Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Prajapati Jayantilal Babulal on 18 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 518 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PRAJAPATI JAYANTILAL BABULAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. TRUPESH KATHIRIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. YOGENDRA THAKORE(3975) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 18/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special A.C.B. Case No. 4 of 2006 on 05.06.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act" Page 1 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined for short).
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as "the accused" as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 In the year 2006, the accused was working as a Talati Cum Mantri at Taleti Gram Panchayat and was a public servant. On 03.02.2006, the complainant - Satishkumar Jethabai Rana residing at Taleti came to the accused as he wanted the property card of the backyards situated in village Taleti which were in the joint names of his family members. The complainant had requested for the property cards about ten years prior to that date and the accused demanded an amount of Rs. 3000/- as illegal gratification. After bargaining, the amount was fixed at Rs. 1500/- and after further bargaining, it was finally fixed at Rs. 1000/-. The complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.1000/- to the accused and went to the ACB Police Station, Mehsana on 02.02.2006 and registered Page 2 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined a police complaint.
2.2 The Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and the complainant did not had the amount of trap money and hence, the Trap Laying Officer gave Rs.1000/- from the government trap money which were ten currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each. Police Constable - Jenaji was asked to conduct the demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate and in the presence of the panch witnesses and the complainant, Police Constable - Jenaji explained the characteristics of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate and conducted the demonstration and smeared all the ten currency notes with phenolphthalein powder. The currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder were then folded and placed in the left shirt pocket of the complainant and necessary instructions to all concerned were given. The complainant, panch witnesses and the members of the raiding party went on foot to the Rajmahal Canteen where the complainant had his stall for repairing cycle punctures and at around 12.35 pm, the accused came on a scooter Page 3 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined from the bus-stand side and demanded the amount of illegal gratification. The complainant took the tainted currency notes from his left shirt pocket and gave it to the accused who accepted the same. The predetermined signal was given and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused. The necessary tests were conducted and after the due procedure, the complaint was registered at ACB Mehsana Police Station, C.R. No. 2/2006 under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act.
2.3 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed before the Sessions Court, Mehsana and the case was registered as Special A.C.B. Case No. 4 of 2006.
2.4 The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 12 was framed against the Page 4 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 13 wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.5 The prosecution examined 4 witnesses and produced 12 documentary evidences on record in support of their case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence and refused to step into the witness box or lead evidence but stated that a false case has been filed against him. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the judgment and order Page 5 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined of acquittal is contrary to evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the version of the complainant who has fully supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the panch witness and the Trap Laying Officer and if the entire evidence is perused, the prosecution has fully proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. Moreover, the charge sheet was filed after the sanction for prosecution was received and the Competent Authority had perused all the documents and thereafter, had given the sanction but the same has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. Moreover, the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance and all the ingredients of the PC Act but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the same. The currency notes of Rs. 1000/- coated with phenolphthalein powder were recovered from the respondent and the learned Trial Court has erred in arriving at a conclusion that the factum of demand on the basis of the evidence of the complainant and the panchnama has not been proved. The learned Trial Court has not Page 6 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined appreciated that the respondent was on duty as a public servant at the time of the offence and the demand of money was not within the scope of his duty. The learned Trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice and hence, the impugned judgment and order is required to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Yogendra Thakore for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya has taken this court through the entire evidence of the prosecution and has stated that the complainant has clearly stated that the accused had demanded for the amount of illegal gratification from him and he did not want to pay the same. Initially, the amount demanded was Rs. 3000/- and after bargaining the amount was fixed at Rs. 1000/-. Moreover, Page 7 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined the panch witness has also supported the case of the prosecution and from the evidence of the complainant, panch witness, Trap Laying Officer and Investigating Officer, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. The ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery have been proved and the learned Trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence. The judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is perverse and illegal and is required to be quashed and set aside. Learned APP has urged this court to find the respondent guilty for the offence.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Yogendra Thakor for the respondent has stated that in the entire evidence of the prosecution there is no iota of evidence as to why the amount was to be given. The factum of demand has not been proved by the prosecution as the panch witness who was the shadow witness has not heard any demand made by the respondent at the spot. As per the panchnama it has emerged that the respondent came to the spot and took some papers from the boot of his scooter and gave it to the Page 8 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined complainant but the complainant does not say that the documents were given. The documents that are alleged to have been given have not been seized by the Investigating Officer and the demand which is a sine qua non for the offence under the PC Act has not been proved. Moreover, there was a grudge from by the complainant against the accused and if the notice produced at Exh. 23 is perused the complainant had given a notice by registered post AD to one Sadabhai Dahyabhai Vankar and the respondent. This proves that the complainant had a grudge with the respondent and to settle the score, he has filed a false case against him. The learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in true perspective and there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment in order and learned advocate has urged this court to reject the appeal of the appellant.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in para 11 and 12 with regard to the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing Page 9 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined with acquittal appeals in the case of P. Somaraju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1423:
11. Before proceeding, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the well-settled principles governing interference with an order of acquittal by an Appellate Court, which were also discussed by the High Court in the impugned judgment. At the outset, we rely upon the seminal case of Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka 2007 (4) SCC 415 wherein this Court had laid down the five-point canonical test as follows:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Page 10 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 4 (2007) 4 SCC 415.
12. To summarize, an Appellate Court undoubtedly has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 and 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, due to the reinforced or 'double' presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be limited. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the record, the acquittal should not be disturbed. Judicial intervention is only warranted where the Trial Court's view is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in manifest miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the Appellate Court must address the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal before reversing it and assigning its own. A catena of the recent judgements of this Court has more firmly entrenched this position, including, inter alia, Mallappa & Ors. vs. State of Page 11 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined Karnataka, 2024 INSC 104, Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258, Babu Sahebagauda Rudragaudar and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 320 and Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 114.
7.1 The Apex Court, in the case of Surendra Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2025 INSC 114, has observed in Para No. 11 as under:
11. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka6, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus:
"38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court.
39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC pp. 482-83, para 29) "29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words : (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] , SCC p. 432, para 42)
42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the Page 12 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb Page 13 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581: (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows : (SCC p. 584, para 8) "8. ... 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;Page 14 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined 41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."
8. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality or perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, Page 15 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
9. With regard to the cases under the PC Act, the Apex Court, in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248, has observed in Para No. 68 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 fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct Page 16 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined 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)(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) Page 17 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined 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.
(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 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 Page 18 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined 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 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."
10. In view of the settled principles of law in acquittal appeals, the evidence is reappreciated and to prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution has in all examined five witnesses. PW1 - Satishkumar Jethabhai Rana examined at Exh. 20 is the complainant who has narrated the details as stated by him in the complaint produced at Exh. 21. The witness has stated that the panch witnesses were called and the demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and solution of sodium carbonate was done and the characteristics of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate were explained to them. The Trap Laying Officer gave the necessary instructions and the currency notes were smeared with anthracene powder and Page 19 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined placed in his pocket. The complainant along with the shadow witness went walking to the Rajmahal Compound near the statue of Shivaji and stood there and went walking to the place where he had his stall for repairing cycle punctures. Around 12.30 the accused came on a scooter and parked the scooter and came to the complainant and asked him what had he done and demanded for the money. When the complainant told him that he had brought the money and asked for his documents, the accused told him to come with him and they walked to the statue of Shivaji in the Rajmahal Compound. The accused demanded for the money at that place and he gave Rs. 1000/- and returned back to his work place and at that time he gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused. In the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that Survey Nos. 88, 104 and 238 are in his joint ownership and besides that they have five backyards but all the backyards are in the joint names of all the family members and have not been partitioned till date. They have disputes Page 20 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined between their family and Manilal who was the Ex-Sarpanch had tampered with the revenue record of his ancestral property. He had given a notice to his grandfather and the Sarpanch on 31.05.2005 and in the notice he had demanded an amount of Rs. 1000/- for the costs of the notice. In the property card of the backyard, his father's name was entered and his father had expired on 28.01.2004. After the death of his father, the names of the legal heirs who were his mother, himself and his sister had to be entered and the names were entered vide mutation entry no. 1327 on 05.07.2004. His uncle had falsely used his signature and removed and deleted his mother and sister's name from the record and he had demanded for the property card of the backyard and found that their names were deleted. He had gone to the Gram Panchayat Office on 12.10.2001 to take the copies of the property card and had also gone on 03.02.2004 to get the death certificate of his father. On other dates also he had gone to the Talati's Office to take the documents such as income certificate, succession certificate, etc. and he had received the copies of Page 21 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined the property card on 31.01.2006. He had inquired from the accused about a way to enter only his name in the revenue record and he had a doubt that the accused was not helping him on the say of his uncle Manibhai. In the notice, he had demanded for his share of the property and had threatened to take steps against the accused if his share of the property was not given. There were disputes regarding the property in their family but no court cases were filed. He had also filed a complaint with the DSP against his uncle on 23.06.2005 and he had also filed a complaint on 09.07.2006 against the Sarpanch and his brother. He would often borrow money from the accused whenever he was in need of some money and the accused used to often lend him money and would also send him the same through some person. Whenever the accused used to come to the Collector Office he would visit the complainant and would park his scooter near his stall. At the time of the incident, he and the accused were walking in the front and the shadow witness was at a distance of about 7 to 8 feet behind them. When he gave the amount to the accused the Page 22 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined shadow witness was at a distance of about 5 feet and from the time they left his puncture shop till the Statue of Gayakwad, they did not speak a single word. 10.1 PW2 - Mafatlal Virchanddas Patel examined at Exh. 24 is the panch witness who has supported the case of the prosecution and has narrated the details as stated in the panchnama which is produced at Exh. 25. The witness has stated that at the time of the trap, the accused came on his scooter and parked his scooter and came to the complainant and the complainant asked him whether he had brought the documents and the accused replied in the affirmative. The accused removed some papers from the boot of his scooter and the complainant went to give the money to the accused but the accused started walking towards the court compound and the complainant also followed him. The panch witness also followed them to the court compound and they halted at the Statue of Shivaji in the court compound. The panch witness was at a distance of about 8 feet away from them and the complainant took the money from his pocket with his right hand and gave it Page 23 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined to the accused who accepted it in his right hand and placed the same in his right side pant pocket. The complainant gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused. In the cross examination, the witness has stated that he did not have any conversation with the complainant in the ACB Office and the accused had parked his scooter at a distance of about 10 feet from the complainant. The complainant had called for tea and the complainant and accused had tea but he did not have any tea. Thereafter the complainant demanded for the documents and the accused gave the documents but he did not see what documents were given. At the place of the stall of the complainant, they had a simple conversation and he was at a distance of about 8 feet behind the complainant and the accused and he did not hear their conversation. When the accused was caught by the Trap Laying Officer and other members of the raiding party he did not go near but he went with all of them to the Civil Hospital. In the office, the Inspector was dictating and Page 24 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined the Writer was writing and he did not dictate any portion of the panchnama but had merely signed the panchnama thereafter. He had read the panchnama before his deposition in the Court and two days prior to the adjourned date, the ACB police had given him the panchnama. The witness has admitted that if he did not depose as per the panchnama, department proceedings could be initiated against him and when the accused was taken from the place of incident to the Civil Hospital he did not have any conversation with anyone.
10.2 PW3 - Chandubhai Rupaji Kotak examined at Exh. 26 is the Trap Laying Officer who has narrated the entire details from the time that the complainant came to the ACB office on 02.02.2006 and all the procedure that was undertaken by him till the trap was successful. In the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has admitted that he had recorded the complaint of the complainant, drawn the panchnama and had sent the solution of sodium carbonate to the FSL and had arrested the accused. The complainant did not give him any Page 25 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined property card of any backyard and he had sent the Yadi for the panch witnesses with a Constable. The complainant was doing the work of repairing punctures in an open place on the Meshana - Visnagar road and at the time of the incident, the place was teeming with people. People were sitting beneath the neem tree which was at the place where the complainant was repairing the cycle punctures and the members of the raiding party had spread themselves around. After the accused took his scooter and came, they went towards the court compound after about 10 to 12 minutes and the panch no. 1 was behind the complainant and the accused.
10.3 PW4 - Umedsinh Ravaji Thakore examined at Exh. 34 is the Investigating Officer who had taken over the investigation from Police Inspector - Kotak. The witness has recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and received the Muddamal FSL Report and thereafter, undertook the procedure for getting the service record of the accused and after the sanction for prosecution was received, he had filed the charge sheet. In the cross-examination, the Page 26 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined witness has stated that the letter for sanction for prosecution was written on 09.06.2006 and at that time most of the documents were ready with him. He did not record the further statement of the complainant but had met the complainant to verify whether he had given any application for the copies of the property that were required by him. The statement of the accused was recorded on 03.02.2006 and thereafter on 04.02.2006 and at both the times, the accused was in custody. In the statements, the accused has stated that he did not demand for any amount of illegal gratification and the test of ultraviolet lamp and powder was done by the Trap Laying Officer in the court compound near the Statue of Shivaji.
11. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per the settled principles of law in cases under the PC Act, the prosecution has to prove the factum of demand which is a sine qua non for the offence under the PC Act. In the complaint, the complainant has stated that the amount of Rs. 3000/- was demanded as illegal gratification for the copies of the property card of the Page 27 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined backyard and after bargaining the amount was fixed at Rs. 1500/- and thereafter at Rs. 1000/-. The complainant has not stated the exact date when the amount was demanded for by the accused and as far as the demand at the time of the trap is concerned, the panch witness has clearly stated that he was at a distance of about 8 feet behind the complainant and did not hear their conversation. Hence, the panch witness who was expected to corroborate the complainant's versions has not heard the demand and the factum of demand is not proved by the prosecution. In the evidence, the accused has brought on record the notice given by the complainant to his grandfather and the accused wherein he has a dispute regarding his joint property and he has threatened to take legal action against the accused for entering into a criminal conspiracy regarding the property. In the cross examination, the complainant has also admitted that he had a grudge with the accused as he had a doubt that the accused had joined hands with his other family members and had got his mother and sister's name deleted from the joint property of Page 28 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined the family and it has also emerged on record that the complainant had filed various complaints against his uncle and also against the Sarpanch and his brother and son. This demonstrates that there existed a prior dispute between the complainant and accused and this enmity provides a plausible motive for false implication and renders the testimony of the complainant unreliable. As far as the trap is concerned, as per the say of the complainant, the amount of illegal gratification was to be given for the documents which were the property card of the backyard and if the panchnama produced at Exh. 25 is perused, the panchnama states that when the accused came to the place of incident, he took the papers from the boot of the scooter and gave the papers to the complainant who looked at the papers and placed it in his pocket. The complainant does not state that the documents were given to him by the accused at the time of the trap and he states that when the accused came, he asked for the documents and the accused admitted that he had brought the documents and when they were demanded, the accused told him to accompany Page 29 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined him and thereafter, he along with the accused followed the shadow witness went towards the Statue of Shivaji in the Rajmahal Compound where the accused demanded for the money. There are major contradictions in the deposition of the complainant and in the entire evidence, it is not clear as to why the amount was to be given and the demand which is a sine qua non for the offence under the PC Act has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts.
12. In view of the settled position of law, the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Trial Court and this Court is Page 30 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Mehsana in Special A.C.B. Case No. 4 of 2006 on 05.06.2007, is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 31 of 31 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:04:09 IST 2025