Allahabad High Court
Vijay Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. on 16 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:187324
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1334 of 2025
A.F.R.
Reserved on : 19.08.2025
Delivered on : 16.10.2025
Vijay Kumar Verma
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Amit Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 73
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.N. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-Vijay Kumar Verma against the judgement and order dated 22.1.2025 passed by Sri Kamleshwar Pandey, Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Court No. 2, Bareilly passed in Special Case No. 432 of 2023 State of U.P. Vs. Vijay Kumar Verma relates to case crime No. 5 of 2022 under section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, PS. Bareilly Sector (Vigilance Act) District Bareilly U.P. Vigilance by which learned trial court convicted the appellant under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and awarded him four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of fine one month additional imprisonment.
Introductory facts:-
3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 15.12.2022 at 18:40 hours against the appellant under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereafter, referred in short as 'the Act'). According to the FIR, appellant was Designated Officer, in food safety department. On 8.12.2022 complainant Kayum (PW-5) made a complaint against him with the allegation that he moved an application for meat licence and to issue licence, appellant made demand of Rs. 12,000/- as bribe.
4. On the above complaint on 9.12.2022 pre trap enquiry was conducted and thereafter on 15.12.2022 in the presence of two independent witnesses Vinod Kumar (PW-3) and Varun Singh (PW-4) appellant was apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe from the complainant (PW-5) and bribe money was also recovered from his possession.
5. After registration of the FIR investigation was conducted and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed against appellant and after submission of the charge sheet court concerned took the cognizance and on 31.3.2023 charges were framed against the appellant under section 7 of the Act. Appellant did not accept the charges and claimed trial.
6. During trial, prosecution produced total 8 witnesses. Inspector Bhupesh Kumar Rai has been examined as PW-1, Inspector Pan Singh has been examined as PW-2, independent witnesses, Vinod Kumar and Varun Singh have been examined as PW-3 and PW-4 respectively, complainant Kayum has been examined as PW-5, Sub Inspector Kailash Chandra Pandey has been examined as PW-6, Constable Narendra Pal has been examined as PW-7 and Inspector Arvind Singh was examined as PW-8.
7. After the prosecution evidence statement of appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which also he denied from the charges and thereafter witness Rakesh Chandra has been examined as DW-1.
8. On 22.1.2025 trial court convicted the appellant in the instant matter for offence u/s 7of the Act and awarded him 4 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of fine one month additional imprisonment.
9. Hence the instant appeal.
Argument advanced on behalf of the appellant:-
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire allegations levelled against the appellant are totally false and during trial prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.
11. He further submitted that appellant neither made any demand of bribe nor he ever accepted the bribe and even bribe money in fact has not been recovered from his possession and these facts are reflected from the prosecution evidence.
12. He next submitted that from the statement of the complainant Kayum (PW-5) it reflects however he stated that appellant made demand of bribe of Rs. 12,000/- from him to issue meat licence to him and in this regard he made complaint against the appellant on 8.12.2022 but from his statement it could not be reflected that when appellant made demand of bribe and therefore, the allegation with regard to demand of bribe made against the appellant is vague and prosecution could not prove this fact during trial.
13. He further submitted that from the cross-examination of complaint i.e. PW-5 it reflects, he did not even file any application for licence and therefore, even the genesis of the crime i.e., reason for bribe also could not be proved by the prosecution. He next argued, if there was not even any application for licence then there was absolutely neither any occasion for the appellant to make demand of bribe from the complainant nor there was any occasion for the complainant i.e. PW-5 to give bribe to him.
14. He next submitted that from the statements of the complainant (PW-5), Inspector-Bhupesh Kumar-PW1 and independent witness, Varun Singh (PW-4) it reflect, after the alleged trap which was conducted in the office of the appellant entire post trap proceedings including preparation of the recovery memo have been conducted at spot but from the cross-examination of independent witness Vinod Kumar, (PW-3) it reflects trap team arrived at the office of the appellant on 15.12.2022 at 12 hours in the noon and after five to ten minutes trap team alongwith him and appellant returned back and thereafter they arrived at Bareilly and on the way entire formalities of post trap were completed and thereafter appellant was taken to vigilance police station and at vigilance police station writing work was done and his signature was taken. He next submitted that statement of independent witness, Vinod Kumar (PW-3) casts serious doubt on the prosecution case with regard to the trap proceedings and in the light of the statement of PW 3 statements of other prosecution witnesses become doubtful.
15. He next submitted that from the statement of Constable Narendra Pal (PW-7) it reflects photography and videography of the alleged trap proceeding has not been conducted and this fact also casts serious doubt on the alleged trap.
16. He further submitted that Rakesh Chandra has been examined as DW-1 who was clerk of Advocate-Azram and according to him on 15.12.2022 he went to the office of appellant for a Challan with regard to fine but when he arrived at his office then he was stopped and thereafter two persons arrived at the office of the appellant and thereafter they have taken him and subsequently next date he came to know that appellant has been arrested in the present matter. He further submitted that from the statement of DW-I it reflects according to him no paper work was done at the office of the appellant and thus, the statement of defence witness (DW-I) also supports the testimony of independent witness Vinod Kumar (PW 3) and it reflects, at spot where trap was made neither hands of appellant were washed nor even recovery memo was prepared.
17. He further submits, trial court without any cogent reason disbelieved the testimony of defence witness (DW 1) and also failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in the light of the statement of independent witness Vinod Kumar (PW 3).
18. He further submitted that applicant has been convicted for offence under section 7 of the Act and to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Act demand of bribe and its acceptance both are necessary and considering the prosecution evidence produced during trial it reflects prosecution failed to prove both these essential ingredients beyond reasonable doubt and thus, conviction of the appellant is illegal.
19. He placed reliance on the judgement of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court passed in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi) 2023 4 SCC 731.
20. He next submitted that therefore, impugned judgement and order dated 22.1.2025 passed by the trial court is illegal and liable to set aside and appellant is liable to be acquitted.
Submission advanced on behalf of State:
21. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that appellant was public servant and he was designated office in Food and Safety Department and he made demand of bribe of Rs. 12,000/- from the complainant to issue license to him for meat and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the trap team before two independent witnesses and prosecution during trial successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and except minor contradictions there is no illegality in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and therefore, while convicting the appellant in the present matter trial court did not commit any illegality.
22. He further submitted that however from the complaint dated 8.12.2022 moved by the complainant i.e. PW-5 it could not be reflected that when appellant made demand of bribe from him but during cross examination he stated that in December, 2022 he made demand of bribe and therefore it cannot be said that prosecution did not even prove that when appellant made demand of bribe.
23. He further submitted that however one independent witness Vinod Kumar (PW-3) in his statement stated that entire written formalities with regard to trap proceedings have been made in Vigilance Police Station and on the way the hands of the appellant were washed but merely on this ground entire prosecution case cannot be discarded after disbelieving the statements of other prosecution witnesses including the statement of another independent witness Varun Singh (PW-4) as they in their statements categorically stated that entire proceedings after the trap have been conducted at spot where trap was made.
24. He next submitted that for offence under Section 7 of the Act however it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that accused not only made demand of bribe but he also accepted the bribe but these two essential ingredients have been duly proved by the prosecution during trial beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the trial court.
25. He next submitted that therefore instant appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
Analysis & Conclusion:-
26. I have heard the rival contentions raised by the counsel of respective parties and perused the record of the case. Before analysing the prosecution evidence it is necessary to discuss the evidence briefly adduced during trial.
Prosecution Evidence:
27. Prosecution examined Inspector Bhupesh Kumar Rai as PW-1. He stated that on 08.12.2022 complainant Kayyum (PW-5) made a complaint against appellant that he moved an application for license of meat and appellant who was designated officer in the Food and Safety Department made demand of bribe of Rs. 12,000/- from him to issue license to him and on the complaint moved by complainant (PW-5) on 09.11.2022 pre-trap report was submitted and thereafter trap team was constituted and on 15.12.2022 under his supervision at 7.30AM in the morning trap team arrived at Shahjahanpur and thereafter two independent witnesses Varun Singh (PW-4) and Vinod Kumar (PW-3) were taken who were nominated by District Magistrate, Shahjahanur and thereafter pre-trap proceedings were conducted before them.
28. PW-1 further stated that thereafter trap team along with two independent witnesses (PW-3 and PW-4) arrived at office of the appellant and when complainant Kyyum (PW-5) arrived in the office of appellant then he asked him about Rs. 12,000/- and thereafter he received bribe money and after that he was arrested red handed at 12.45 in the afternoon and from his possession Rs. 12,000/- bribe money was recovered. As per PW-1 after the arrest of the appellant his hands were washed which turned pink and thereafter recovery memo was prepared at spot.
29. In his cross examination PW 1 stated that he did not know when complainant (PW -5) moved application for meat license. He further stated, his application for licence of meat was pending.
30. Inspector Pan Singh was produced by the prosecution as PW-2 and in his statement he stated that on 08.12.2022 complainant (PW-5) moved a complaint against appellant that for issue meat licence he made demand of bribe of Rs. 12,000/- and on 9.12.2022 he (PW 2) conducted pre-trap inquiry. He further stated that statement of complainant (PW 5) was recorded by S.I. Rishipal before him on 12.12.2022. In his cross-examination this witness stated, complainant (PW 5) moved the application for licence of meat which was pending before appellant. He further stated that complainant (PW 5) moved the application, on-line.
31. Independent witness Vinod Kumar has been examined as PW-3. He stated that on 15.12.2022 he was nominated as independent witness and in his presence appellant was apprehended red handed on 15.12.2022 between 12.30 to 01.00, in the afternoon. He also stated that when after arrest hands of appellant and complaint (PW-5) were washed then they turned pink. According to him recovery memo was prepared at spot.
32. In the cross examination PW-3 stated that they arrived at the office of appellant at 12.00 hours in the afternoon and within 5-10 minutes appellant was taken by the trap team at Bareilly and on the way the written formalities regarding trap proceedings were completed and at Bareilly at Vigilance Police Station trap team completed the remaining written formalities and thereafter he put his signature. This witness further stated that on the way the hands were washed.
33. Varun Singh, another independent witness has been examined as PW-4. He stated that on 15.12.2022 he was nominated as independent witness for trap proceedings and thereafter in his presence appellant was arrested by the trap team and entire proceedings of trap have been conducted at spot and recovery memo was also prepared at spot where trap was made.
34. Complainant Kayyum has been examined as PW-5. He stated that he moved application for licence of meat and to issue the license appellant made demand of Rs. 12,000/- from him. He further stated that out of Rs. 12,000/- Rs. 2,000/- were demanded by the appellant for moving online application. As per PW-5 on 08.12.2022 he moved complaint against the appellant. He further stated, on 12.12.2022 his statement was recorded.
35. He further stated that on 15.12.2022 after taking bribe money of Rs. 12,000/- he arrived at the gate of Collectorate Shahjahanpur where he was introduced with trap team and independent witnesses and after pre trap proceedings he went along with trap team at the office of appellant and when appellant made demand of bribe of Rs. 12,000/- then he gave him and thereafter trap team apprehended the appellant red handed.
36. He further stated that at the spot entire proceedings were conducted including washing the hands of the appellant. In the cross examination complainant i.e. PW-5 stated that he did not himself apply online for meat license and he only met with Food Safety Officer of his region. He further stated that neither he deposited any fee for license nor he moved any application for license. In the cross examination this witness further stated that designated officer i.e. appellant called him in his office.
37. He further stated that in December, 2022 appellant made demand of money but could not remember the date and when he could not arrange the money then on 08.12.2022 he made complaint against him.
38. From the cross examination of PW-5 i.e. complainant it also reflects, according to him after registration of the case neither any vigilance officer met him nor made any inquiry from him and after registration of case when court summoned him then he came in the court for his statement.
39. Sub Inspector Kailash Chandra Pandey has been examined as PW-6. According to him on 15.12.2022 he was posted as Sub Inspector in Vigilance Depatment Bareilly Sector Bareilly and on 15.12.2022 Inspector Bhupesh Rai (PW-1) along with his team and appellant and Rs. 12,000/- (bribe money) arrived and thereafter on 15.12.2022 at 18.40 hours the FIR of the present case was lodged.
40. Head Constable Narendra Pal has been examined as PW-7. According to him, on 15.12.2022 at about 7.30 AM in the morning he along with other team members arrived at the gate of Collectorate Shahjahanpur where he met with complainant Kayyum (PW-5) and two independent witnesses (PW-3 and PW-4) and thereafter firstly pre trap proceeding was conducted and thereafter they arrived at office of appellant and when appellant received bribe money from the complainant (PW-5) then he arrested him at 12.45 in the afternoon.
41. He further stated, after arrest of the appellant his hands were washed at spot and thereafter at spot recovery memo was prepared. In the cross examination this witness stated that in entire proceedings approximately two hours were consumed and thereafter appellant had taken to the police station Vigilance Bareilly. He however further stated that videography and photography of the trap proceeding have not been conducted.
42. Inspector Arvind Singh has been examined as PW-8. He is the investigating officer of the case and according to him on 15.12.2022 he was posted as Inspector in U.P. Vigilance Department Bareilly Sector. He recorded the statements of the complainant (PW-5) and other witnesses including independent witness (PW 3 and PW 4) during investigation and after investigation he submitted the charge-sheet. PW-8 proved the sanction granted against appellant. In the cross-examination this witness stated that application of complainant (PW 5) for licence of meat was pending before appellant.
Statement of appellant recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and Defence evidence:-
43. After prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied from the charges and thereafter Rakesh Chandra has been examined as defence witness (DW-1) and according to DW-1 he was advocate Clerk and on 15.12.2022 he had gone to the office of appellant with regard to a Challan and when he arrived at his office then he was told to wait for two minutes and thereafter two persons came and they have taken the appellant from the office and thereafter next day he came to know that appellant has been arrested by the Vigilance Team for receiving bribe. This witness further stated that when two persons were taking the appellant from his office then at that time neither any proceedings were made in writing nor hands of anyone were washed. In the cross examination he stated that he knew the appellant since the year 2020 and on his instructions he came to give the evidence. In the cross examination he did not disclose the name of the person for whom purpose he came at the office of appellant.
Discussion:-
44. Appellant was the public servant and he faced trial for offence punishable under section 7 of the Act and trial court on 22.1.2025 convicted him for offence under section 7 of the Act, therefore, before analysing the evidence produced before trial court it will be apt to go through the section 7 of the Act which runs as:-
"7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed.--
Any public servant who,--
(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or
(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or
(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.--For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper.
Illustration.--A public servant, 'S' asks a person, 'P' to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card application on time. 'S' is guilty of an offence under this section.
Explanation 2.--For the purpose of this section,--
(i) the expressions "obtains" or "accepts" or "attempts to obtain" shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or "accepts" or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means;
(ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party."
45. From perusal of the provisions of section 7 of the Act it is apparent that demand of bribe as well as its acceptance by the public servant both are essential ingredients for constituting an offence under section 7 of the Act.
46. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta (supra) also held that "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 guilty of the accused public servant under section 7 and 13(i) (d)(i)(ii) of the Act".
47. Therefore, it is necessary to ascertain from the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial court whether prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant who was public servant made demand of bribe and accepted the bribe.
48. Complainant-Kayum has been examined by the prosecution as PW-5 and from his examination-in-chief it reflects, appellant was Designated Officer in the Food and Safety Department and PW-5 moved an application for licence of meat and appellant made demand of bribe of Rs. 12,000/- from him for issuance of license but from his cross-examination it reflects he did not even move any application for license of meat. As per his cross-examination, appellant made demand of Rs. 12,000/- from him out of which Rs. 10,000/- he demanded as bribe and Rs. 2,000/- were for his online application, therefore, there is material contradiction in the examination-in-chief and in cross-examination of complainant Kayum (PW 5) with regard to his application for license of meat.
49. Further, according to witnesses Inspector Bhupesh Kumar Rai (PW 1) the officer who led the trap proceeding, Inspector Pan Singh (PW 2) who conducted pre trap enquiry and Inspector Arvind Singh (PW 8), the Investigating Officer, complainant Kayyum PW 5, moved the application for licence of meat which was pending.
50. Therefore, from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses PW 1, PW 2 and PW 8 it reflect application of complainant Kayum (PW 5) for licence of meat was pending. Further, however, PW 5 in his examination in chief stated that he moved the application but in cross-examination he stated, appellant made demand of total Rs. 12,000/- out of which Rs. 2000/- were for online application therefore, from his cross-examination it reflects he did not even move any such application. It is pertinent to mention that during trial no application moved by complainant (PW 5) was produced by the prosecution. These facts cast serious doubt on the prosecution case regarding demand of bribe by the appellant for licence of meat.
51. The Apex Court in case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) in criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2009 decided on 17.3.2023 declared the prosecution case doubtful regarding demand of bribe on the ground that demand of bribe was being made for installation of electricity meter and though complainant of said case moved application for installation but during trial no such application was produced. The Apex Court observed, " in absence of proof of making such application the prosecution's case regarding demand of bribe for installation new electricity meter becomes doubtful" .
52. Further, from the testimony of PW-5 i.e. complainant Kayum it reflects, he moved complaint against appellant on 8.12.2022 that he is making demand of bribe from him to issue licence of meat but in the application dated 8.12.2022 he did not disclose when such demand was made by the appellant. He did not even disclose this fact either in his examination in chief or in his cross examination, however, in his cross-examination he stated that applicant made demand of bribe in December, 2022 but also stated that he could not recollect the date. This fact again casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case regarding demand of bribe made by appellant.
53. Further, however, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta (supra) also held that "even if bribe giver made an offer of bribe to public servant and public servant accepted the offer and received bribe money then also offence under section 7 of the Act is made out against him" but in case at hand, from perusal of the statements of prosecution witnesses it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt that either complainant (PW 5) made an offer of bribe or appellant made demand of bribe to him.
54. Further, mere acceptance of money by public servant does not constitute an offence u/s 7 of the Act and for offence u/s 7 of the Act it is necessary to prove that the said accepted money by a public servant was the bribe money.
55. According to the complainant (PW 5) appellant asked for money and thereafter accepted the money from him but from his statement it could not be reflected that appellant received the money as bribe as from his entire statement it could not be reflected that either he offered for bribe or appellant accepted the money as bribe.
56. Further, however, prosecution also produced two shadow witnesses PW-3 and PW-4 and as per the statement of PW 3 Vinod Kumar, complainant Kyum (PW 5) entered in the office of the appellant and after the demand made by appellant he gave bribe money to him but even from his statement it could not be reflected that the alleged money which was given by the complainant PW-5 to appellant was the bribe money as it could not be reflected from his statement that either complainant (PW 5) offered for bribe or appellant received the money as bribe. Even from the statement of PW-4 Varun Singh also it could only be reflected that on demand of appellant the complainant (PW 5) gave money to him but it could also not be reflected from his statement that the said money was bribe money.
57. Further, however, PW-1 the informant S.I. Bhupesh Kumar Rai in his statement stated that appellant was in his office and when complainant arrived in his office then appellant asked him whether he brought Rs. 12,000/- or not and thereafter complainant told him that he brought the money which was demanded by appellant as bribe and after the demand made by appellant he handed over Rs.12,000/- to appellant but the statement of PW-1 who was police personnel with regard to the demand of bribe made by appellant does not appear to be convincing and in this regard no reliance can be placed on his statement as from his statement it reflects, he heard the conversation made between appellant and the complainant Kayum (PW 5) from outside the door which appears to be improbable.
58. Therefore, from the discussion made above it is apparent that prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant made demand of bribe from the complainant Kayum (PW 5) and received the bribe from him.
59. Further, according to prosecution on 8.12.2022 complainant Kayum (PW-5) moved application against appellant that he is making demand of bribe from him and thereafter pre trap inquiry was conducted by S.I. Pan Singh (PW 2) and on 9.12.2022 i.e., next day S.I. Pan Singh (PW-2) submitted his pre trap report and according to him appellant was a dishonest public servant and thereafter permission of trap was granted but from the statement of PW-2 SI Pan Singh it reflects he first time recorded the statement of complainant (PW 5) on 9.12.2022 through S.I. Rishipal i.e. after submission of the pre-trap report. This fact cast serious doubt on pre trap inquiry conducted by PW 2. IN case of trap pre trap inquiry is very relevant and important and if pre-trap inquiry becomes doubtful then entire post trap proceedings come under cloud.
60. Further, however, there is a presumption clause in section 20 of the Act which runs as follows:-
20. Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage.-
Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or under section 11, it is proved that a public servant accused of an offence has accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any undue advantage from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain that undue advantage, as a motive or reward under section 7 for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly either by himself or by another public servant or, as the case may be, any undue advantage without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate under section 11.
61. Therefore, from the provision of Section 20 of the Act it reflects that if prosecution has successfully proved that an accused accepted the bribe then it shall be presumed that the public servant accepted the same as a motive or reward but in the present matter, as already held, prosecution could not prove that appellant accepted the money as bribe money, therefore, no presumption can be drawn against the appellant with the aid of section 20 of the Act.
62. Further, law is settled that merely on the basis of section 20 of the Act a public servant cannot be convicted unless and until basic ingredients i.e. demand of bribe and its acceptance have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. [See: Constitution Bench Judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta (supra)].
63. In case at hand, as already observed prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant made demand of bribe, therefore, from this aspect too, no presumption can be drawn against the appellant under section 20 of the Act.
64. Therefore, from the discussion made above, in view of this Court prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it appears, trial court while convicting the appellant could not properly appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly convicted the appellant in the present case. The conviction recorded by trial court cannot be sustained.
65. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, the judgement and order of conviction as well as sentence awarded by the trial court vide impugned order dated 22.1.2025 passed in Special Case No. 432 of 2023, State of U.P. Vs. Vijay Kumar Verma, under section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act are, hereby, set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges for which he has been tried. The appellant (Vijay Kumar Verma) is reported to be in Jail, he shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other criminal case subject to the compliance of provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 481 BNSS) to the satisfaction of the trial court.
66. The instant appeal filed by appellant stands allowed.
67. Let a copy of this order/judgement and the original record of the trial court be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.
68. The office is further directed to enter the judgement in compliance register maintained for the purpose of the Court.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
October 16, 2025
Ankita
