Gujarat High Court
Mavjibhai Meghajibhai Parmar vs The State Of Gujarat on 10 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1325 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
MAVJIBHAI MEGHAJIBHAI PARMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DHRUV TOLIYA(9249) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 10/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the appellant- convict (i.e. the original accused), challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.07.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge and Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Special Case No.22 of 2002, whereby the learned Special Judge convicted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections Page 1 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined 7, 13(2) read with Section (13)(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and consequently, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs.10,000=00 for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs.10,000=00 for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION :
2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut-shell, is that on 28.3.2002 at around 19:15 hours, near the Gram Panchayat office, the appellant-accused, who was a Class-III Government employee serving as Talati-cum-Mantri, Dedan Gram Panchayat, Taluka Khambha, District Amreli, had demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.200=00 from the complainant - Savjibhai Babubhai Sankhat for the purpose of mutation entry in the panchayat record.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the brother of the complainant, namely, Maganbhai Babubhai Sankhat, had Page 2 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined purchased a residential house at village Dedan, and for the purpose of transferring the house in his name in the panchayat record, he had handed over the job to his brother (i.e. the complainant - Savjibhai Babubhai Sankhat).
4. It is further the case of the prosecution that when the complainant had filed an application for transfer of house in the name of his brother in the panchayat record along with the necessary documents pertaining to the house, the appellant- accused, being a public servant, had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.200=00 from the complainant for the said work, which he was otherwise duty bound to discharge as per his official duty.
5. It is alleged that the complainant had twice provided the copies of the sale-deed to the appellant-accused for carrying out the mutation entry in the panchayat record regarding transfer of house in the name of his brother Maganbhai. However, on both the occasions the appellant-accused had lost the copies of the sale-deed and was insisting for illegal gratification of Rs.500=00 from the complainant, and when the complainant begged for some reduction, he told the complainant to pay him Rs.200=00 Page 3 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined on 28.03.2002 at around 5 O'clock in the evening at his residence or at the panchayat office.
6. Ultimately, on 28.03.2002 at 13:00 hours, a complaint in this regard came to be filed by the complainant - Savjibhai Babubhai Sankhat against the appellant-accused Mavjibhai Meghjibhai Parmar, Talati-cum-Mantri, Dedan Gram Panchayat, Taluka Khambha, District Amreli, before the A.C.B. Police Station, Amreli. On the basis of the said complaint, a trap was arranged and the appellant-accused was caught red-handed accepting the bribe.
7. An offence came to be registered against the appellant- accused vide Crime Register No.1/2002 lodged before the A.C.B. Police Station, Amreli, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The investigation was commenced, and during the investigation, the statements of the witnesses conversant with the incident were recorded, and documentary evidence were collected. On completion of the investigation, the appellant- accused was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and tried by the learned Special Judge and Sessions Judge, Amreli. In Page 4 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined order to prove the charge, the prosecution had examined several witnesses and adduced various documentary evidence.
8. The Charge came to be framed against the appellant- accused on 08.09.2003 vide Exh.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The plea of the appellant-accused was recorded vide Exh.4 and the appellant-accused abjured his guilt pleading innocence and claimed to be tried.
9. To bring home the charge, the prosecution had examined the witnesses and adduced documentary evidence as under :
NO. WITNESSES NAME EXHIBIT
1. Savjibhai Babubhai Sankhat - Complainant 11
2. Narendrabhai Navalshankar Jani - Panch No.1 13
3. Yunusbhai Mohammadbhai Munshi - Sanctioning 19
Authority
4. Kantilal Panchabhai Chaudhari - Trapping Officer 40
and Police Inspector, A.C.B. Police Station, Amreli
5. Govindbhai Jethalal Yadav - Investigating Officer 42 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SR. DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENT EXHIBIT NO.
1 Complaint 12 Page 5 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined 2 Panchnama 14 3 Seizure Memo of the muddamal seized from the 15 accused 4 Sanction Letter as per Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 20 1988, to proceed with the case against the accused 5 Certified copy of the first page of the service book of 43 the accused to show that the accused is serving as public servant in the District Panchayat, Amreli.
10. On completion of the recording of the evidence, the trial court explained the incriminating circumstances appearing against the appellant-accused. The appellant-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. The appellant-accused has also produced certain evidence in his defence along with documentary evidence vide Exh.44.
11. On completion of the trial, the trial court, vide judgment and order dated 31.07.2004, convicted the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and consequently, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with the fine of Rs.20,000=00, and in Page 6 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined making default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for two months.
12. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the convict had preferred the captioned Criminal Appeal No.1325 of 2004 before this Court, which came to be admitted vide order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 13.08.2004.
13. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dhruv Toliya appearing for the appellant-convict and learned APP Mr.Yuvraj Brahmbhatt, learned APP appearing for the respondent - State.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-
CONVICT :
14. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Dhruv Toliya appearing for the appellant (i.e. the original accused-convict) has submitted that admittedly the trial court has convicted the appellant- accused of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Corruption Act, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with the fine of Rs.20,000=00. He has submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant-accused was demanding Page 7 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined illegal gratification from the complainant and he was caught red- handed accepting the bribe amount from the complainant. Learned advocate Mr.Toliya, 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.Toliya has submitted that the appellant-accused has stated in his further statement that the amount was accepted by him as it was given to him by the complainant for paying the dues towards the tax bills of the disputed house and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. Learned advocate Mr.Toliya has further submitted that it is stated by the appellant-accused that a false complaint has been filed against him by the complainant in collusion with one Shantilal Damodar Joshi, an employee of the Gram Panchayat, who, along with the present complainant, had filed a case against the panchayat before the Labour Court, Bhavnagar, wherein the appellant-accused had supplied some information to Page 8 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined the panchayat against the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has a personal grudge against the appellant- accused. The appellant-accused has stated that the said amount was not given as a bribe.
16. It is submitted that one of the most important and essential ingredients necessary for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act to be constituted is 'demand'. The demand has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and convincing evidence. If the evidence of the complainant is perused and appreciated, it appears that at the time of the alleged incident, i.e. in the year 2002, the appellant- accused was serving as a Talati-cum-Mantri, Dedan Gram Panchayat, Taluka Khambha, District Amreli. It is alleged that the appellant-accused was demanding Rs.200=00 from the complainant for transfer of the house in the name of his brother Maganbhai in the panchayat record.
17. Learned advocate Mr.Toliya has submitted that it is an important factor to bear in mind, whether the appellant-accused had received the gratification as a motive or reward for performing or refraining from performing any official act or for Page 9 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined showing any favour or disfavour in the exercise of his official functions. In the instant case, the evidence so far as the demand which constitutes as an important ingredient is very deficient and highly improbable.
18. Learned advocate Mr.Toliya has drawn the attention of this Court to a letter dated 27.12.2001 addressed by the District Development Officer, Amreli, to the Taluka Development Officer, Khambha (Exh.21). By way of this letter, a directive was issued to expedite the recovery process of the land revenue and other taxes with a warning that any laxity in this proceeding would be noted in the Annual Confidential Letter of the concerned officer/employee. The court's attention was also drawn to the endorsement made on this letter by the Taluka Development Officer, which indicates that instructions were given to the Gram Panchayat employees to undertake intensive door-to-door collection efforts to recover the outstanding dues towards the land revenue. Furthermore, learned advocate has pointed out to one letter dated 07.01.2002 written by the present appellant- accused in his capacity as the Talati-cum-Mantri, directing the employees of the Dedan Gram Panchayat, Taluka Khambha, District Amreli, namely, Shri Shantilal Damodar Joshi and Shri Page 10 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined J.H.Jani, to undertake strict measures to ensure hundred percentage recovery of the land revenue. Further, learned advocate has referred to the order dated 20.02.2003 passed by the Joint Secretary, Panchayat, Rural Housing and Rural Development Department, Gandhinagar, passed in the Departmental Appeal of the appellant-accused, which is produced at Exh.35.
19. Relying upon all the aforesaid documentary evidence, learned advocate Mr.Toliya has submitted that from the very inception of this case, the appellant-accused has maintained a clear defense that pursuant to the directive letter from the District Development Officer, Amreli (Exh.21), the appellant- accused had initiated strict door-to-door collection efforts to recover the outstanding dues towards the land revenue. On the day of the alleged incident, after concluding the meeting, as the appellant-accused was returning home, at that time, the complainant had approached him with the documents of the property purchased by his brother and requested him to transfer the property in the name of his brother. At that time, the appellant-accused insisted that the complainant first clear the pending tax bill amount. As per the record of the panchayat, the Page 11 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined outstanding amount towards the tax bill of the complainant was Rs.320=00. Out of this, the complainant had already paid Rs.120=00 on 13.11.2001 (as per the receipt produced at Exh.26), leaving a balance of Rs.200=00. When the complainant had tendered the amount of Rs.200=00 to the appellant-accused, he accepted it as the outstanding tax payment, and subsequently, a false case was instituted against the appellant- accused.
20. Learned advocate Mr.Toliya has submitted that a false case has been instituted against the appellant-accused as a part of the conspiracy. The motive arises from two key factors. First, the appellant-accused, while discharging his official duties, had taken action to remove illegal encroachment made by the complainant and his associates on the pastureland ('gauchar') of village Dedan, and secondly, the appellant-accused represented and defended the Gram Panchayat in legal proceedings instituted by the panchayat employee Shri Shantilal Damodar Joshi before the Labour Commissioner. Due to these reasons, the complainant and Shri Shantilal Damodar Joshi, acting in collusion with each other and keeping a personal grudge, conspired against the appellant-accused, and under a pretext of Page 12 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined payment of tax, entrapped him by giving Rs.200=00 and falsely implicated him in the present case.
21. Learned advocate Mr.Toliya 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 presumption once it is established that the appellant-accused accepted the amount. However, for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion, whether the appellant-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 appellant- 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 Page 13 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined 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.
22. Thus, it is submitted that considering the entire evidence 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.Toliya 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:
23. Vehemently opposing the appeal filed by the appellant- convict and the submissions canvassed by learned advocate Mr.Dhruv Toliya appearing for the appellant-convict, learned Page 14 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined APP Mr.Yuvraj Brahmbhatt appearing for the State has submitted that the trial court has convicted the appellant- accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section (13)(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and consequently, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with the fine of Rs.20,000=00. Learned APP Mr.Brahmbhatt has submitted that the prosecution has proved all the three essential elements of the offence, i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery, beyond reasonable doubt, through the convincing evidence of the core witnesses, i.e. the complainant (PW-1) Savjibhai Babubhai Sankhat, the panch-witness (PW-2) Narendrabhai Navalshankar Jani and the trapping officer Kantilal Panchabhai Chaudhari (PW-4).
24. Learned APP Mr.Brahmbhatt, while referring to the evidence of the core witnesses, i.e. the complainant (PW-1) Savjibhai Babubhai Sankhat, the shadow witness (PW-2) Narendrabhai Navalshankar Jani and the trapping officer Kantilal Panchabhai Chaudhari (PW-4), has submitted that the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) Savjibhai Babubhai Sankhat and the evidence of the shadow witness (PW-2) Narendrabhai Navalshankar Jani, who had accompanied the complainant at Page 15 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined the time of the trap, are clear, cogent and convincing. It is submitted that the evidence of both these witnesses has remained unshaken and the same is in corroboration with the evidence of the witness (PW-4) Kantilal Panchabhai Chaudhari, Police Inspector, who laid the trap. It is submitted that the evidence of all these witnesses are in corroboration with the allegations made by the complainant (PW-1) Savjibhai Babubhai Sankhat in his complaint at Exh.12.
25. Learned APP Mr.Brahmbhatt has further submitted that if the evidence of the witnesses be read in juxtaposition with the documentary evidence on record, their remains no doubt about the case of the prosecution and, therefore, no error could be said to have been committed by the trial court while appreciating the evidence and arriving at the conclusion of guilt of the appellant- accused. He has, therefore, urged that the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court do 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.
Page 16 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined 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 appellant-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 appellant-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.
27. The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Krishna Gopal, reported in (1988) 4 SCC 302, has held that Page 17 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined 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. Thus, it is well-settled that in criminal trial, the guilt of the appellant-accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in order to convict him.
28. Bearing in mind the aforesaid legal position, this Court has considered the submissions canvassed by the respective 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 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 appellant- 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 :Page 18 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined
(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 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 Page 19 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined 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 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.
Page 20 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined
(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 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 Page 21 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 22 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined is because the law firmly upholds the principle that "no innocent persons should be wrongfully punished".
31. Keeping in mind the ratio of the above-mentioned judgment, 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 bribe from the complainant.
32. This Court has given anxious consideration to the evidence on record. The scrutiny of the evidence reveals multiple inconsistencies within the case of the prosecution. As per the original complaint at Exh.12 and the Charge at Exh.3, it is the case of the prosecution that one Maganbhai, who is the brother of the complainant, had purchased a house in Sankdi Sheri area of village Dedan from one Allarakhbhai. The complainant was handling all the related formalities including preparation of the sale-deed, transferring the ownership in the record of village panchayat and the payment of property tax, etc. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant, after the execution of the sale-deed, met the appellant-accused, who was then serving as the Talati-cum-Mantri, submitted a copy of the sale-deed and Page 23 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined requested him to transfer the property in the name of his brother in the record of rights. It is alleged that approximately one year thereafter, when the complainant went to pay the property tax of the said house, he came to know that the entry regarding the change of the ownership was not made in the record of rights. Upon making inquiry by the complainant, the appellant-accused told him that the copy of the sale-deed was misplaced and further asked the complainant to provide another copy. The complainant, thereafter, provided another copy of the sale-deed to the appellant-accused and the tax was then paid in the name of the previous owner. It is the case of the prosecution that about four days thereafter, when the complainant again approached the appellant-accused regarding the entry, the appellant-accused demanded a bribe of Rs.500=00 from the complainant for making necessary entry in the revenue record. When the complainant requested the appellant-accused to reduce the amount, the appellant-accused insisted that at least Rs.200=00 must be paid. Therefore, the complainant reported the matter to the ACB, Amreli, on 28.03.2002, prompting a trap. It is alleged that during the trap, the appellant-accused was caught red-handed accepting the amount of bribe. Page 24 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined
33. In view of the aforesaid allegations regarding the factum of demand and the subsequent acceptance of illegal gentrification, the evidence led 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. Upon close examination, the complainant's evidence seems to be vague and is lacking in material particulars. It is evident that the complainant has deliberately not disclosed the essential information regarding the date, time and place of the events. The complainant, in his complaint at Exh.12 and in his evidence at Exh.11, has stated that he met the appellant-accused with the copy of the sale-deed of the house purchased by his brother Maganbhai and requested for its entry in the record of rights. Subsequently, one year thereafter, upon inquiry made by the complainant, he came to know that no such entry was effected by the appellant-accused. Therefore, when he approached the appellant-accused in this regard, he was told by the appellant- accused that the copy of the sale-deed earlier provided by him has been misplaced and requested to supply him a fresh copy of the sale-deed. In compliance thereof, he had supplied another copy of the sale-deed to the appellant-accused. However, after four days thereafter, when the complainant again approached Page 25 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined the appellant-accused, the appellant-accused reiterated that the copy has been lost and demanded Rs.500=00 as a bribe from the complainant for transferring the house in the name of the brother of the complainant in the record of right. Thereafter, the demand was reduced to Rs.200=00 after negotiation. Thus, the complainant asserts that he met the appellant-accused on three distinct occasions concerning the aforesaid matter, and during the third meeting, the appellant-accused made initial demand of Rs.500=00 as illegal gratification, which was subsequently reduced to Rs.200=00 after negotiation, but the complainant has not specified the exact date, time or place of the three occasions.
34. So far as the elements of demand and acceptance of the bribe amount is concerned, the prosecution evidence is inconsistent and contradictory. The testimony of the three core witnesses, i.e. the complainant, the shadow witness and the trapping officer, are mutually inconsistent, which raises suspicions towards the version of the prosecution. The complainant (PW-1) Savjibhai Babubhai Sankhat, in his evidence at Exh.11, has stated that on the day of the trap, the complainant and all other members of the trapping team left for village Dedan from Amreli at 3:00 p.m. in a jeep. Upon reaching Page 26 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined at village Dedan, the complainant and the shadow witness went to the residence of the complainant to collect the relevant documents. Thereafter, upon enquiry, it was found that the appellant-accused was not present at his residence. Hence, all the members waited at the village temple until 6:30 p.m. Later, upon receiving the information that the appellant-accused has arrived, the complainant and the shadow witness proceeded to the residential quarter of the appellant-accused, while the remaining team members positioned nearby in a scattered manner. The complainant then called the appellant-accused and the appellant-accused came out from the house. The complainant thereafter told him, "Here are the documents. Kindly get my work done". To this, the appellant-accused responded, "Come tomorrow". The complainant then replied, "I have to endure hardships daily. Kindly get it done". The appellant- accused then asked, "Have you brought the money ?" To which, the complainant responded affirmatively. The appellant-accused then told the complainant that if you have brought it, then give it to me. Therefore, the complainant took out the tainted currency notes from the left pocket of his shirt and gave it to the appellant-accused. The appellant-accused counted the notes with both of his hands and put it into the right rear pocket of his Page 27 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined pant. Upon receiving the pre-arranged signal, the ACB Police Inspector (PW-4) Shri Kantilal Panchabhai Chaudhari and other members of the raiding party arrived at the scene of offence and apprehended the accused. The accused was then taken to the police station where the tainted currency notes were recovered from the rear pocket of the pant of the accused through the second panch Bhikhubhai Viththalbhai Pathar. Later, under ultraviolet lamp examination, fluorescent marks were found on both the hands of the appellant-accused, and on one of the hands of the second panch Bhikhubhai Viththalbhai Pathar. Similar marks were also found on the rear pocket of the pant of the appellant-accused.
35. Thus, as per the evidence of the complainant, the appellant-accused had demanded money by saying, "Have you brought the money ?" Upon his demand, the complainant handed over the tainted currency notes, which the appellant-accused accepted, counted with both of his hands and put it in his pocket. Therefore, during the examination under the ultraviolet light, fluorescent powder marks were found on both of his hands.
Page 28 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined
36. In this context, if we look at the evidence of the shadow witness (PW-2) Narendrabhai Navalshankar Jani, he, in his evidence at Exh.13, has stated that on the day of the trap, after arriving at village Dedan, he and the complainant went to the complainant's house to collect the relevant documents, and in the evening, when they came to know that the appellant-accused had returned home, he and the complainant proceeded to the residential quarter of the appellant-accused while the remaining team members positioned nearby in a scattered manner. When the complainant called the appellant-accused, he came outside and said, "It is already evening, you may come tomorrow". In response, the complainant informed him that he had brought the documents and the money, as instructed. The appellant- accused then said, "Give me Rs.200=00". The complainant, with his right hand, took the tainted currency notes out from the left pocket of his shirt and gave it to the appellant-accused, who accepted it with his right hand and then put it in the right rear pocket of his pant. Following the pre-arranged signal, the ACB Police Inspector (PW-4) Shri Kantilal Panchabhai Chaudhari and other team members arrived at the scene and apprehended the appellant-accused. The appellant-accused was then taken to the police outpost, where the tainted currency notes were recovered Page 29 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined from the rear pocket of the pant of the appellant-accused through the second panch Bhikhubhai Viththalbhai Pathar. Upon examination under the ultraviolet light, fluorescent powder marks were found on the right hand of the appellant-accused, on his pant and on one of the hands of the second panch Bhikhubhai Viththalbhai Pathar. During the cross-examination, in response to a question posed by the trial court, this witness has stated that while giving the tainted currency notes, the complainant counted it with both of his hands and then gave it to the appellant-accused, who accepted it with his right hand. It is significant to note that neither the complainant nor the shadow witness has mentioned in their respective evidence that following the trap, both the hands of the complainant were also examined under the ultraviolet light.
37. Now, in this context, if we examine the panchnama at Exh.14, the entire sequence of events has been described in a completely different manner. The panchnama states that when the complainant handed over the documents to the appellant- accused, the appellant-accused asked, "Have you brought the money as per our earlier discussion ?" To this, the complainant responded that he has brought Rs.200=00. The appellant- Page 30 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined accused then said, "If you have brought it, then give it". Thereafter, when the complainant handed over the currency notes to the appellant-accused, he accepted it with his right hand, since he was holding documents in his left hand.
38. Now, in the same context, if we examine the evidence of the Police Inspector (PW-4) Shri Kantilal Panchabhai Chaudhari, who laid the trap, he, in his testimony at Exh.40 has affirmed and reiterated the very same fact as narrated in details in the panchnama at Exh.14.
39. A careful evaluation of the foregoing evidence clearly establishes that the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) Savjibhai Babubhai Sankhat, the panch-witness (PW-2) Narendrabhai Navalshankar Jani and the trapping officer (PW-4) Kantilal Panchabhai Chaudhari regarding demand and acceptance of the alleged bribe amount is not consistent with each other. Furthermore, the sequence of events as recorded in the panchnama at Exh.14 are entirely different from the facts stated by all these witnesses. The complainant stated that when he handed over the relevant documents to the appellant-accused and requested to get his work done, the appellant-accused Page 31 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined asked, "Have you brought the money ?" Upon this, the complainant gave him a tainted currency notes, which the accused counted with both of his hands and, therefore, the fluorescent powder marks were found on both the hands of the appellant-accused under the ultraviolet light. On the other hand, the shadow witness stated that the complainant said that, "As per your instruction, I have brought the documents and the money". To which, the appellant-accused said, "Give me Rs.200=00", and when the complainant gave the amount, the appellant-accepted it with his right hand. Accordingly, fluorescent powder marks were found only on the right hand of the appellant-accused under the ultraviolet light. This witness also stated, in response to the query from the court, that the complainant had counted the tainted currency notes with both of his hands before handing it over to the appellant-accused. It's a matter of record that none of these witnesses has stated that the complainant's hands were also examined under the ultraviolet light. As noted earlier, the sequence of events as described in the panchnama at Exh.14 are entirely different. Thus, the evidence of all the core witnesses, if read in juxtaposition, it lacks consistency and, in fact, appears to be contradictory.
Page 32 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined
40. As noted earlier, in such case where the fate of the accused depends only on the testimonies of the complainant, the shadow witness and the trapping officer, it is essential that their evidence should be consistent, reliable and of sterling quality. Therefore, the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of these witnesses cannot be overlooked.
41. At this stage, it is important to consider the evidence of the prosecution with regard to the defense raised by the appellant- accused. In his defense, the appellant-accused has contended that pursuant to the directive letter (Exh.21) from the District Development Officer, Amreli, the appellant-accused had initiated intensive door-to-door recovery proceedings for the outstanding taxes. On the other hand, on the day of the incident, after attending the meeting, as the appellant-accused was returning home, the complainant approached him with the documents concerning the house purchased by his brother and requested him to transfer the same in the name of his brother in the record of rights. At that time, the appellant-accused insisted that the complainant first clear the pending tax dues. It is contended that as per the panchayat record, the outstanding tax bill amount of Page 33 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined the complainant was Rs.320=00, out of which Rs.120=00 had been paid on 13.11.2001, as per the receipt at Exh.26, leaving a balance of Rs.200=00. When the complainant tendered Rs.200=00, the appellant-accused accepted it as payment of the outstanding tax. Subsequently, a false case was initiated against him. It is also contended that the case against the appellant- accused is falsely instituted as part of the conspiracy, motivated by two key factors :
(i) the appellant, in the course of his official duties, took action to remove the encroachments made by the complainant and his associates on the pastureland belonging to the Panchayat, and
(ii) the appellant-accused represented and defended the Panchayat in legal proceedings initiated by a panchayat employee Shri Shantilal Damodar Joshi before the Labour Commissioner.
42. Aggrieved by these two factors, the complainant and Shantilal Damodar Joshi, acting in collusion and harbouring a personal grudge, conspired against the appellant-accused, and Page 34 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined under the pretext of payment of tax, entrapped him by giving him Rs.200=00 and falsely implicated him in this case.
43. It appears from the letter dated 27.12.2001 (Exh.21) addressed by the District Development Officer, Amreli, to the Taluka Panchayat, Khambha, that a directive was issued to expedite the recovery of land revenue and other taxes. It was further directed that any negligence in compliance would be recorded in the service record of the concerned employee. The Taluka Development Officer's endorsement on the same letter also indicates that similar instructions were conveyed to the Gram Panchayat staff directing them to carry out intensive door- to-door recovery of the outstanding tax dues.
44. It also appears from the statement at Exh.27 that at the time of the alleged incident, some cases were pending against the complainant and 20 other persons concerning encroachment on the pastureland of the Panchayat. Further, the receipt produced at Exh.26 clearly suggested the payment of the tax amount of Rs.120=00 regarding the house of the brother of the appellant- accused. Moreover, the documentary evidence at Exhibits 28 to 30 indicate rejection of the candidature of the complainant's wife Page 35 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined for the Panchayat election.
45. In this context, it becomes necessary to take note of certain important facts that have come on record during the cross- examination of the complainant. It reveals from the cross- examination of the complainant that at the time of the alleged incident, a case was pending against him concerning the encroachment on the pastureland of the Panchayat, wherein he had sought injunction, against which the Panchayat was defending. Further, it has been revealed that during the relevant period, the complainant's wife had filed a nomination form for the Panchayat election, which was subsequently rejected and at that time the appellant was serving as a Talati-cum-Mantri in the Panchayat. It has also come on record that the property tax of Rs.120=00 regarding the house of the brother of the complainant had been paid on 13.11.2001 to a Panchayat employee Shantilal Damodar Joshi, whom the complainant described him as a very trusted person. The complainant even provided the telephone number of Shantilal Damodar Joshi to the ACB officials to contact him. From the cross-examination, it further emerges that despite the appellant-accused asking him to come on the next day, he deliberately did not do so, because Page 36 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined his intention at that time was to get the appellant-accused apprehended. The complainant also elicited in the cross- examination that, in his statement before the police, he did not mention that at the time of the trap, the appellant-accused had asked him, "Have you brought the money ?" nor did he state that he had answered in the affirmative. Most importantly, the complainant has made a clear admission during the cross- examination that total tax payable in respect of the properties belonging to him and his brother was Rs.200=00. It also emerges from the cross- examination that 15 days prior to the incident, the appellant-accused had already initiated the process of transferring the property in question in the name of the brother of the complainant and even issued notice under Section 135D of the Land Revenue Code. It is noteworthy that prior to transferring any property in the name of a new owner, it is incumbent upon the authority to see that no amount left due with respect to tax.
46. For the foregoing discussion, it clearly established that the evidence of the core witnesses is inconsistent and contradictory with each other as well as with the case of the prosecution. Further, considering the admissions made by the complainant Page 37 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined during his cross- examination as well as the documentary evidence, as referred to herein above, the defense taken by the appellant-accused seems to be more plausible.
47. 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 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...."
48. In view of the aforesaid as well as considering the discrepancies in the evidence of all the three core witnesses regarding the acceptance of illegal gratification, when two views are possible, certainly the one in favour of innocence of the accused, must be considered.
Page 38 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined
49. 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 elements 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, the 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. 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.
50. Since the prosecution has failed in establishing the foundational fact by leading cogent and convincing evidence regarding the aspects 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.
51. In view of the aforesaid discussion and re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the considered Page 39 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined 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 tainted currency notes cannot constitute the offence punishable under 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.
52. 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 Page 40 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined favour of the appellant-accused. Thus, it appears that the trial court has made an error while convicting the present appellant- accused for the alleged offence and, therefore, interference by this Court is warranted.
53. 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 31.07.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge and Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Special Case No.22 of 2002, is hereby quashed and set-aside. The appellant-accused is set free from all the charges.
54. Bail bonds stand cancelled. The amount of fine, if any, paid shall be refunded to the appellant-accused. Records and proceedings be returned to the trial court forthwith.
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J.) /MOINUDDIN Page 41 of 41 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:50:28 IST 2025