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