Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Raxaben Kishorbhai Modi on 30 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 541 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAXABEN KISHORBHAI MODI & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 30/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant - State under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), and is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.12.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Navsari, in Special (ACB) Case No.01 of 2017, whereby the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondents (i.e. the original accused nos.1 and 2) from the offences Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The prosecution version, in a nut-shell, is as follows :
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 30.01.2009, the respondent no.1-original accused no.1, who was serving as Nazir (Superintendent) In-charge Registrar, Civil Court, Surat, and the respondent no.2-original accused no.2, who was serving as Assistant Clerk, Civil Court, Surat, had demanded and accepted Rs.1000=00 and Rs.500=00, respectively, from the complainant
- Kishorkumar Tribhovandas Hingu for the purpose of issuing show-cause notice to the opponents in the Regular Civil Suits Nos.47/2009, 48/2009, 49/2009 and 50/2009 filed by the complainant. It is alleged that the respondents-accused, being the public servants, were duty-bound to discharge their official function, however, they had demanded illegal gratification from the complainant for discharge of their official duty.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant, on 30.01.2009 at around 17:05 hours, during the trap, the respondents-accused were Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined caught red-handed from the Registrar's office at Room No.1035, New Court Building, Civil Court, Surat, demanding and accepting the amount of bribe from the complainant, in presence of the panchas.
4. For the alleged offence committed by the respondents- accused, a complaint was filed under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act before the ACB Police Station, Surat, vide CR No.2 of 2009.
5. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the relevant witnesses, drew the necessary panchnamas, collected several documentary evidence and after receiving the order of sanction for prosecution from the competent authority, the charge-sheet (Exh.1) came to be filed against the respondents-accused on 18.08.2009 before the learned Special Judge, Surat, which was registered as Special (ACB) Case No.15 of 2009, and upon transfer of the case to the Navsari Court, as per the order of the High Court of Gujarat dated 23.03.2017, the same came to be registered as Special (A.C.B.) Case No.01 of 2017.
Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined
6. The respondents-accused were duly served with the summons from the trial court, and after following due procedure, charge was framed by the trial court on 16.05.2016 vide Exhibit 11 and the statements of the respondents-accused were recorded vide Exhibits 12 and 13. Since the respondents-accused pleaded innocence, the trial was held.
7. To bring home the charge, the prosecution had examined six witnesses and adduced twelve documentary evidence in support of their case, which are as follows :
WITNESSES NO. NAME EXHIBIT
1. Kishorkumar Tribhovandas Hingu - Complainant 15
2. Lateshbhai Gopalbhai Patel - Panch Witness 71 3. Sureshbhai Kantibhai Vankar - Witness 98
4. Sirajbhai AbdulMajid Jabha - Police Witness 117
5. Rameshchandra Muljibhai Barot - Investigating 123 Officer
6. Ambaram Bhikhabhai Patel - Investigating Officer 124 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE NO. DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENT EXHIBIT 1 Complaint 16 2 Panchnama of the trap 99 Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined 3 Receipt of the muddamal recovered from the accused 100 4 Arrest Panchnama of the accused 101 5 Copy of the summons of the R.C.S. No.47 of 2009 of 102 the 6th Additional Civil Judge, Surat 6 Letter to provide two Government employees as 118 panchas 7 Letter addressed to the Principal District Judge, 119 Surat, for information and permission of ACB trap 8 Letter written to the Principal District Judge, Surat, 120 regarding the preparation for the trap 9 Service Book of the accused, Appointment Order, 125 Leave Report, Duty List and Forwarding Letter 10 Final Report by the F.S.L. along with forwarding 126 letter 11 Letter for permission to prosecute 127 12 Sanction for prosecution 128
8. At the end of the trial, after recording the statements of the respondents-accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and considering the arguments canvassed on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the trial court acquitted the respondents-accused of all the charges levelled against them vide judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.12.2023.
9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.12.2023 passed by the trial court, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal mainly on the grounds that the order of acquittal passed by the Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined trial court is contrary to law and the evidence on record; the trial court has failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution in support of their case; the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and has committed a grave error, which is apparent on the face of the record; and that the trial court has failed to consider the fact that the accused were the public servants and they had demanded and accepted the amount of Rs.1,500=00 as illegal gratification from the complainant. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court acquitting the respondents-accused, being illegal, invalid and improper, deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
10. Heard learned APP Ms.Asmita Patel for the appellant-State and learned advocate Mr.Kunal S.Shah for the respondents- accused. Perused the impugned judgment of the trial court as well as threadbare examined the evidence on record. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-STATE :
11. Learned APP Ms.Asmita Patel has vehemently contended that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined is contrary to the provisions of law and the learned Special Judge has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution. Learned APP Ms.Patel, while taking this Court through the oral as well as documentary evidence, has submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the currency notes mentioned in the panchnama were tallied with the currency notes recovered from the respondents- accused. Learned APP has further submitted that the trial court has also failed to appreciate the evidence of the important panch-witness (PW-2) Lateshbhai Gopalbhai Patel, who was examined at Exh.71. It is submitted that this witness, in his evidence, has categorically deposed that, in his presence, the respondents-accused had demanded and accepted the amount towards illegal gratification from the complainant.
12. It is submitted that the trial court ought to have considered the fact that the necessary elements constituting the offence, viz. demand, acceptance and recovery, have been clearly proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Further, it is submitted that the trial court has given undue importance to minor omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses.
Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined
13. Learned APP Ms.Patel has, therefore, submitted that there was no reason for the trial court to disbelieve the case of the prosecution and to acquit the respondents-accused. Hence, learned APP Ms.Patel has urged that the appeal may be admitted and the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court may be quashed and set-aside.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS-
ACCUSED :
14. Vehemently opposing the present appeal, learned advocate Mr.Kunal S.Shah appearing for the respondents-accused has submitted that the captioned appeal filed by the appellant-State is required to be rejected since the trial court has, after precisely appreciating the evidence on record; both, ocular and documentary, acquitted the respondents-accused. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :
15. 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 Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined criminal trial it is for the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused since the burden of proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt always rests upon the prosecution. It is also settled that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and cannot take advantage or undue advantage of the defence put forth by the accused. The Supreme Court, in the case of Rabindra Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 170, reiterated three cardinal principles, namely, (i) that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and it cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defence version while proving its case;
(ii) that in a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty; and (iii) that the onus of the prosecution never shifts. Thus, it is well-settled that in criminal trial, the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in order to convict him.
16. The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Krishna Gopal, reported in (1988) 4 SCC 302, has held that the person has, no doubt, profound rights not to be convicted of an offence, which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined
17. 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.
18. It is well-settled that for establishing the commission of an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the proof of demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance is sine qua non. Moreover, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be invoked only on proof of facts in issue, namely, the demand of illegal gratification by the accused and the acceptance thereof. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731 has, in paragraph-68 of the judgment, held as under :
"68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under :
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined
(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 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 Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)
(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act. Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined
(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."
19. 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. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the aforementioned 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 respondents-accused had demanded and subsequently accepted the bribe from the complainant.
20. 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 Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined discrepancies cannot be overlooked. In such circumstances where the evidence allows for two possible interpretations, the one which is in favour of the accused, must be considered. This is because the law firmly upholds the principle that "no innocent persons should be wrongfully punished".
21. As per the charge at Exh.11, it is the case of the prosecution that the complainant (PW-1) Kishorkumar Tribhovandas Hingu had filed four civil suits bearing nos.47 of 2009 to 57 of 2009 before the Civil Court, Surat. As a part of the legal procedure, it was the official duty of the respondents- accused to issue show-cause notices to the defendants in the civil suits. However, the respondent-accused no.1 had demanded Rs.1,000=00 and the respondent-accused no.2 had demanded Rs.500=00 from the complainant for carrying out this official act. Aggrieved by this unlawful demand, the complainant had lodged a complaint with the ACB Police Station on 30.01.2009. On the same day, a trap was laid. During the trap proceedings, the respondent-accused no.1 had demanded and accepted Rs.1,000=00 and the respondent-accused no.2 had demanded and accepted Rs.500=00 from the complainant, in presence of the shadow witness (PW-2) Lateshbhai Gopalbhai Patel. Both the Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined accused were caught red-handed during the trap and the bribe amount was recovered from their purse, in presence of both the panch witnesses. In light of the aforesaid case of the prosecution, it is imperative to examine the evidence of three core witnesses; (i) the complainant, (ii) the shadow witness, and
(iii) the trapping officer, with due diligence and scrutiny.
22. It is an undisputed fact that there is no direct evidence of the initial demand made by both the respondents-accused. Albeit, the complainant has made specific allegations in this regard in the complaint at Exh.16 and has deposed, in his evidence, at Exh.15 that upon filing the Civil Suit Nos.47 of 2009 to 50 of 2009 before the Civil Court, Surat, the respondents- accused, despite being lawfully bound to issue show-cause notices to the respective defendants, had unlawfully demanded bribe of Rs.1,000 and Rs.500=00 respectively from the complainant. It is noteworthy that normally such initial demand of illegal gratification is not made publicly or in presence of any third person. Therefore, there might not be a direct evidence regarding the same. In such circumstances, if during a trap, the respondents-accused had asked for the same demand and accepted it, then that can prove the factum of initial demand Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined made by the accused. Therefore, the evidence of three core witnesses is required to be examined carefully.
23. The complainant (PW-1) Kishorkumar Tribhovandas Hingu, in this context, has deposed that on the day of the trap, he, along with the shadow witness (PW-2) Lateshbhai Gopalbhai Patel, had approached the respondents-accused and had inquired about the status of the notices in connection with the civil suits, which he had filed. In response to the same, the respondent-accused no.2 allegedly replied to pay money for the issuance of the process and then the notices will be issued. Accordingly, he gave Rs.500=00 to the respondent-accused no.2, and as per her instructions, he further gave Rs.1,000=00 to the respondent-accused no.1. During the cross-examination, the complainant has elicited that he had sent his junior advocate Ms.Mamta Ramanandi to verify, whether the notices have been issued in the civil suits filed by him.
24. In the same context, if the evidence of the shadow witness (PW-2) Lateshbhai Gopalbhai Patel is considered, he, in his evidence at Exh.71, has stated that on the day of the trap, he and the complainant had approached the respondents-accused. Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined The complainant then inquired about the status of the notices related to the civil suits. Thereafter, the complainant told the respondents-accused that he still owe to give them. In response to the same, the respondent-accused no.2 said that, "if you have brought it, then give it". Subsequently, the complainant paid Rs.500=00 to the respondent-accused no.2 and Rs.1,000=00 to the respondent-accused no.1, who was occupied with her work at that time.
25. Now, in this context, it is necessary to refer to the panchnama produced at Exh.99, which contains detailed narration of the entire sequence of events that took place on the day of the trap. It clearly reveals from the panchnama that on the day of the trap, the complainant and the shadow witness (PW-2) had approached the respondent-accused no.2. She had asked the complainant, "Oh! Have you come ?", and then she told the complainant that the photocopies of the notices are not yet ready and instructed him to take the original photocopies thereof and submit them on the next day. In response to the same, the complainant said, "I still owe you". To this, she said, "Have you brought it?". In response, the complainant said, "Yes, I have brought it". Then she said, "Then give it". Therefore, the Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined complainant handed over Rs.500=00 to the respondent-accused no.2 and Rs.1,000=00 to the respondent-accused no.1, which they accepted.
26. In the same context, if we examine the evidence of the Police Inspector (PW-4) Mr.Sirajbhai AbdulMajid Jabha, who laid the trap, he, in his testimony at Exh.117, has affirmed and reiterated the very same fact as narrated in details in the panchnama at Exhibit 99.
27. Upon careful examination of the evidence on record, it appears that the allegations made by the complainant regarding the initial demand of bribe made by both the respondents- accused on 28.01.2009, in connection with expediting the process of issue of notices in the civil suits filed by him, is not supported by any direct or indirect evidence. The complainant, who himself is an advocate, has specifically admitted during his cross-examination that he did not visit the ACB Police Station either on 28.01.2009 or on 29.01.2009. It is also noteworthy that on one hand, the complainant, during his examination-in- chief, has stated that he personally approached the respondents- accused to verify whether the notices had been issued in the civil Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined suits filed by him. However, on the other hand, during his cross- examination, he has admitted that he had, in fact, sent his junior advocate Ms.Mamtaben Ramanandi to the respondents- accused to inquire about the issuance of the show-cause notices. This contradiction materially affects the credibility of his version and reflects inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it is significant that the prosecution has not examined junior advocate Ms.Mamtaben Ramanandi as a witness.
28. Further, upon careful examination of the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) Kishorkumar Tribhovandas Hingu, the shadow witness (PW-2) Lateshbhai Gopalbhai Patel, and the trapping officer (PW-3) Sirajbhai AbdulMajid Jabha along with the panchnama produced at Exh.99, it becomes apparent that there is no indication in the panchnama of any demand of bribe made by either of the respondents-accused on the day of the trap, in presence of the shadow witness. Although, the complainant has asserted in his deposition that both the respondents-accused had demanded bribe on the day of the trap, yet this assertion has not been substantiated by the testimony of the shadow witness or by the contents of the panchnama. On the contrary, the evidence reveals that no such Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined demand was made. Rather, it is established that the respondent- accused no.2 had handed over the original notices to the complainant and asked him to submit a photocopy thereof. At that point of time, the complainant stated that he still had to give them, upon which, she responded by saying that if he had got it, he may give it. Subsequently, the act of the complainant of handing over the money is established. Moreover, when the complainant said that he still had to give them, he did not clarify as to the purpose of payment, whether it was for the official transaction, the earlier transaction or the personal loan? Such clarification was consciously omitted by the complainant. This aspect has much relevance and the same cannot be overlooked.
29. Upon careful examination of the judgment of the trial court, it is evident that these inconsistencies and omissions were given due consideration. The trial court, after careful appreciation of the evidence, has rightfully concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the foundational element of demand to constitute the offence, and accordingly acquitted both the respondents-accused.
30. Upon assessment of the entire evidence of the prosecution, Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality, or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record.
31. On the overall appreciation of the evidence as well as considering the impugned judgment and order, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial court do not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper, and in recording the same, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the trial court. The trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents-accused of the charges levelled against them.
32. Before parting with the judgment, it would be apt to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran & Anr., reported in (2007) 3 SCC 75, wherein the Supreme Court has observed thus : Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/541/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined "16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgement delivered by the Court below.
However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with."
33. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the trial court, therefore, no interference is warranted. The appeal, therefore, fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. Records and proceedings be sent back to the concerned court.
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J.) /MOINUDDIN Page 22 of 22 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:46:39 IST 2025