Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajender Singh vs State on 20 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:26830] (1 of 6) [CRLA-430/2013]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 430/2013
Rajender Singh Sankhla S/o Sh. Madan Singh Sankhla, Aged 38
year, Resident of 2/294 Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, at present Sub
Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Sardul Circle, Bikaner
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. SD Purohit
Mr. Ram Sukh Mali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 26/05/2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 20/06/2025
BY THE COURT:-
1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 15.05.2013, passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Anti-Corruption Act Cases Court, Bikaner,
in Sessions Case No. 52/2006, whereby the appellant was
convicted for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was
sentenced to undergo 1 year's imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
15 days' imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, PW-4 Om
Prakash Nayak, submitted a complaint dated 04.03.2005 before
the Anti-Corruption Department, alleging that his wife had applied
[2025:RJ-JD:26830] (2 of 6) [CRLA-430/2013]
for a loan through Nagar Parishad, Bikaner, under a State
Government scheme called POP. As per the scheme, she applied
for the establishment of a grocery shop and was eligible for a loan
of Rs.20,000/-, of which Rs.10,000/- was to be subsidized. It was
alleged that the complainant contacted the appellant, who was a
bank officer at the relevant time, to facilitate the loan, whereupon
the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.1,500/- for doing the
needful, and subsequently demanded Rs.500/- for the final
disbursement of the loan amount. A trap was organized by PW-11
Nandlal, Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB. It was alleged
that Rs.500/- was accepted by the appellant. After due
investigation, he was arrested and charge-sheeted for the
aforementioned offences.
3. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined 12
witnesses and tendered 31 documents. The accused was
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded
innocence and clearly stated that he neither demanded nor
accepted any bribe.
4. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge held
the appellant guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced him
as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal,
seeking to assail the findings recorded by the learned trial court as
being unsustainable in law and on facts.
[2025:RJ-JD:26830] (3 of 6) [CRLA-430/2013]
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the impugned judgment as well as the record of the case.
6. The core question before the learned trial court was whether
the appellant demanded unlawful gratification of Rs.500/- from
the complainant Om Prakash or his wife Sushila Devi to facilitate
the release of the loan amount, and further, whether he accepted
the said amount, thereby committing criminal misconduct.
7. Before proceeding further, it is apt to mention that, after
detailed discussion of the evidence brought on record, the learned
trial court concluded that the prosecution had utterly failed to
establish the fact of demand of bribe or illegal gratification by the
appellant. This conclusion was recorded in Paragraph 32 of the
impugned judgment. The learned trial court held that the question
of demand of bribe by the appellant was not proved. This finding
has not been challenged either by the State of Rajasthan or
otherwise, and has therefore attained finality. For the satisfaction
of this Court, the evidence on record, particularly the statements
of the complainant Om Prakash, his wife, and the members of the
trap-laying party, has also been perused, and nothing contrary to
the conclusion of the trial court has been found.
8. The star witness, complainant PW-4 Om Prakash, did not
support the case of the prosecution and even denied the
proceedings of the trap. Although his signatures appear on Exhibit
P-22 (memo of transcript of demand verification), Exhibit P-17
(memo of proof of currency notes), Exhibit P-13 (memo of
[2025:RJ-JD:26830] (4 of 6) [CRLA-430/2013]
recovery of tendered amount), and Exhibit P-18 (memo of
transcript of demand of bribe), it is noticed that there is an
absence of primary evidence. The case of the prosecution, in
respect of these documents, falls within the ambit of secondary
evidence. This Court finds that the prosecution miserably failed to
prove the existence and contents of the electronic record in
compliance with Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, as
interpreted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao
Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1.
Therefore, the trial court's finding regarding the deficiency of
evidence concerning the demand of bribe does not warrant
interference by this Court, whether in its extraordinary jurisdiction
or its appellate jurisdiction under Section 386 Cr.P.C.
9. The learned trial court convicted the appellant solely on the
ground of recovery of Rs.500/- and the appellant's failure to
furnish a satisfactory explanation for the same.
10. This Court is required to examine whether, in the absence of
direct evidence of demand or acceptance, a conviction can be
sustained merely on the basis of recovery of Rs.500/-. The
complainant has denied handing over any amount to the
appellant. It is also undisputed that the amount of Rs.500/- was
recovered from a table and not from the person of the appellant.
In this scenario, the testimony of PW-1, Narendra Kumar Jain, the
then Branch Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, Banswara, assumes
significance. He deposed that on 09.03.2005, five to seven
[2025:RJ-JD:26830] (5 of 6) [CRLA-430/2013]
persons, including ACB officers and the complainant Om Prakash,
came to the branch. When the ACB officers asked the appellant
about the allegation, he spontaneously replied that Om Prakash
had forcibly attempted to hand over the money to him, and upon
inquiry, he was told that the amount was meant to be deposited
into the account. The appellant then asked Om Prakash to fill out
the deposit slip along with the account number, and at that time,
the money was lying on the table. Similar statements were made
by PW-2 Sunil, an Assistant Professor at the Veterinary College,
Bikaner, and PW-3 Rajesh Garg, an independent witness and
public servant, who also confirmed that the money was not
received by the appellant but was found on a table.
11. Upon perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses
recorded during the trial, it is evident that the amount of Rs.500/-
was not recovered from the possession of the appellant. The
spontaneous response of the appellant and his explanation that
the money was placed on the table after being forcibly handed
over by the complainant with instructions to deposit it cannot be
ignored. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of B. Jayaraj v.
State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55, held that mere recovery of
tainted money is not sufficient to convict a public servant under
Sections 7 or 13 of the PC Act, unless demand and voluntary
acceptance are proved. In the present case, the total denial by the
complainant and the decoy, as well as the independent witnesses'
statements that the money was not received by the appellant but
was lying on a table, strongly suggest that the recovery was not
[2025:RJ-JD:26830] (6 of 6) [CRLA-430/2013]
made from the appellant personally. In the absence of direct
evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe, and
since the recovery was not from the person of the appellant,
convicting him under Sections 7 or 13 of the PC Act cannot be
sustained. There are serious loopholes in the prosecution's case,
and it would be unsafe to convict the appellant on the nature of
evidence brought on record. The prosecution has failed to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt, and hence, the appellant
deserves to be acquitted of the charges.
12. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. The order of
sentence dated 15.05.2013, passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Anti-Corruption Act Cases Court, Bikaner, in Sessions Case
No. 52/2006, is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted
of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. His bail bonds stand
discharged. He need not surrender.
13. The record be sent back forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
32-chhavi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
