panchnama. However, Accused no.1 asked the complainant to give the same to Accused no.2, who was also present there. Therefore, the Panch Witness No.1 gave a fixed signal to the ACB raiding party and on receiving such signal from Panch Witness No.1, ACB approached the Accused, introduced themselves to the Accused, searched the persons of the Accused and recovered the bribe amount and after investigation, ACB prepared charge-sheet against the Accused and submitted the same before the competent Court. 3.8. The concerned Court framed charges vide Exhibit-5 and the same was read over and explained over to the Accused respondents, to which, he denied their involvement. In the statement recorded as per Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also, the Accused denied their involvement in commission of alleged offence. Page 5 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined
4. The prosecution led following oral and documentary evidences in support of it's case and to bring home the charges against Accused.
Oral Evidences of Prosecution
Sr. No. Name and Particulars Exh.
1. Kanchanlal Kantilal Rana 9
2. Sikandar Kalumiya Malek 16
3. Vinay Yogeshchandra Vyas 30
4. Mahebub Mustufa Malek 34
5. Govindbhai Varvabhai Barot 40
Documentary Evidences
Sr.No. Document Particulars Exh
.
1. Complaint given by Kanchanlal Kantilal 35
Rana on 24.08.2006
2. Written details of allotting two government 36
employees as Panch on 24.08.2006
3. Panchnama of bribery on 25.08.2006 28
4. Seizure memo of items taken in custody 27
from complainant on 25.08.2006
5. Seizure memo of items taken in custody 25
from Accused no.1 on 25.08.2006
6. Seizure memo of items taken in custody 26
from Accused no.2 on 25.08.2006
7. Recorded information of Accused no.1 41
8. Recorded information of Accused no.2 42
9. FSL Report forwarding letter dated 43
20.10.2006
4.1. After conducting the Trial and appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court has found that prosecution has failed to establish the case and not able to prove the charges Page 6 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined beyond doubt, thereby acquitted the Accused from all the charges levelled against him.
5. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.Jirga Jhaveri for Appellant - State and learned advocate Mr.Rathin Raval for Respondent No.1 - Accused No.1.
6. Learned APP Ms. Jhaveri would submit that complainant has categorically deposed that Accused no.1 had demanded bribe of Rs.600/- out of which Rs.300/- already paid to him and remaining Rs.300/- was paid on the date of trap, thereby charges levelled against Accused have been successfully proved by prosecution. Learned APP would further submit that Trapping Officer (PW-4) who was also examined, has successfully proved the trap and also Panchas of trap have also supported the case of prosecution whereby Accused ought to have been held guilty for committing the offence. 6.1. Learned APP would further submit that Accused no.1 having demanded money in form of bribe for issuance of necessary certified copies to complainant and having so received such amount, by instructing complainant to pay to Accused no.2, both ought to have been held liable for the Page 7 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined offence. Learned APP would further submit that merely because Trapping Officer has not confirmed the presence of brother of the complainant would not ipso facto water-down his evidence which is otherwise not questionable during his cross-examination.
6.2. Learned APP would further submit that at given point of time, when unaccounted cash was recovered by Trapping Officer from possession of the Accused no.1 and having not satisfied with the explanation given by Accused no.1, which later on found to be satisfactory by Investigating Officer, would not give any benefit of doubt to Accused no.1 so far as amount of bride received by Accused.
6.3. So, making the aforesaid submissions, learned APP would request this Court to allow the present appeal.
7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval appearing for the Accused No.1 respectfully submit that there is no error committed by the Trial Court while acquitting Accused from the charge whereby, no interference requires of this Court while exercising its appellate power. 7.1. Learned advocate Mr. Raval would submit that story put Page 8 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined forward by complainant is highly doubtful and improbable having so observed by Trial Court while acquitting the Accused. It is submitted that complainant has improvised about the payment of bribe to Accused in his oral evidence and facts which are not stated by him neither in his police statement nor in complaint given to ACB, such other facts are deposed in his oral evidence.
7.2. Learned advocate Mr.Raval would respectfully submit that complainant has tried to falsely implicate Accused no.1 for the offence in question by stating that he had paid Rs.300/- to Accused no.1 on 18.08.2006 and balance was paid on the date of trap i.e. on 25.08.2006. Such fact was never stated by complainant before the police and/or to ACB Officer. Learned advocate Mr.Raval would further submit that Panch Witness No.1 examined as PW-2 has not supported the case of prosecution inasmuch as he has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that Accused no.1 has not demanded any money from the complainant in his presence. So, in absence of any demand by Accused no.1 from the complainant, charges levelled against Accused was not successfully proved and in absence of proving the demand by Accused, nothing further Page 9 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined requires to be considered.
7.3. Learned advocate Mr. Raval would further submit that Trapping Officer has categorically denied presence of brother of the complainant during the course of trap which was contrary to evidence of complainant wherein he has admitted that his brother who was attached to the office of advocate was remained with him all throughout the process of filing complaint with ACB Office till the completion of trap conducted by the ACB.
7.4. Learned advocate Mr. Raval would further submit that Trapping Officer has not recorded his satisfaction about recovery of amount of Rs.1,33,372/- from Accused no.1 in Panchnama drawn by him. Whereas, during the course of investigation, Investigating Officer has satisfied himself that such money was belonged to the father of Accused no.1 which was sale proceeds of agricultural produce i.e. Castor. 7.5. Learned advocate Mr. Raval would further submit that another glaring discrepancy was found in the evidence of complainant that as per his version, when the complainant along with Panch Witness No.1 (PW-2) reached the office of Page 10 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined Accused no.1 on the date of trap, Accused no.1 was not found available at the first instance and Accused no.2 instructed them to wait for Accused no.1 to come in the afternoon at about 13 hours in his office. Whereas, PW-2 in his cross- examination has categorically admitted that when he along with complainant reached to the office of the Accused no.1, he was found available and busy with his work. This creates doubt in the mind of prudent one so far as case of prosecution is concerned.
7.6. To buttress his argument, learned advocate Mr.Raval has relied upon the following two decisions:-
(i) Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab [2024 (3) SCC 164]
(ii) State of Lokayuktha Police, Devanagere vs. C. B. Nagaraj [Delivered on 19th May, 2005 in Criminal Appeal No.1157/2015 (2025 INSC 736)] 7.7. Making the aforesaid submissions, he would request this Court to dismiss the appeal.
8. Before dealing with merit of the appeal, at this stage, I would first like to remind myself the position of law propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its various Page 11 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined decisions, whereby it has laid down several criteria while deciding acquittal appeal especially in Anti-Corruption cases.
8.1. It would be apt to refer and rely upon the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case of Neeraj Dutta V/s. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731 wherein it held as under.
"88.What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
88.1 (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.
88.2 (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 fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
88.3 (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.
88.4 (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 Page 12 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined 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)(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 inturn 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.
88.5 (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 Page 13 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the Accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. 88.6 (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. 88.7 (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.
88.8 (h) We clarify that the presumption in 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."
(emphasis supplied)"
8.2. It would be also appropriate to refer and rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mallappa and Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544 wherein scope of acquittal is succinctly discussed and elaborated held thus:-Page 14 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined "24. We may firstly discuss the position of law regarding the scope of intervention in a criminal appeal.
For, that is the foundation of this challenge. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the Accused, unless proven guilty. The presumption continues at all stages of the trial and finally culminates into a fact when the case ends in acquittal. The presumption of innocence gets concretized when the case ends in acquittal. It is so because once the Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, finds that the Accused was not guilty, the presumption gets strengthened and a higher threshold is expected to rebut the same in appeal."
"25. No doubt, an order of acquittal is open to appeal and there is no quarrel about that. It is also beyond doubt that in the exercise of appellate powers, there is no inhibition on the High Court to re-appreciate or re- visit the evidence on record. However, the power of the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence is a qualified power, especially when the order under challenge is of acquittal. The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the Trial Court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence. The second point for consideration is whether the finding of the Trial Court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact. If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a fairly possible view. A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion. What is required is an illegality or perversity."
"26. It may be noted that the possibility of two views in a 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 Page 15 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined 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. Furthermore, it is also settled that if the view of the Trial Court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for the High Court to convict the Accused by reappreciating the evidence. If such a course is permissible, it would make it practically impossible to settle the rights and liabilities in the eyes of law. In Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka, 2015 10 SCC 230 "13. Considering the reasons given by the trial court and on appraisal of the evidence, in our considered view, the view taken by the trial court was a possible one. Thus, the High Court should not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal. This Court in Jagan M. Seshadri v. State of T.N., 2002 9 SCC 639 has laid down that as the appreciation of evidence made by the trial court while recording the acquittal is a reasonable view, it is not permissible to interfere in appeal. The duty of the High Court while reversing the acquittal has been dealt with by this Court, thus:
"9. We are constrained to observe that the High Court was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. It was required to deal with various grounds on which acquittal had been based and to dispel those grounds. It has not done so. Salutary principles while dealing with appeal against acquittal have been overlooked by the High Court. If the appreciation of evidence by the trial court did not suffer from any flaw, as indeed none has been pointed out in the impugned judgment, the order of acquittal could not have been set aside. The view taken by the learned trial court was a reasonable view and even if by any stretch of imagination, it could be said that another view was possible, that was not a ground sound enough to set aside an order of acquittal.""
(emphasis supplied) Page 16 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined In Sanjeev v. State of H.P., 2022 6 SCC 294 the Hon'ble Supreme Court analyzed the relevant decisions and summarized the approach of the appellate Court while deciding an appeal from the order of acquittal. It observed thus:
"7. It is well settled that:
7.1. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the reasons which had weighed with the trial court in acquitting the Accused must be dealt with, in case the appellate court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the trial court deserves to be upturned (see Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka, 2019 5 SCC 436 Anwar Ali v. State of H.P., 2020 10 SCC 166) 7.2. With an order of acquittal by the trial court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced (see Atley v. State of U.P., 1955 AIR(SC) 807) 7.3. If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal (see Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, 1998 5 SCC 412)"
(emphasis supplied)"
8.3. The law on the issue germane in the present appeal has also been succinctly discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its recent judgment in the case of State of Lokayuktha Police, Devanagere V/s. C. B. Nagaraj (supra), wherein held as under:
"25. It is pertinent to note that till 05.02.2007, when the Respondent had conducted the physical/spot inspection, there is not even a whisper of there being any demand of bribe. Moreover, when the Complainant went back to Page 17 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined the Respondent's office at 5:30 PM with the money, the prosecution case itself as per the deposition of its witnesses makes it clear that the Respondent had informed the Complainant that he had already forwarded the concerned file. Thus, if the same is accepted, there was no occasion for the Complainant to go ahead with paying the amount, which he claims to be in the nature of bribe demanded by the Respondent, after the work for which the bribe was purportedly sought, had already been done. The observation of the High Court to this extent is correct that just because money changed hands, in cases like the present, it cannot be ipso facto presumed that the same was pursuant to a demand, for the law requires that for conviction under the Act, an entire chain - beginning from demand, acceptance, and recovery has to be completed. In the case at hand, when the initial demand itself is suspicious, even if the two other components - of payment and recovery can be held to have been proved, the chain would not be complete. A penal law has to be strictly construed [Md. Rahim Ali v State of Assam, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695 @ Paragraph 45 and Jay Kishan v State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 296 @ Paragraph 24]. While we will advert to the presumption under Section 20 of the Act hereinafter, there is no cavil that while a reverse onus under specific statute can be placed on an Accused, even then, there cannot be a presumption which casts an uncalled for onus on the Accused. Chandrasha (supra) would not apply as demand has not been proven. In Paritala Sudhakar v State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1072, it was stated thus:
21. As far as the submission of the State is that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, as it then was, would operate against the Appellant is concerned, our analysis supra would indicate that the factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of animus between the Appellant and complainant, is not proved. In such circumstances, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act would not militate against the Appellant, in terms of the pronouncement Page 18 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined in Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 250:
22. In view of the aforementioned discrepancies in the prosecution case, we are of the opinion that the defence story set up by the appellant cannot be said to be wholly improbable. Furthermore, it is not a case where the burden of proof was on the Accused in terms of Section 20 of the Act. Even otherwise, where demand has not been proved, Section 20 will also have no application. (Union of India v.
Purnandu Biswas [(2005) 12 SCC 576: (2005) 8 Scale 246] and T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401: (2006) 1 Scale 116])"
8.4. Thus, it is now a well-settled legal position of law that a heavy burden is cast upon the prosecution to prove that the Accused has demanded and accepted the bribe, and the same would have to be recovered from Accused. In a case where any of these ingredients are missing, the charges levelled against Accused under Section 7 read with Section 13 would not be attracted.
9. After reexamining and re-appreciating evidence on record, following glaring facts emerges from evidence led by prosecution need to be considered:-
i. The complainant in his oral evidence has deposed that Accused no.1 had demanded Rs.600/- to perform his duty by issuing necessary required documents by the complainant for Page 19 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined which he had already paid Rs.300/- to Accused no.1 on 18.08.2006 and balance was to be paid on 25.08.2006 i.e. date of trap. Such fact was ostensibly missing in his police statement and so also in the complaint given to the ACB which has created serious doubt about the veracity of the complaint lodged with the ACB by complainant.
ii. It is now settled legal position of law that something which was not stated by witness to the police during the investigation, such fact cannot brought on record during trial through examination of witness. The judgment cited by learned advocate Mr. Raval for Accused no.1 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) would be helpful to Accused to prove his defence wherein, it held thus:-
"26. If the PWs had failed to mention in their statements u/s 161 CrPC about the involvement of an Accused, their subsequent statement before court during trial regarding involvement of that particular Accused cannot be relied upon. Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation. The evidence of that witness regarding the said improved fact is of no significance. [See : (i) Rohtash Vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589 (ii) Sunil Kumar Shambhu Dayal Gupta Vs. State of Page 20 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined Maharashtra, 2011 (72) ACC 699 (SC). (iii) Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur Vs. State of Karnataka, (2004) 7 SCC 422 (iv) Vimal Suresh Kamble Vs. Chaluverapinake, (2003) 3 SCC 175]"
iii. So far as demand of bribe by Accused no.1 on the date of trap is concerned, PW-2 who was Panch No.1 accompanied complainant on the date of trap has not supported the case of complainant in sofar as he has admitted in his cross- examination that in his presence, Accused no.1 had never demanded money from the complainant except Rs.35/- which was official charge for preparing a copy to be given to the complainant. The Accused no.1 has stated that understanding be completed. He has further admitted that in his presence, Accused no.1 has not stated anything to Accused no.2. iv. It has further come on record that valid charges to give copy of old record would come to around Rs.300/- thereby, assuming for a time being that such amount has been paid by complainant to Accused which was later on recovered from the pocket of Accused no.2, it has reason to believe that it might have been paid towards official charges to receive such copy.
Page 21 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined v. It has further come on record through evidence of complainant that starting from registration of complaint with ACB till its conclusion of trap arranged by Trapping Officer of ACB, brother of complainant who was used to work with advocate was present, but, this fact was denied by Trapping Officer in his cross-examination. This also creates doubt about the genuineness of entire trap arranged by ACB. vi. So far as recovery of an amount of Rs.1,33,372/- from the office of the Accused no.1 is concerned, Accused no.1 has successfully discharged burden thereby, proved that such money was belonged to his father i.e. Agricultural Sale proceeds of Castor and same is confirmed by Investigating Officer in his evidence.
10. Thus, an overall assessment and examination of evidence would suggest that the prosecution has egregiously failed to prove the fact that Accused has demanded a bribe thereby, failed to prove the charges levelled against the Accused. So, after overall assessment of evidence and its re-appreciation as well as reasons assigned by learned Trial Court, I am in complete agreement with view taken by the Trial Court having acquitted the Accused.
Page 22 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1818/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2025 undefined
11. So, considering these set of evidences on record and in light of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reproduced hereinabove, which deals with the law on acquittal so also issue germane in the appeal, I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by the Trial Court while acquitting the respondent.
12. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of the trial court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record and proceedings, called for, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Bhoomi Page 23 of 23 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Thu Jun 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 05 21:38:37 IST 2025