Gujarat High Court
Mavjibhai Meghajibhai Parmar vs The State Of Gujarat on 10 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1325 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
MAVJIBHAI MEGHAJIBHAI PARMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DHRUV TOLIYA(9249) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 10/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the appellant-
convict (i.e. the original accused), challenging the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 31.07.2004 passed by the
learned Special Judge and Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Special
Case No.22 of 2002, whereby the learned Special Judge
convicted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
7, 13(2) read with Section (13)(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, and consequently, sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year along with a fine of
Rs.10,000=00 for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and also sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of
Rs.10,000=00 for the offence punishable under Section 13(2)
read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION :
2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut-shell, is that on
28.3.2002 at around 19:15 hours, near the Gram Panchayat
office, the appellant-accused, who was a Class-III Government
employee serving as Talati-cum-Mantri, Dedan Gram Panchayat,
Taluka Khambha, District Amreli, had demanded and accepted
illegal gratification of Rs.200=00 from the complainant -
Savjibhai Babubhai Sankhat for the purpose of mutation entry
in the panchayat record.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the brother of the
complainant, namely, Maganbhai Babubhai Sankhat, had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
purchased a residential house at village Dedan, and for the
purpose of transferring the house in his name in the panchayat
record, he had handed over the job to his brother (i.e. the
complainant - Savjibhai Babubhai Sankhat).
4. It is further the case of the prosecution that when the
complainant had filed an application for transfer of house in the
name of his brother in the panchayat record along with the
necessary documents pertaining to the house, the appellant-
accused, being a public servant, had demanded illegal
gratification of Rs.200=00 from the complainant for the said
work, which he was otherwise duty bound to discharge as per
his official duty.
5. It is alleged that the complainant had twice provided the
copies of the sale-deed to the appellant-accused for carrying out
the mutation entry in the panchayat record regarding transfer of
house in the name of his brother Maganbhai. However, on both
the occasions the appellant-accused had lost the copies of the
sale-deed and was insisting for illegal gratification of Rs.500=00
from the complainant, and when the complainant begged for
some reduction, he told the complainant to pay him Rs.200=00
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
on 28.03.2002 at around 5 O'clock in the evening at his
residence or at the panchayat office.
6. Ultimately, on 28.03.2002 at 13:00 hours, a complaint in
this regard came to be filed by the complainant - Savjibhai
Babubhai Sankhat against the appellant-accused Mavjibhai
Meghjibhai Parmar, Talati-cum-Mantri, Dedan Gram Panchayat,
Taluka Khambha, District Amreli, before the A.C.B. Police
Station, Amreli. On the basis of the said complaint, a trap was
arranged and the appellant-accused was caught red-handed
accepting the bribe.
7. An offence came to be registered against the appellant-
accused vide Crime Register No.1/2002 lodged before the A.C.B.
Police Station, Amreli, for the offences punishable under
Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act. The investigation was commenced, and during the
investigation, the statements of the witnesses conversant with
the incident were recorded, and documentary evidence were
collected. On completion of the investigation, the appellant-
accused was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and tried
by the learned Special Judge and Sessions Judge, Amreli. In
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
order to prove the charge, the prosecution had examined several
witnesses and adduced various documentary evidence.
8. The Charge came to be framed against the appellant-
accused on 08.09.2003 vide Exh.3 for the offences punishable
under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. The plea of the appellant-accused
was recorded vide Exh.4 and the appellant-accused abjured his
guilt pleading innocence and claimed to be tried.
9. To bring home the charge, the prosecution had examined
the witnesses and adduced documentary evidence as under :
NO. WITNESSES NAME EXHIBIT
1. Savjibhai Babubhai Sankhat - Complainant 11
2. Narendrabhai Navalshankar Jani - Panch No.1 13
3. Yunusbhai Mohammadbhai Munshi - Sanctioning 19
Authority
4. Kantilal Panchabhai Chaudhari - Trapping Officer 40
and Police Inspector, A.C.B. Police Station, Amreli
5. Govindbhai Jethalal Yadav - Investigating Officer 42
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
SR. DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENT EXHIBIT
NO.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
3 Seizure Memo of the muddamal seized from the 15
accused
4 Sanction Letter as per Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 20
1988, to proceed with the case against the accused
5 Certified copy of the first page of the service book of 43
the accused to show that the accused is serving as
public servant in the District Panchayat, Amreli.
10. On completion of the recording of the evidence, the trial
court explained the incriminating circumstances appearing
against the appellant-accused. The appellant-accused, in his
further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.,
denied the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution of
accepting the bribe and stated that he is innocent and has been
falsely implicated in the alleged offence. The appellant-accused
has also produced certain evidence in his defence along with
documentary evidence vide Exh.44.
11. On completion of the trial, the trial court, vide judgment
and order dated 31.07.2004, convicted the appellant-accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and
consequently, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for three years along with the fine of Rs.20,000=00, and in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
making default of payment of fine, to undergo further
imprisonment for two months.
12. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the convict had
preferred the captioned Criminal Appeal No.1325 of 2004 before
this Court, which came to be admitted vide order passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 13.08.2004.
13. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dhruv Toliya appearing for the
appellant-convict and learned APP Mr.Yuvraj Brahmbhatt,
learned APP appearing for the respondent - State.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-
CONVICT :
14. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Dhruv Toliya appearing
for the appellant (i.e. the original accused-convict) has submitted
that admittedly the trial court has convicted the appellant-
accused of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2)
read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Corruption Act, and sentenced
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with
the fine of Rs.20,000=00. He has submitted that it is the case of
the prosecution that the appellant-accused was demanding
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
illegal gratification from the complainant and he was caught red-
handed accepting the bribe amount from the complainant.
Learned advocate Mr.Toliya, while taking this Court through the
evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the impugned
judgment, has submitted that the entire case of the prosecution
is false and fabricated. It is submitted that the prosecution has
not led any cogent and convincing evidence to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of the offence, more
particularly, demand, acceptance and recovery.
15. Learned advocate Mr.Toliya has submitted that the
appellant-accused has stated in his further statement that the
amount was accepted by him as it was given to him by the
complainant for paying the dues towards the tax bills of the
disputed house and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged
offence. Learned advocate Mr.Toliya has further submitted that it
is stated by the appellant-accused that a false complaint has
been filed against him by the complainant in collusion with one
Shantilal Damodar Joshi, an employee of the Gram Panchayat,
who, along with the present complainant, had filed a case
against the panchayat before the Labour Court, Bhavnagar,
wherein the appellant-accused had supplied some information to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
the panchayat against the complainant. Therefore, the
complainant has a personal grudge against the appellant-
accused. The appellant-accused has stated that the said amount
was not given as a bribe.
16. It is submitted that one of the most important and
essential ingredients necessary for the offence under the
Prevention of Corruption Act to be constituted is 'demand'. The
demand has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by leading
cogent and convincing evidence. If the evidence of the
complainant is perused and appreciated, it appears that at the
time of the alleged incident, i.e. in the year 2002, the appellant-
accused was serving as a Talati-cum-Mantri, Dedan Gram
Panchayat, Taluka Khambha, District Amreli. It is alleged that
the appellant-accused was demanding Rs.200=00 from the
complainant for transfer of the house in the name of his brother
Maganbhai in the panchayat record.
17. Learned advocate Mr.Toliya has submitted that it is an
important factor to bear in mind, whether the appellant-accused
had received the gratification as a motive or reward for
performing or refraining from performing any official act or for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
showing any favour or disfavour in the exercise of his official
functions. In the instant case, the evidence so far as the demand
which constitutes as an important ingredient is very deficient
and highly improbable.
18. Learned advocate Mr.Toliya has drawn the attention of this
Court to a letter dated 27.12.2001 addressed by the District
Development Officer, Amreli, to the Taluka Development Officer,
Khambha (Exh.21). By way of this letter, a directive was issued
to expedite the recovery process of the land revenue and other
taxes with a warning that any laxity in this proceeding would be
noted in the Annual Confidential Letter of the concerned
officer/employee. The court's attention was also drawn to the
endorsement made on this letter by the Taluka Development
Officer, which indicates that instructions were given to the Gram
Panchayat employees to undertake intensive door-to-door
collection efforts to recover the outstanding dues towards the
land revenue. Furthermore, learned advocate has pointed out to
one letter dated 07.01.2002 written by the present appellant-
accused in his capacity as the Talati-cum-Mantri, directing the
employees of the Dedan Gram Panchayat, Taluka Khambha,
District Amreli, namely, Shri Shantilal Damodar Joshi and Shri
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
J.H.Jani, to undertake strict measures to ensure hundred
percentage recovery of the land revenue. Further, learned
advocate has referred to the order dated 20.02.2003 passed by
the Joint Secretary, Panchayat, Rural Housing and Rural
Development Department, Gandhinagar, passed in the
Departmental Appeal of the appellant-accused, which is
produced at Exh.35.
19. Relying upon all the aforesaid documentary evidence,
learned advocate Mr.Toliya has submitted that from the very
inception of this case, the appellant-accused has maintained a
clear defense that pursuant to the directive letter from the
District Development Officer, Amreli (Exh.21), the appellant-
accused had initiated strict door-to-door collection efforts to
recover the outstanding dues towards the land revenue. On the
day of the alleged incident, after concluding the meeting, as the
appellant-accused was returning home, at that time, the
complainant had approached him with the documents of the
property purchased by his brother and requested him to transfer
the property in the name of his brother. At that time, the
appellant-accused insisted that the complainant first clear the
pending tax bill amount. As per the record of the panchayat, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
outstanding amount towards the tax bill of the complainant was
Rs.320=00. Out of this, the complainant had already paid
Rs.120=00 on 13.11.2001 (as per the receipt produced at
Exh.26), leaving a balance of Rs.200=00. When the complainant
had tendered the amount of Rs.200=00 to the appellant-accused,
he accepted it as the outstanding tax payment, and
subsequently, a false case was instituted against the appellant-
accused.
20. Learned advocate Mr.Toliya has submitted that a false case
has been instituted against the appellant-accused as a part of
the conspiracy. The motive arises from two key factors. First, the
appellant-accused, while discharging his official duties, had
taken action to remove illegal encroachment made by the
complainant and his associates on the pastureland ('gauchar') of
village Dedan, and secondly, the appellant-accused represented
and defended the Gram Panchayat in legal proceedings
instituted by the panchayat employee Shri Shantilal Damodar
Joshi before the Labour Commissioner. Due to these reasons,
the complainant and Shri Shantilal Damodar Joshi, acting in
collusion with each other and keeping a personal grudge,
conspired against the appellant-accused, and under a pretext of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
payment of tax, entrapped him by giving Rs.200=00 and falsely
implicated him in the present case.
21. Learned advocate Mr.Toliya has submitted that the trial
court, while appreciating the evidence, has laid much emphasis
on Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which raises
presumption once it is established that the appellant-accused
accepted the amount. However, for the purpose of arriving at the
conclusion, whether the appellant-accused accepted the amount
of illegal gratification or not, the totality of the evidence led by
the prosecution at the trial is required to be appreciated. It is
settled legal position that in absence of any proof of demand, the
legal presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act would not arise since the proof of demand and its
subsequent acceptance is a sine qua non for the offence
punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. Therefore, only on the basis of acceptance of
amount without there being any proof of demand, the appellant-
accused cannot be held guilty of the offence under Sections 7,
13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is submitted
that the trial court, while appreciating the evidence in this
regard, has completely lost sight of the aforesaid settled legal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
position. It is further submitted that except the bare averments
in the complaint, no evidence has been led by the prosecution to
prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of the
offence, more particularly, the proof of demand of illegal
gratification and its subsequent acceptance.
22. Thus, it is submitted that considering the entire evidence
on record, it clearly establishes that the prosecution has failed to
prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential elements of the
offence, i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery, and in absence of
proof of demand and its acceptance, the trial court fell in serious
error in raising a presumption under Section 20 of the Act. In
such circumstances, learned advocate Mr.Toliya has implored
the court to allow the present appeal, set-aside the impugned
judgment and direct the acquittal of the appellant from the
charges levelled against him.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
23. Vehemently opposing the appeal filed by the appellant-
convict and the submissions canvassed by learned advocate
Mr.Dhruv Toliya appearing for the appellant-convict, learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
APP Mr.Yuvraj Brahmbhatt appearing for the State has
submitted that the trial court has convicted the appellant-
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read
with Section (13)(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and
consequently, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for three years along with the fine of Rs.20,000=00. Learned APP
Mr.Brahmbhatt has submitted that the prosecution has proved
all the three essential elements of the offence, i.e. demand,
acceptance and recovery, beyond reasonable doubt, through the
convincing evidence of the core witnesses, i.e. the complainant
(PW-1) Savjibhai Babubhai Sankhat, the panch-witness (PW-2)
Narendrabhai Navalshankar Jani and the trapping officer
Kantilal Panchabhai Chaudhari (PW-4).
24. Learned APP Mr.Brahmbhatt, while referring to the
evidence of the core witnesses, i.e. the complainant (PW-1)
Savjibhai Babubhai Sankhat, the shadow witness (PW-2)
Narendrabhai Navalshankar Jani and the trapping officer
Kantilal Panchabhai Chaudhari (PW-4), has submitted that the
evidence of the complainant (PW-1) Savjibhai Babubhai Sankhat
and the evidence of the shadow witness (PW-2) Narendrabhai
Navalshankar Jani, who had accompanied the complainant at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
the time of the trap, are clear, cogent and convincing. It is
submitted that the evidence of both these witnesses has
remained unshaken and the same is in corroboration with the
evidence of the witness (PW-4) Kantilal Panchabhai Chaudhari,
Police Inspector, who laid the trap. It is submitted that the
evidence of all these witnesses are in corroboration with the
allegations made by the complainant (PW-1) Savjibhai Babubhai
Sankhat in his complaint at Exh.12.
25. Learned APP Mr.Brahmbhatt has further submitted that if
the evidence of the witnesses be read in juxtaposition with the
documentary evidence on record, their remains no doubt about
the case of the prosecution and, therefore, no error could be said
to have been committed by the trial court while appreciating the
evidence and arriving at the conclusion of guilt of the appellant-
accused. He has, therefore, urged that the conviction and
sentence recorded by the trial court do not call for any
interference by this Court and the criminal appeal preferred by
the appellant-convict, challenging his conviction and sentence,
may be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS :
26. Before adverting to the facts and circumstances of the
case, it would be apt to reiterate the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence as affirmed by the highest court that, in
criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to bring home the guilt of
the appellant-accused since the burden of proving the guilt
beyond reasonable doubt always rests upon the prosecution. It is
also settled that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs
and cannot take advantage or undue advantage of the defence
put forth by the appellant-accused. The Supreme Court, in the
case of Rabindra Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC
170, reiterated three cardinal principles, namely, (i) that the
onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt, and it cannot derive any benefit from
weakness or falsity of the defence version while proving its case;
(ii) that in a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved to be guilty; and (iii) that the onus
of the prosecution never shifts.
27. The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh
vs. Krishna Gopal, reported in (1988) 4 SCC 302, has held that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
the person has, no doubt, profound rights not to be convicted of
an offence, which is not established by the evidential standard of
proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, it is well-settled that in
criminal trial, the guilt of the appellant-accused must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt in order to convict him.
28. Bearing in mind the aforesaid legal position, this Court
has considered the submissions canvassed by the respective
parties and carefully perused the materials produced on record.
It is well-settled that for establishing the commission of an
offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the
proof of demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non. Moreover,
the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act can be invoked only on proof of facts in issue,
namely, the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant-
accused and the acceptance thereof. The Constitutional Bench of
the Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State
(Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731
has, in paragraph-68 of the judgment, held as under :
"68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised
as under :
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
(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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
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 in turn there is a
payment made which is received by the public servant,
would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)
(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand
and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may
be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when
the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral
and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof.
On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the
discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering
whether the fact of demand has been proved by the
prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject
to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal
presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died
or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand
of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the
evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence,
either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution
can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does
not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the
accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the
proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to
raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the
purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said
Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court
as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course,
the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption of law under Section
20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to
above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption
while the latter is discretionary in nature."
29. Thus, it is held by the Supreme Court that in order to
bring home the charge, the prosecution has to prove the demand
of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance either by
direct or by circumstantial evidence.
30. The cases of corruption largely depends on the testimonies
of three crucial witnesses; (i) the complainant, (ii) the shadow
witness, and (iii) the trapping officer. These witnesses play a
decisive role in determining the fate of the accused. As such,
their testimonies must be examined with great care and caution.
It is expected that their statements should be consistent,
credible and of sterling quality. If there are significant
contradictions in their evidence on material aspects, such
discrepancies cannot be overlooked. In such circumstances
where the evidence allows for two possible interpretations, the
one which is in favour of the accused, must be considered. This
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
is because the law firmly upholds the principle that "no innocent
persons should be wrongfully punished".
31. Keeping in mind the ratio of the above-mentioned
judgment, the evidence led by the prosecution in the instant
case is to be analyzed to find out, whether the prosecution has
proved the fact that the appellant-accused demanded and
accepted the bribe from the complainant.
32. This Court has given anxious consideration to the evidence
on record. The scrutiny of the evidence reveals multiple
inconsistencies within the case of the prosecution. As per the
original complaint at Exh.12 and the Charge at Exh.3, it is the
case of the prosecution that one Maganbhai, who is the brother
of the complainant, had purchased a house in Sankdi Sheri area
of village Dedan from one Allarakhbhai. The complainant was
handling all the related formalities including preparation of the
sale-deed, transferring the ownership in the record of village
panchayat and the payment of property tax, etc. It is the case of
the prosecution that the complainant, after the execution of the
sale-deed, met the appellant-accused, who was then serving as
the Talati-cum-Mantri, submitted a copy of the sale-deed and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
requested him to transfer the property in the name of his brother
in the record of rights. It is alleged that approximately one year
thereafter, when the complainant went to pay the property tax of
the said house, he came to know that the entry regarding the
change of the ownership was not made in the record of rights.
Upon making inquiry by the complainant, the appellant-accused
told him that the copy of the sale-deed was misplaced and
further asked the complainant to provide another copy. The
complainant, thereafter, provided another copy of the sale-deed
to the appellant-accused and the tax was then paid in the name
of the previous owner. It is the case of the prosecution that
about four days thereafter, when the complainant again
approached the appellant-accused regarding the entry, the
appellant-accused demanded a bribe of Rs.500=00 from the
complainant for making necessary entry in the revenue record.
When the complainant requested the appellant-accused to
reduce the amount, the appellant-accused insisted that at least
Rs.200=00 must be paid. Therefore, the complainant reported
the matter to the ACB, Amreli, on 28.03.2002, prompting a trap.
It is alleged that during the trap, the appellant-accused was
caught red-handed accepting the amount of bribe.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
33. In view of the aforesaid allegations regarding the factum of
demand and the subsequent acceptance of illegal gentrification,
the evidence led by the prosecution; both, ocular and
documentary, as well as the arguments advanced by the learned
advocate for the respective parties, are required to be considered.
Upon close examination, the complainant's evidence seems to be
vague and is lacking in material particulars. It is evident that the
complainant has deliberately not disclosed the essential
information regarding the date, time and place of the events. The
complainant, in his complaint at Exh.12 and in his evidence at
Exh.11, has stated that he met the appellant-accused with the
copy of the sale-deed of the house purchased by his brother
Maganbhai and requested for its entry in the record of rights.
Subsequently, one year thereafter, upon inquiry made by the
complainant, he came to know that no such entry was effected
by the appellant-accused. Therefore, when he approached the
appellant-accused in this regard, he was told by the appellant-
accused that the copy of the sale-deed earlier provided by him
has been misplaced and requested to supply him a fresh copy of
the sale-deed. In compliance thereof, he had supplied another
copy of the sale-deed to the appellant-accused. However, after
four days thereafter, when the complainant again approached
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
the appellant-accused, the appellant-accused reiterated that the
copy has been lost and demanded Rs.500=00 as a bribe from the
complainant for transferring the house in the name of the
brother of the complainant in the record of right. Thereafter, the
demand was reduced to Rs.200=00 after negotiation. Thus, the
complainant asserts that he met the appellant-accused on three
distinct occasions concerning the aforesaid matter, and during
the third meeting, the appellant-accused made initial demand of
Rs.500=00 as illegal gratification, which was subsequently
reduced to Rs.200=00 after negotiation, but the complainant has
not specified the exact date, time or place of the three occasions.
34. So far as the elements of demand and acceptance of the
bribe amount is concerned, the prosecution evidence is
inconsistent and contradictory. The testimony of the three core
witnesses, i.e. the complainant, the shadow witness and the
trapping officer, are mutually inconsistent, which raises
suspicions towards the version of the prosecution. The
complainant (PW-1) Savjibhai Babubhai Sankhat, in his evidence
at Exh.11, has stated that on the day of the trap, the
complainant and all other members of the trapping team left for
village Dedan from Amreli at 3:00 p.m. in a jeep. Upon reaching
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
at village Dedan, the complainant and the shadow witness went
to the residence of the complainant to collect the relevant
documents. Thereafter, upon enquiry, it was found that the
appellant-accused was not present at his residence. Hence, all
the members waited at the village temple until 6:30 p.m. Later,
upon receiving the information that the appellant-accused has
arrived, the complainant and the shadow witness proceeded to
the residential quarter of the appellant-accused, while the
remaining team members positioned nearby in a scattered
manner. The complainant then called the appellant-accused and
the appellant-accused came out from the house. The
complainant thereafter told him, "Here are the documents. Kindly
get my work done". To this, the appellant-accused responded,
"Come tomorrow". The complainant then replied, "I have to
endure hardships daily. Kindly get it done". The appellant-
accused then asked, "Have you brought the money ?" To which,
the complainant responded affirmatively. The appellant-accused
then told the complainant that if you have brought it, then give it
to me. Therefore, the complainant took out the tainted currency
notes from the left pocket of his shirt and gave it to the
appellant-accused. The appellant-accused counted the notes
with both of his hands and put it into the right rear pocket of his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
pant. Upon receiving the pre-arranged signal, the ACB Police
Inspector (PW-4) Shri Kantilal Panchabhai Chaudhari and other
members of the raiding party arrived at the scene of offence and
apprehended the accused. The accused was then taken to the
police station where the tainted currency notes were recovered
from the rear pocket of the pant of the accused through the
second panch Bhikhubhai Viththalbhai Pathar. Later, under
ultraviolet lamp examination, fluorescent marks were found on
both the hands of the appellant-accused, and on one of the
hands of the second panch Bhikhubhai Viththalbhai Pathar.
Similar marks were also found on the rear pocket of the pant of
the appellant-accused.
35. Thus, as per the evidence of the complainant, the
appellant-accused had demanded money by saying, "Have you
brought the money ?" Upon his demand, the complainant handed
over the tainted currency notes, which the appellant-accused
accepted, counted with both of his hands and put it in his
pocket. Therefore, during the examination under the ultraviolet
light, fluorescent powder marks were found on both of his
hands.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
36. In this context, if we look at the evidence of the shadow
witness (PW-2) Narendrabhai Navalshankar Jani, he, in his
evidence at Exh.13, has stated that on the day of the trap, after
arriving at village Dedan, he and the complainant went to the
complainant's house to collect the relevant documents, and in
the evening, when they came to know that the appellant-accused
had returned home, he and the complainant proceeded to the
residential quarter of the appellant-accused while the remaining
team members positioned nearby in a scattered manner. When
the complainant called the appellant-accused, he came outside
and said, "It is already evening, you may come tomorrow". In
response, the complainant informed him that he had brought
the documents and the money, as instructed. The appellant-
accused then said, "Give me Rs.200=00". The complainant, with
his right hand, took the tainted currency notes out from the left
pocket of his shirt and gave it to the appellant-accused, who
accepted it with his right hand and then put it in the right rear
pocket of his pant. Following the pre-arranged signal, the ACB
Police Inspector (PW-4) Shri Kantilal Panchabhai Chaudhari and
other team members arrived at the scene and apprehended the
appellant-accused. The appellant-accused was then taken to the
police outpost, where the tainted currency notes were recovered
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
from the rear pocket of the pant of the appellant-accused
through the second panch Bhikhubhai Viththalbhai Pathar.
Upon examination under the ultraviolet light, fluorescent powder
marks were found on the right hand of the appellant-accused, on
his pant and on one of the hands of the second panch
Bhikhubhai Viththalbhai Pathar. During the cross-examination,
in response to a question posed by the trial court, this witness
has stated that while giving the tainted currency notes, the
complainant counted it with both of his hands and then gave it
to the appellant-accused, who accepted it with his right hand. It
is significant to note that neither the complainant nor the
shadow witness has mentioned in their respective evidence that
following the trap, both the hands of the complainant were also
examined under the ultraviolet light.
37. Now, in this context, if we examine the panchnama at
Exh.14, the entire sequence of events has been described in a
completely different manner. The panchnama states that when
the complainant handed over the documents to the appellant-
accused, the appellant-accused asked, "Have you brought the
money as per our earlier discussion ?" To this, the complainant
responded that he has brought Rs.200=00. The appellant-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
accused then said, "If you have brought it, then give it".
Thereafter, when the complainant handed over the currency
notes to the appellant-accused, he accepted it with his right
hand, since he was holding documents in his left hand.
38. Now, in the same context, if we examine the evidence of the
Police Inspector (PW-4) Shri Kantilal Panchabhai Chaudhari,
who laid the trap, he, in his testimony at Exh.40 has affirmed
and reiterated the very same fact as narrated in details in the
panchnama at Exh.14.
39. A careful evaluation of the foregoing evidence clearly
establishes that the evidence of the complainant (PW-1)
Savjibhai Babubhai Sankhat, the panch-witness (PW-2)
Narendrabhai Navalshankar Jani and the trapping officer (PW-4)
Kantilal Panchabhai Chaudhari regarding demand and
acceptance of the alleged bribe amount is not consistent with
each other. Furthermore, the sequence of events as recorded in
the panchnama at Exh.14 are entirely different from the facts
stated by all these witnesses. The complainant stated that when
he handed over the relevant documents to the appellant-accused
and requested to get his work done, the appellant-accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
asked, "Have you brought the money ?" Upon this, the
complainant gave him a tainted currency notes, which the
accused counted with both of his hands and, therefore, the
fluorescent powder marks were found on both the hands of the
appellant-accused under the ultraviolet light. On the other hand,
the shadow witness stated that the complainant said that, "As
per your instruction, I have brought the documents and the
money". To which, the appellant-accused said, "Give me
Rs.200=00", and when the complainant gave the amount, the
appellant-accepted it with his right hand. Accordingly,
fluorescent powder marks were found only on the right hand of
the appellant-accused under the ultraviolet light. This witness
also stated, in response to the query from the court, that the
complainant had counted the tainted currency notes with both
of his hands before handing it over to the appellant-accused. It's
a matter of record that none of these witnesses has stated that
the complainant's hands were also examined under the
ultraviolet light. As noted earlier, the sequence of events as
described in the panchnama at Exh.14 are entirely different.
Thus, the evidence of all the core witnesses, if read in
juxtaposition, it lacks consistency and, in fact, appears to be
contradictory.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
40. As noted earlier, in such case where the fate of the accused
depends only on the testimonies of the complainant, the shadow
witness and the trapping officer, it is essential that their
evidence should be consistent, reliable and of sterling quality.
Therefore, the inconsistencies and contradictions in the
testimonies of these witnesses cannot be overlooked.
41. At this stage, it is important to consider the evidence of the
prosecution with regard to the defense raised by the appellant-
accused. In his defense, the appellant-accused has contended
that pursuant to the directive letter (Exh.21) from the District
Development Officer, Amreli, the appellant-accused had initiated
intensive door-to-door recovery proceedings for the outstanding
taxes. On the other hand, on the day of the incident, after
attending the meeting, as the appellant-accused was returning
home, the complainant approached him with the documents
concerning the house purchased by his brother and requested
him to transfer the same in the name of his brother in the record
of rights. At that time, the appellant-accused insisted that the
complainant first clear the pending tax dues. It is contended that
as per the panchayat record, the outstanding tax bill amount of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
the complainant was Rs.320=00, out of which Rs.120=00 had
been paid on 13.11.2001, as per the receipt at Exh.26, leaving a
balance of Rs.200=00. When the complainant tendered
Rs.200=00, the appellant-accused accepted it as payment of the
outstanding tax. Subsequently, a false case was initiated against
him. It is also contended that the case against the appellant-
accused is falsely instituted as part of the conspiracy, motivated
by two key factors :
(i) the appellant, in the course of his official duties, took
action to remove the encroachments made by the
complainant and his associates on the pastureland
belonging to the Panchayat, and
(ii) the appellant-accused represented and defended the
Panchayat in legal proceedings initiated by a panchayat
employee Shri Shantilal Damodar Joshi before the Labour
Commissioner.
42. Aggrieved by these two factors, the complainant and
Shantilal Damodar Joshi, acting in collusion and harbouring a
personal grudge, conspired against the appellant-accused, and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
under the pretext of payment of tax, entrapped him by giving
him Rs.200=00 and falsely implicated him in this case.
43. It appears from the letter dated 27.12.2001 (Exh.21)
addressed by the District Development Officer, Amreli, to the
Taluka Panchayat, Khambha, that a directive was issued to
expedite the recovery of land revenue and other taxes. It was
further directed that any negligence in compliance would be
recorded in the service record of the concerned employee. The
Taluka Development Officer's endorsement on the same letter
also indicates that similar instructions were conveyed to the
Gram Panchayat staff directing them to carry out intensive door-
to-door recovery of the outstanding tax dues.
44. It also appears from the statement at Exh.27 that at the
time of the alleged incident, some cases were pending against the
complainant and 20 other persons concerning encroachment on
the pastureland of the Panchayat. Further, the receipt produced
at Exh.26 clearly suggested the payment of the tax amount of
Rs.120=00 regarding the house of the brother of the appellant-
accused. Moreover, the documentary evidence at Exhibits 28 to
30 indicate rejection of the candidature of the complainant's wife
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
for the Panchayat election.
45. In this context, it becomes necessary to take note of certain
important facts that have come on record during the cross-
examination of the complainant. It reveals from the cross-
examination of the complainant that at the time of the alleged
incident, a case was pending against him concerning the
encroachment on the pastureland of the Panchayat, wherein he
had sought injunction, against which the Panchayat was
defending. Further, it has been revealed that during the relevant
period, the complainant's wife had filed a nomination form for
the Panchayat election, which was subsequently rejected and at
that time the appellant was serving as a Talati-cum-Mantri in
the Panchayat. It has also come on record that the property tax
of Rs.120=00 regarding the house of the brother of the
complainant had been paid on 13.11.2001 to a Panchayat
employee Shantilal Damodar Joshi, whom the complainant
described him as a very trusted person. The complainant even
provided the telephone number of Shantilal Damodar Joshi to
the ACB officials to contact him. From the cross-examination, it
further emerges that despite the appellant-accused asking him
to come on the next day, he deliberately did not do so, because
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
his intention at that time was to get the appellant-accused
apprehended. The complainant also elicited in the cross-
examination that, in his statement before the police, he did not
mention that at the time of the trap, the appellant-accused had
asked him, "Have you brought the money ?" nor did he state that
he had answered in the affirmative. Most importantly, the
complainant has made a clear admission during the cross-
examination that total tax payable in respect of the properties
belonging to him and his brother was Rs.200=00. It also emerges
from the cross- examination that 15 days prior to the incident,
the appellant-accused had already initiated the process of
transferring the property in question in the name of the brother
of the complainant and even issued notice under Section 135D
of the Land Revenue Code. It is noteworthy that prior to
transferring any property in the name of a new owner, it is
incumbent upon the authority to see that no amount left due
with respect to tax.
46. For the foregoing discussion, it clearly established that the
evidence of the core witnesses is inconsistent and contradictory
with each other as well as with the case of the prosecution.
Further, considering the admissions made by the complainant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
during his cross- examination as well as the documentary
evidence, as referred to herein above, the defense taken by the
appellant-accused seems to be more plausible.
47. The Supreme Court, in the case of Mallappa vs. State Of
Karnataka, reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544, has held thus :-
"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...."
48. In view of the aforesaid as well as considering the
discrepancies in the evidence of all the three core witnesses
regarding the acceptance of illegal gratification, when two views
are possible, certainly the one in favour of innocence of the
accused, must be considered.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
49. Thus, on examination of the entire evidence, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to
establish beyond reasonable doubt, the essential elements of
demand of bribe and acceptance of illegal gratification. The law
in this regard is well settled that for an offence to be constituted
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the 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. A mere recovery of the tainted money is
not sufficient to convict the accused if the core evidence in the
case is unreliable, unless there is a proof that the money was
voluntarily accepted as a bribe.
50. Since the prosecution has failed in establishing the
foundational fact by leading cogent and convincing evidence
regarding the aspects of demand and its subsequent acceptance,
the question of presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act does not arise in the present case.
51. In view of the aforesaid discussion and re-appreciation of
the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the considered
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
opinion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond
reasonable doubt by leading cogent and convincing evidence and
the trial court has not appreciated the entire evidence in its true
perspective. Further, when the essential elements of demand
and its subsequent acceptance, i.e. the fact in issue, has not
been proved beyond reasonable doubt, mere recovery of the
tainted currency notes cannot constitute the offence punishable
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act since it is
not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had
voluntarily accepted the amount knowing it to be the illegal
gratification. Therefore, the appellant-accused cannot be held
guilty by taking aid of the presumption under Section 20 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, more particularly, when the basis
and the foundation of the prosecution case, i.e. the demand and
its acceptance, has not been proved.
52. Keeping in mind the cardinal principles of the criminal
jurisprudence as stated herein above and considering the
evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that
in the instant case, it cannot be said that the prosecution has
proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and
convincing evidence and, therefore, the benefit of doubt goes in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1325/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
favour of the appellant-accused. Thus, it appears that the trial
court has made an error while convicting the present appellant-
accused for the alleged offence and, therefore, interference by
this Court is warranted.
53. In the result, the appeal preferred by the appellant-convict
succeeds, and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned
judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
31.07.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge and Sessions
Judge, Amreli, in Special Case No.22 of 2002, is hereby quashed
and set-aside. The appellant-accused is set free from all the
charges.
54. Bail bonds stand cancelled. The amount of fine, if any, paid
shall be refunded to the appellant-accused. Records and
proceedings be returned to the trial court forthwith.
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J.)
/MOINUDDIN
