Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Prajapati Jayantilal Babulal on 18 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 518 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PRAJAPATI JAYANTILAL BABULAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. TRUPESH KATHIRIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. YOGENDRA THAKORE(3975) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 18/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against
the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned
Special Judge (ACB), Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as
"the learned Trial Court") in Special A.C.B. Case No. 4 of
2006 on 05.06.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has
acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under
Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act"
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
for short).
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as "the
accused" as he stood in the original case for the sake of
convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case
are as under:
2.1 In the year 2006, the accused was working as a Talati
Cum Mantri at Taleti Gram Panchayat and was a public
servant. On 03.02.2006, the complainant - Satishkumar
Jethabai Rana residing at Taleti came to the accused as he
wanted the property card of the backyards situated in
village Taleti which were in the joint names of his family
members. The complainant had requested for the property
cards about ten years prior to that date and the accused
demanded an amount of Rs. 3000/- as illegal gratification.
After bargaining, the amount was fixed at Rs. 1500/- and
after further bargaining, it was finally fixed at Rs. 1000/-.
The complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal
gratification of Rs.1000/- to the accused and went to the
ACB Police Station, Mehsana on 02.02.2006 and registered
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
a police complaint.
2.2 The Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and
the complainant did not had the amount of trap money and
hence, the Trap Laying Officer gave Rs.1000/- from the
government trap money which were ten currency notes of
the denomination of Rs.100/- each. Police Constable -
Jenaji was asked to conduct the demonstration of
phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate and in the
presence of the panch witnesses and the complainant,
Police Constable - Jenaji explained the characteristics of
phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate and
conducted the demonstration and smeared all the ten
currency notes with phenolphthalein powder. The currency
notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder were then
folded and placed in the left shirt pocket of the complainant
and necessary instructions to all concerned were given. The
complainant, panch witnesses and the members of the
raiding party went on foot to the Rajmahal Canteen where
the complainant had his stall for repairing cycle punctures
and at around 12.35 pm, the accused came on a scooter
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
from the bus-stand side and demanded the amount of illegal
gratification. The complainant took the tainted currency
notes from his left shirt pocket and gave it to the accused
who accepted the same. The predetermined signal was given
and the members of the raiding party came and caught the
accused. The necessary tests were conducted and after the
due procedure, the complaint was registered at ACB
Mehsana Police Station, C.R. No. 2/2006 under Sections 7,
12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act.
2.3 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of
the connected witnesses and seized the necessary
documents and after completion of investigation, a charge-
sheet came to be filed before the Sessions Court, Mehsana
and the case was registered as Special A.C.B. Case No. 4 of
2006.
2.4 The accused was duly served with the summons and
the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it
was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were
provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207
of the Code. A charge at Exh. 12 was framed against the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at
Exh. 13 wherein, the accused denied the contents of the
charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken
on record.
2.5 The prosecution examined 4 witnesses and produced
12 documentary evidences on record in support of their
case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed
the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence
and refused to step into the witness box or lead evidence
but stated that a false case has been filed against him. After
the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the
learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order
was pleased to acquit the accused from the charges levelled
against him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment
and order of acquittal, the appellant State has filed the
present appeal mainly stating that the judgment and order
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
of acquittal is contrary to evidence on record and the
learned Trial Court has not appreciated the version of the
complainant who has fully supported the case of the
prosecution. The learned Trial Court has not appreciated
the evidence of the panch witness and the Trap Laying
Officer and if the entire evidence is perused, the prosecution
has fully proved the case beyond reasonable doubts.
Moreover, the charge sheet was filed after the sanction for
prosecution was received and the Competent Authority had
perused all the documents and thereafter, had given the
sanction but the same has not been considered by the
learned Trial Court. Moreover, the prosecution has proved
the demand and acceptance and all the ingredients of the
PC Act but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the
same. The currency notes of Rs. 1000/- coated with
phenolphthalein powder were recovered from the
respondent and the learned Trial Court has erred in arriving
at a conclusion that the factum of demand on the basis of
the evidence of the complainant and the panchnama has
not been proved. The learned Trial Court has not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
appreciated that the respondent was on duty as a public
servant at the time of the offence and the demand of money
was not within the scope of his duty. The learned Trial
Court has disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution and
the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice and hence,
the impugned judgment and order is required to be quashed
and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya for the
appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Yogendra Thakore
for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgement and
order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire
evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya has taken this
court through the entire evidence of the prosecution and
has stated that the complainant has clearly stated that the
accused had demanded for the amount of illegal
gratification from him and he did not want to pay the same.
Initially, the amount demanded was Rs. 3000/- and after
bargaining the amount was fixed at Rs. 1000/-. Moreover,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
the panch witness has also supported the case of the
prosecution and from the evidence of the complainant,
panch witness, Trap Laying Officer and Investigating Officer,
the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable
doubts. The ingredients of demand, acceptance and
recovery have been proved and the learned Trial Court has
erred in appreciating the evidence. The judgment passed by
the learned Trial Court is perverse and illegal and is
required to be quashed and set aside. Learned APP has
urged this court to find the respondent guilty for the
offence.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Yogendra Thakor for the
respondent has stated that in the entire evidence of the
prosecution there is no iota of evidence as to why the
amount was to be given. The factum of demand has not
been proved by the prosecution as the panch witness who
was the shadow witness has not heard any demand made
by the respondent at the spot. As per the panchnama it has
emerged that the respondent came to the spot and took
some papers from the boot of his scooter and gave it to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
complainant but the complainant does not say that the
documents were given. The documents that are alleged to
have been given have not been seized by the Investigating
Officer and the demand which is a sine qua non for the
offence under the PC Act has not been proved. Moreover,
there was a grudge from by the complainant against the
accused and if the notice produced at Exh. 23 is perused
the complainant had given a notice by registered post AD to
one Sadabhai Dahyabhai Vankar and the respondent. This
proves that the complainant had a grudge with the
respondent and to settle the score, he has filed a false case
against him. The learned Trial Court has appreciated the
entire evidence in true perspective and there is no perversity
or illegality in the impugned judgment in order and learned
advocate has urged this court to reject the appeal of the
appellant.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the
present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the
observations of the Apex Court in para 11 and 12 with
regard to the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
with acquittal appeals in the case of P. Somaraju Vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1423:
11. Before proceeding, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the
well-settled principles governing interference with an order of
acquittal by an Appellate Court, which were also discussed by
the High Court in the impugned judgment. At the outset, we rely
upon the seminal case of Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of
Karnataka 2007 (4) SCC 415 wherein this Court had laid down
the five-point canonical test as follows:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the
following general principles regarding powers of the
appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an
order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate
and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of
acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an
appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and
compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very
strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring
mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers
of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of
language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court
to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the
accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to
him under the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of
law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed
and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of
the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb
the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 4 (2007)
4 SCC 415.
12. To summarize, an Appellate Court undoubtedly has full
power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against
acquittal under Section 378 and 386 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. However, due to the reinforced or 'double'
presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be
limited. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the
record, the acquittal should not be disturbed. Judicial intervention
is only warranted where the Trial Court's view is perverse, based
on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in
manifest miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the Appellate Court
must address the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal
before reversing it and assigning its own. A catena of the recent
judgements of this Court has more firmly entrenched this
position, including, inter alia, Mallappa & Ors. vs. State of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
Karnataka, 2024 INSC 104, Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund & Anr.
vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258, Babu
Sahebagauda Rudragaudar and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka
2024 INSC 320 and Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. vs.
State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 114.
7.1 The Apex Court, in the case of Surendra Singh and
Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2025 INSC 114,
has observed in Para No. 11 as under:
11. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and
others v. State of Karnataka6, a Bench of this Court to which one of us
was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal
position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against
acquittal. It was observed thus:
"38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down
by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court
in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the
accused recorded by the trial court.
39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v.
State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31]
encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering
various earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC pp. 482-83,
para 29)
"29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled
out the following general principles regarding the powers of the
appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of
acquittal in the following words : (Chandrappa case
[Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2
SCC (Cri) 325] , SCC p. 432, para 42)
42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
following general principles regarding powers of the
appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an
order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate
and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of
acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such
power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may
reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of
law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and
compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very
strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring
mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers
of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of
language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court
to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the
court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the
accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to
him under the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of
law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed
and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of
the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v.
State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581: (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] this
Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate
jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under
Section 378CrPC as follows : (SCC p. 584, para 8)
"8. ... 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the
presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against
acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary
evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against
acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to
consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible
view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence
on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court
cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another
view was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal
only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be
recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the
guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and
no other conclusion was possible."
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of
interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of
acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to
be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent
perversity;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to
consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. That no two
reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with
the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available
on record."
8. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against
acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation
that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal
unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before
the learned Trial Court, it appears that there are some
manifest illegality or perversity which could not have been
possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle
that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review
the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not
be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the
accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal.
The golden thread which runs through the web of
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two
views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of
the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his
innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken the view
in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not
disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court
can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only
when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the
order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate
Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the
conviction is a must.
9. With regard to the cases under the PC Act, the Apex
Court, in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of
N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248,
has observed in Para No. 68 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.
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
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 Section 13 (1) (d), (i) and (ii)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
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.
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
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.
(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."
10. In view of the settled principles of law in acquittal
appeals, the evidence is reappreciated and to prove the
offence against the accused, the prosecution has in all
examined five witnesses. PW1 - Satishkumar Jethabhai
Rana examined at Exh. 20 is the complainant who has
narrated the details as stated by him in the complaint
produced at Exh. 21. The witness has stated that the panch
witnesses were called and the demonstration of
phenolphthalein powder and solution of sodium carbonate
was done and the characteristics of phenolphthalein
powder and sodium carbonate were explained to them. The
Trap Laying Officer gave the necessary instructions and the
currency notes were smeared with anthracene powder and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
placed in his pocket. The complainant along with the
shadow witness went walking to the Rajmahal Compound
near the statue of Shivaji and stood there and went walking
to the place where he had his stall for repairing cycle
punctures. Around 12.30 the accused came on a scooter
and parked the scooter and came to the complainant and
asked him what had he done and demanded for the money.
When the complainant told him that he had brought the
money and asked for his documents, the accused told him
to come with him and they walked to the statue of Shivaji
in the Rajmahal Compound. The accused demanded for the
money at that place and he gave Rs. 1000/- and returned
back to his work place and at that time he gave the
predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party
came and caught the accused. In the cross-examination by
the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated
that Survey Nos. 88, 104 and 238 are in his joint ownership
and besides that they have five backyards but all the
backyards are in the joint names of all the family members
and have not been partitioned till date. They have disputes
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
between their family and Manilal who was the Ex-Sarpanch
had tampered with the revenue record of his ancestral
property. He had given a notice to his grandfather and the
Sarpanch on 31.05.2005 and in the notice he had
demanded an amount of Rs. 1000/- for the costs of the
notice. In the property card of the backyard, his father's
name was entered and his father had expired on
28.01.2004. After the death of his father, the names of the
legal heirs who were his mother, himself and his sister had
to be entered and the names were entered vide mutation
entry no. 1327 on 05.07.2004. His uncle had falsely used
his signature and removed and deleted his mother and
sister's name from the record and he had demanded for the
property card of the backyard and found that their names
were deleted. He had gone to the Gram Panchayat Office on
12.10.2001 to take the copies of the property card and had
also gone on 03.02.2004 to get the death certificate of his
father. On other dates also he had gone to the Talati's
Office to take the documents such as income certificate,
succession certificate, etc. and he had received the copies of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
the property card on 31.01.2006. He had inquired from the
accused about a way to enter only his name in the revenue
record and he had a doubt that the accused was not
helping him on the say of his uncle Manibhai. In the notice,
he had demanded for his share of the property and had
threatened to take steps against the accused if his share of
the property was not given. There were disputes regarding
the property in their family but no court cases were filed.
He had also filed a complaint with the DSP against his
uncle on 23.06.2005 and he had also filed a complaint on
09.07.2006 against the Sarpanch and his brother. He
would often borrow money from the accused whenever he
was in need of some money and the accused used to often
lend him money and would also send him the same
through some person. Whenever the accused used to come
to the Collector Office he would visit the complainant and
would park his scooter near his stall. At the time of the
incident, he and the accused were walking in the front and
the shadow witness was at a distance of about 7 to 8 feet
behind them. When he gave the amount to the accused the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
shadow witness was at a distance of about 5 feet and from
the time they left his puncture shop till the Statue of
Gayakwad, they did not speak a single word.
10.1 PW2 - Mafatlal Virchanddas Patel examined at Exh.
24 is the panch witness who has supported the case of the
prosecution and has narrated the details as stated in the
panchnama which is produced at Exh. 25. The witness has
stated that at the time of the trap, the accused came on his
scooter and parked his scooter and came to the
complainant and the complainant asked him whether he
had brought the documents and the accused replied in the
affirmative. The accused removed some papers from the
boot of his scooter and the complainant went to give the
money to the accused but the accused started walking
towards the court compound and the complainant also
followed him. The panch witness also followed them to the
court compound and they halted at the Statue of Shivaji in
the court compound. The panch witness was at a distance
of about 8 feet away from them and the complainant took
the money from his pocket with his right hand and gave it
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
to the accused who accepted it in his right hand and placed
the same in his right side pant pocket. The complainant
gave the predetermined signal and the members of the
raiding party came and caught the accused. The tainted
currency notes were recovered from the accused. In the
cross examination, the witness has stated that he did not
have any conversation with the complainant in the ACB
Office and the accused had parked his scooter at a distance
of about 10 feet from the complainant. The complainant
had called for tea and the complainant and accused had tea
but he did not have any tea. Thereafter the complainant
demanded for the documents and the accused gave the
documents but he did not see what documents were given.
At the place of the stall of the complainant, they had a
simple conversation and he was at a distance of about 8
feet behind the complainant and the accused and he did
not hear their conversation. When the accused was caught
by the Trap Laying Officer and other members of the raiding
party he did not go near but he went with all of them to the
Civil Hospital. In the office, the Inspector was dictating and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
the Writer was writing and he did not dictate any portion of
the panchnama but had merely signed the panchnama
thereafter. He had read the panchnama before his
deposition in the Court and two days prior to the
adjourned date, the ACB police had given him the
panchnama. The witness has admitted that if he did not
depose as per the panchnama, department proceedings
could be initiated against him and when the accused was
taken from the place of incident to the Civil Hospital he did
not have any conversation with anyone.
10.2 PW3 - Chandubhai Rupaji Kotak examined at Exh. 26
is the Trap Laying Officer who has narrated the entire
details from the time that the complainant came to the ACB
office on 02.02.2006 and all the procedure that was
undertaken by him till the trap was successful. In the cross
examination by the learned advocate for the accused the
witness has admitted that he had recorded the complaint of
the complainant, drawn the panchnama and had sent the
solution of sodium carbonate to the FSL and had arrested
the accused. The complainant did not give him any
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
property card of any backyard and he had sent the Yadi for
the panch witnesses with a Constable. The complainant
was doing the work of repairing punctures in an open place
on the Meshana - Visnagar road and at the time of the
incident, the place was teeming with people. People were
sitting beneath the neem tree which was at the place where
the complainant was repairing the cycle punctures and the
members of the raiding party had spread themselves
around. After the accused took his scooter and came, they
went towards the court compound after about 10 to 12
minutes and the panch no. 1 was behind the complainant
and the accused.
10.3 PW4 - Umedsinh Ravaji Thakore examined at Exh. 34
is the Investigating Officer who had taken over the
investigation from Police Inspector - Kotak. The witness has
recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and
received the Muddamal FSL Report and thereafter,
undertook the procedure for getting the service record of the
accused and after the sanction for prosecution was received,
he had filed the charge sheet. In the cross-examination, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
witness has stated that the letter for sanction for
prosecution was written on 09.06.2006 and at that time
most of the documents were ready with him. He did not
record the further statement of the complainant but had
met the complainant to verify whether he had given any
application for the copies of the property that were required
by him. The statement of the accused was recorded on
03.02.2006 and thereafter on 04.02.2006 and at both the
times, the accused was in custody. In the statements, the
accused has stated that he did not demand for any amount
of illegal gratification and the test of ultraviolet lamp and
powder was done by the Trap Laying Officer in the court
compound near the Statue of Shivaji.
11. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, as per the settled principles of law in cases
under the PC Act, the prosecution has to prove the factum
of demand which is a sine qua non for the offence under the
PC Act. In the complaint, the complainant has stated that
the amount of Rs. 3000/- was demanded as illegal
gratification for the copies of the property card of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
backyard and after bargaining the amount was fixed at Rs.
1500/- and thereafter at Rs. 1000/-. The complainant has
not stated the exact date when the amount was demanded
for by the accused and as far as the demand at the time of
the trap is concerned, the panch witness has clearly stated
that he was at a distance of about 8 feet behind the
complainant and did not hear their conversation. Hence,
the panch witness who was expected to corroborate the
complainant's versions has not heard the demand and the
factum of demand is not proved by the prosecution. In the
evidence, the accused has brought on record the notice
given by the complainant to his grandfather and the
accused wherein he has a dispute regarding his joint
property and he has threatened to take legal action against
the accused for entering into a criminal conspiracy
regarding the property. In the cross examination, the
complainant has also admitted that he had a grudge with
the accused as he had a doubt that the accused had joined
hands with his other family members and had got his
mother and sister's name deleted from the joint property of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
the family and it has also emerged on record that the
complainant had filed various complaints against his uncle
and also against the Sarpanch and his brother and son.
This demonstrates that there existed a prior dispute
between the complainant and accused and this enmity
provides a plausible motive for false implication and
renders the testimony of the complainant unreliable. As far
as the trap is concerned, as per the say of the complainant,
the amount of illegal gratification was to be given for the
documents which were the property card of the backyard
and if the panchnama produced at Exh. 25 is perused, the
panchnama states that when the accused came to the place
of incident, he took the papers from the boot of the scooter
and gave the papers to the complainant who looked at the
papers and placed it in his pocket. The complainant does
not state that the documents were given to him by the
accused at the time of the trap and he states that when the
accused came, he asked for the documents and the accused
admitted that he had brought the documents and when
they were demanded, the accused told him to accompany
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
him and thereafter, he along with the accused followed the
shadow witness went towards the Statue of Shivaji in the
Rajmahal Compound where the accused demanded for the
money. There are major contradictions in the deposition of
the complainant and in the entire evidence, it is not clear
as to why the amount was to be given and the demand
which is a sine qua non for the offence under the PC Act
has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubts.
12. In view of the settled position of law, the learned Trial
Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper
perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity
and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the
evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that
the learned Trial Court was completely justified in
acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them.
The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are
absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has
been committed by the learned Trial Court and this Court is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/518/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate
conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by
the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the
present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same
is dismissed. The impugned judgement and order of
acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge (ACB),
Mehsana in Special A.C.B. Case No. 4 of 2006 on
05.06.2007, is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
