Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Mansukhbhai Rumalbhai Palas on 6 June, 2025

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                          R/CR.A/2493/2009                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025

                                                                                                               undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                                         R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2493 of 2009


                     FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                     ==========================================================

                                  Approved for Reporting                     Yes           No
                                                                                           ✔
                     ==========================================================
                                                  STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                        Versus
                                             MANSUKHBHAI RUMALBHAI PALAS
                     ==========================================================
                     Appearance:
                     MR MEET THAKKAR, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s)
                     No. 1
                     MR YM THAKKAR(902) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                     ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                                                         Date : 06/06/2025

                                                        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 15.09.2009 passed

by learned Special Judge (ACB) & 3 rd Additional Sessions

Judge, 3rd Additional Sessions Court, Panchmahal, Godhra

(hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Special Case

No.01 of 2007. By way of the impugned judgment and order,

the Accused has been acquitted of all the charges levelled

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025

undefined

against him under Sections-7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as

"Corruption Act").

2. The short facts emerging from the record, reads as

under:-

2.1. As per the case of the complainant - Rupabhai Ramabhai

Nayak as police personnel of Godhra Taluka Police Station

was harassing his son namely Arjun in relation to false

prohibition cases levelled against him and in that connection,

accused Mansukhbhai Rumalbhai Palas working as Assistant

Sub-Inspector in Godhra Taluka Police Station came and met

complainant around ten days prior to 20.09.2006 and

demanded Rs.30,000/- as bribe not to arrest and remand his

son Arjun.

2.2. As the complainant was not affluent and rich person and

after bargain, accused ready to accept Rs.17,000/- thereby, he

had received Rs.10,000/- on 11.09.2006 from the complainant

and remaining Rs.7,000/- to be paid to accused. As

complainant could not arrange for Rs.7,000/- he met accused

on 19.09.2006 and requested to take some reasonable amount

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025

undefined

and finally, it was agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- on 21.09.2006.

2.3. So, in light of aforesaid facts, complainant has

approached ACB Office and on getting his complaint recorded

on 20.09.2006, trap was arranged after completing all

procedural formalities on 21.09.2006. The accused alleged to

have received Rs.5,000/- bribe from the complainant in

presence of Panchas on 21.09.2006 in the Police Station

where he was caught red-handed by raiding party and after

completing all necessary formalities, arrested him.

2.4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to

be filed after obtaining prior sanction to prosecute accused.

The charge under Sections-7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed by Special

Court below Exhibit-2 against accused who tried for the same.

3. 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.


                                             Charpot






                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                          R/CR.A/2493/2009                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025

                                                                                                              undefined




                                             Narsinh

                                             Chandravijaysinh Jadeja

                                             Natvarsinh Rana

                                                  Documentary Evidences

                               Sr.No.        Document Particulars                                     Exh.





                                             Station

regarding allocating two government employees for secret work

and report

3.1. 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

beyond doubt, thereby acquitted the Accused from all the

charges levelled against him.

4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Meet

Thakkar for Appellant - State.

4.1. Learned APP has taken me through various oral as well

as documentary evidence, which are on record of the case. I

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025

undefined

have also independently examined and re-appreciated

evidence of witnesses examined by prosecution.

4.2. Learned APP would submit that the findings of acquittal

are contrary to law and evidence on record and the findings

recorded by the Trial Court are erroneous and based on

irrelevant material.

4.3. Learned APP has submitted that the Trial Court has

erroneously acquitted accused only on the ground that

complainant turned hostile having not supported the case of

prosecution by ignoring other evidence available on record. It

is submitted that raiding party has successfully conducted

raid wherein accused having demanded and accepted bribe

from complainant was proved.

4.4. Learned APP would further submit that there may be

some minor discrepancy remained in evidence of Panchas,

would not be a ground to acquit accused when other

evidences on record would prove that accused being public

servant had demanded illegal gratification from complainant

not to arrest and sought remand of his son Arjun.

4.5. Learned APP would further submit that as per settled

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025

undefined

legal position of law, once accused had caught red-handed by

raiding party and material on record would show the

involvement of accused in commission of crime, no benefit of

doubt be given to accused.

4.6. So, making the aforesaid submissions, learned APP

would request this Court to allow the present appeal.

5. 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

decisions, whereby it has laid down several criteria while

deciding acquittal appeal especially in Anti-Corruption cases.

5.1. It would be apt to refer and rely upon the decision of the

Constitutional 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025

undefined

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)"

5.2. 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:-

"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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025

undefined

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)

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025

undefined

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)"

5.3. 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

[Delivered on 19th May, 2005 in Criminal Appeal

No.1157/2015 (2025 INSC 736)], 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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025

undefined

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 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])"

5.4. Thus, it is now a well-settled legal position of law that a

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025

undefined

heavy burden is cast upon the prosecution to prove that the

Accused persons have 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.

6. After reexamining and re-appreciating evidence on

record, following glaring facts emerge from evidence led by

prosecution need to be considered:-

i. The complainant has turned hostile and not supported

the case of prosecution having completely dislodged the

factum of any demand made by accused in connection with

arrest / remand of his son Arjun. It further appears that APP

had tried to cross-examined the complainant at length, but,

every suggestion put to him was denied by him.

ii. The complainant was also cross-examined at the

instance of accused wherein he has admitted that he and his

son were arrested in connection with prohibition case in the

year 2005 and also in connection with a riot case. He has

further admitted that his son was arrested by Godhra Police in

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025

undefined

connection with different prohibition case filed against him

and to teach lesson to police, he decided to file complaint

against accused.

iii. The complainant in his evidence has not whispered that

accused has demanded any money when the trap was

arranged by raiding party. As per his evidence, without any

demand of money, he had given Rs.5,000/- to accused.

iv. Even, as per evidence of Panch examined as PW-2 would

indicate that at the time of actual receipt of money by accused

from complainant, he was not present, as before he reached to

and entered into Godhra Police Station, complainant had

already handed over money to accused, thereafter

complainant ran away from the spot. He further admitted in

his cross-examination that preparation of Panchnama was not

read over to him and he has put his signature in the

Panchnama prepared by raiding Officer. Further, it appears

that under compulsion and threat of departmental proceeding,

he was forced to join as Panch.

v. So far as Panch Witness No.2 is concerned, he was

examined as PW-3 by prosecution wherein also, a similar fact

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025

undefined

came on record as appeared from evidence of PW-2. When

Panchs were not made aware about the contents of

Panchnama though signed by them, it cannot be said that it is

duly proved by prosecution. Thus, the evidence of Pancha

Witnesses is not fully supporting the case of prosecution and

his independentness has remained under cloud.

vi. It further came on record that accused has neither

registered any FIR against son of complainant nor any process

of remand undertaken by him. FIR which was relied upon by

prosecution was not investigated by accused though filed

against son of complainant.

7. Thus, the upshot of the aforesaid discussion and glaring

discrepancies noticed in the evidence of prosecution, it

appears that prosecution has failed to successfully established

beyond doubt on record that accused has demanded and

accepted bribe money from complainant which is sine-qua-

none to convict him for the offence in question.

8. Hence, 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025

undefined

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.