Chandan Kumar Soni vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 6325 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Chandan Kumar Soni vs State Of Uttarakhand on 16 December, 2025

                                                                   2025:UHC:11213
                                                   Judgment Reserved on: 13.11.2025
                                                  Judgment Delivered on: 16.12.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                    Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2017

Chandan Kumar Soni                                                 ....Appellant

                                         Versus

State of Uttarakhand                                            .....Respondent

                                         With

                       Criminal Appeal No.127 of 2017

Shri Brijesh Kumar Singh Bhoj                                     ....Appellant

                                         Versus

State of Uttarakhand                                             ....Respondent

Presence: Mr. Arvind Vashishta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vivek
             Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant.
             Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA for the State.

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

       These appeals arise from a common judgment and order
dated 24.04.2017 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of
Corruption Act)/I Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Special
Sessions Trial No. 05 of 2016, whereby both Appellant s, namely
C.K. Soni and Brijesh Kumar Singh Bhoj, were convicted of
offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as well as Section 120-B
IPC. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, both accused
have preferred the present appeals. Since the facts and issues
involved are common, the appeals are being decided together.


                                                                                     1
Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2017 -------Chandan Kumar Soni vs State of Uttarakhand with
Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2017 -------Brijesh Kumar Singh Bhoj vs State of Uttarakhand

                                                                            Ashish Naithani J.
 2.     The case originates from a complaint alleging demand for
illegal gratification in relation to the release of certain payments
pertaining to the supply work undertaken at Kumaon Engineering
College, Dwarahat. On the basis of the said complaint, a trap was
organized by the vigilance establishment, and an FIR was lodged
naming both Appellant s. Upon completion of the investigation, a
charge sheet was submitted, and the matter proceeded to trial. The
trial court, relying upon the testimony of the complainant and the
trap team, recorded findings of demand, recovery, and conspiracy,
and accordingly convicted both accused under the provisions of
the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC. Both
Appellant s have challenged the correctness of these findings in
the present appeals.


3.     Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.


4.     Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant s submitted that
the conviction recorded by the trial court is unsustainable, as the
essential ingredient of demand has not been proved against either
of the Appellant s. It was argued that no witness attributed any
direct demand to Appellant Chandra Kumar Soni, and the entire
finding against him rests on hearsay and inadmissible material.
The alleged electronic evidence has not been proved in accordance
with Section 65B of the Evidence Act and, therefore, could not
have been relied upon by the trial court.

5.     It was further contended that the trial court overlooked
material evidence indicating that Appellant Soni had no role in




                                                                                     2
Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2017 -------Chandan Kumar Soni vs State of Uttarakhand with
Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2017 -------Brijesh Kumar Singh Bhoj vs State of Uttarakhand

                                                                            Ashish Naithani J.
 sanction or release of payment, and that the finding of conspiracy
is wholly without basis.

6.     As regards Appellant Brijesh Kumar Singh Bhoj, it was
submitted that even though recovery is alleged, the State has failed
to establish a legally proved demand, which is a mandatory
requirement.        The      complainant's         testimony        suffers     from
contradictions, and the trap proceedings lack the necessary link
evidence, including proper proof of phenolphthalein handling.

7.     Learned counsel argued that mere recovery, without proof of
demand and voluntary acceptance, is insufficient to sustain a
conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was urged
that the trial court misread the evidence, relied on inadmissible
material, and overlooked significant infirmities, resulting in
findings that are perverse and contrary to settled law. The
Appellant s, therefore, seek acquittal.



8.     Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the
trial court and submitted that the findings of conviction were
recorded after a careful appreciation of the evidence led by the
prosecution. It was argued that the complainant had consistently
stated that illegal gratification was demanded in connection with
the release of payment, and that the trap proceedings were
conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The State
contended that the recovery of currency notes from Appellant
Brijesh Kumar Singh Bhoj, immediately after the trap, forms a
strong incriminating circumstance corroborating the complainant's
version.



                                                                                     3
Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2017 -------Chandan Kumar Soni vs State of Uttarakhand with
Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2017 -------Brijesh Kumar Singh Bhoj vs State of Uttarakhand

                                                                            Ashish Naithani J.
 9.     It was further submitted that the prosecution witnesses,
particularly the members of the trap team, stood firm during cross-
examination and their core testimony remained unshaken. The
learned counsel for the State argued that minor discrepancies in the
narration of events are natural and do not undermine the substance
of the State's case.


10.    It was urged that the trial court had rightly relied on the
overall chain of circumstances, including prior interaction between
the complainant and the accused persons, the trap proceedings, and
the conduct of the accused, to conclude that the demand and
acceptance stood proved.

11.    The learned AGA also submitted that the trial court was
justified in drawing an inference of conspiracy, as both Appellant s
acted in coordination and the circumstances established during
trial indicated a common course of conduct. It was argued that the
High Court, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, should not lightly
interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court
unless they are perverse, which, according to the State, is not the
case here. The State, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeals.


12.    Upon an anxious and comprehensive consideration of the
entire record and the reasons assigned by the trial court, this Court
is constrained to hold that the conviction of the Appellant s rests
on a foundation which does not meet the exacting standard of
proof required in a criminal trial, particularly in prosecutions under
the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial court has proceeded on
the premise that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification



                                                                                     4
Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2017 -------Chandan Kumar Soni vs State of Uttarakhand with
Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2017 -------Brijesh Kumar Singh Bhoj vs State of Uttarakhand

                                                                            Ashish Naithani J.
 stood established against both Appellant s; however, a careful
reading of the judgment reveals that it does not refer to any clear,
specific, cogent and legally admissible piece of evidence
demonstrating a definite demand attributable to either of them. The
trial court has, instead, drawn inferences from broad circumstances
and assumptions, without first securing a proper evidentiary basis.


13.    Insofar as Appellant Chandan Kumar Soni is concerned, the
position is even more stark. None of the material witnesses has
alleged that he directly demanded any money from the
complainant. His supposed involvement is inferred almost entirely
from what is said to have been stated by the co-accused and from
electronic material which has not been brought on record in the
manner the law insists upon. The trial court's approach in treating
such unproven material as the basis of conviction discloses a
serious misdirection both in law and in fact.


14.    When the evidence is analysed with reference to Appellant
Chandan Kumar Soni, it emerges that the complainant did not
depose to any independent interaction with him in which any
amount was demanded, or any threat, inducement or assurance was
held out. The narrative of the complainant, at its highest, suggests
that he was made to believe by the co-accused that the Appellant
was involved; however, that belief remains wholly uncorroborated
by any independent evidence. There is no contemporaneous
document, no recorded conversation proved in accordance with
law, and no witness other than the complainant to support the
allegation that Appellant Soni participated in any act of demand or
acceptance of illegal gratification.




                                                                                     5
Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2017 -------Chandan Kumar Soni vs State of Uttarakhand with
Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2017 -------Brijesh Kumar Singh Bhoj vs State of Uttarakhand

                                                                            Ashish Naithani J.
 15.    Equally important is the admitted position emerging from the
record that the Appellant was not the authority responsible for
final sanction or release of the complainant's bills. The
institutional witness clearly indicates that the financial and
administrative structure of the institution did not vest such power
in the Registrar. This fact, which goes to the root of the alleged
motive and capacity to influence payment, has been ignored by the
trial court, thereby rendering its finding against Soni unsustainable
even on the factual premise it has adopted.

16.    On the contrary, the testimony of the institutional witness,
read with the relevant documents, makes it explicit that the
Registrar was not the competent or final authority for passing,
sanctioning or releasing the complainant's dues. Once that is so,
the very basis on which the State has attempted to connect
Appellant Chandan Kumar Soni to the alleged demand stands
substantially weakened.


17.    The entire case against him is thereafter sought to be
propped up through an alleged telephonic conversation. However,
the State has not produced call detail records to show that such a
call was in fact made from or to any number associated with the
Appellant, and no voice identification has been conducted to
attribute the voice in the alleged recording to him.

18.    Equally significant is the fact that no certification, as
required for proving electronic records, has been placed on record.
In the absence of these basic foundational requirements, the
alleged telephonic conversation remains no more than an unproven
assertion.



                                                                                     6
Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2017 -------Chandan Kumar Soni vs State of Uttarakhand with
Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2017 -------Brijesh Kumar Singh Bhoj vs State of Uttarakhand

                                                                            Ashish Naithani J.
 19.    It is well settled that unproven electronic material cannot be
treated as substantive evidence, much less as the sole basis for
returning a finding of guilt. Where the factum of demand itself is
not established through reliable and admissible evidence, the legal
edifice of conviction under the relevant provisions collapses. In
these circumstances, the conviction of Appellant Chandan Kumar
Soni is not merely unsafe; it is wholly unsustainable and cannot be
allowed to stand.


20.    Turning now to Appellant Brijesh Kumar Singh Bhoj, this
Court finds that the trial court has placed decisive, almost
exclusive, reliance on the alleged recovery of money during the
trap proceedings and has treated such recovery as sufficient, in
itself, to infer demand and acceptance.


21.    On a careful re-appraisal of the testimonies of the
complainant and the members of the trap team, this Court is unable
to concur with that conclusion. The complainant's version in
relation to the initial demand, the subsequent reiteration of the
demand and the circumstances immediately preceding the trap is
not uniform. His statement contains improvements and omissions
on material aspects, including the exact date, nature and words of
demand as well as the role allegedly played by each Appellant.
These variations have not been satisfactorily explained.


22.    The members of the trap team, while broadly supporting the
fact that a trap was organized, do not, upon closer scrutiny, furnish
a clear and consistent account which would establish that there
was a specific, prior demand made by Appellant Brijesh Kumar



                                                                                     7
Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2017 -------Chandan Kumar Soni vs State of Uttarakhand with
Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2017 -------Brijesh Kumar Singh Bhoj vs State of Uttarakhand

                                                                            Ashish Naithani J.
 Singh Bhoj and that the money was voluntarily accepted by him as
illegal gratification pursuant to such demand. The trial court has
unfortunately overlooked these infirmities and has assumed
demand merely because recovery is alleged.


23.    The material relating to the preparation and execution of the
trap, including the handling of phenolphthalein powder, the
manner in which the tainted currency was treated, and the
subsequent testing, has also not been proved with that degree of
precision and certainty which would exclude reasonable doubt.


24.    There are gaps in the State's version as to who handled the
money at what point, how exactly the tainted notes allegedly came
into the possession of Appellant Bhoj, and whether proper
precautions were taken to preclude possibilities of contamination,
planting or inadvertent contact. The link evidence, which should
have demonstrated an unbroken and reliable chain from the initial
demand to the final recovery, is thus incomplete.


25.    In this evidentiary backdrop, mere recovery of currency
notes from or near an accused, without a clearly established prior
demand       and      voluntary,      conscious       acceptance        as     illegal
gratification, cannot legitimately be treated as conclusive proof of
guilt. To sustain a conviction on such a tenuous basis would be to
dilute the settled standard of proof in criminal jurisprudence and
would run contrary to the requirement that suspicion, however
strong, cannot take the place of proof.

26.    The conclusion of the trial court in relation to conspiracy is
equally unsupportable. A finding of conspiracy must rest on


                                                                                     8
Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2017 -------Chandan Kumar Soni vs State of Uttarakhand with
Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2017 -------Brijesh Kumar Singh Bhoj vs State of Uttarakhand

                                                                             Ashish Naithani J.
 material that indicates some form of agreement or concerted action
between the alleged conspirators.


27.    In the present case, apart from the already doubtful assertion
that the Appellants were both interested in obtaining money from
the complainant, there is no independent evidence to show that
they acted pursuant to any shared plan or understanding.


28.    The State has not adduced any document, communication or
conduct from which a meeting of minds between the Appellants
could safely be inferred. Instead, the trial court appears to have
inferred conspiracy simply because both Appellants stood charged
in the same transaction. When the primary allegations of demand
and acceptance against each of them are themselves under serious
doubt, any superimposed finding of conspiracy, based on the same
doubtful facts, cannot survive. The substratum of the State's case
being weak and unreliable, a charge of conspiracy erected on that
substratum necessarily falls.


29.    This Court is fully conscious that in an appeal against
conviction, interference with findings of fact is not to be
undertaken lightly. However, it is equally well settled that
appellate intervention becomes not only permissible but imperative
where the trial court has misdirected itself in law, has relied upon
inadmissible or unproven material, or has drawn conclusions
which no reasonable court could reach on the evidence actually
available.

30.    Having undertaken a holistic and independent re-appraisal of
the entire record, this Court is satisfied that the view adopted by



                                                                                     9
Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2017 -------Chandan Kumar Soni vs State of Uttarakhand with
Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2017 -------Brijesh Kumar Singh Bhoj vs State of Uttarakhand

                                                                            Ashish Naithani J.
 the trial court is not a reasonably possible view on the material
before it. The conclusions of guilt are founded more on conjecture,
surmise and suspicion than on solid proof.

31.    The cumulative effect of the infirmities identified above,
absence of legally proved demand, lack of admissible evidence
connecting Appellant Soni, inconsistencies in the complainant's
testimony, deficiencies in the trap proceedings, and the absence of
any reliable material to establish conspiracy strikes at the root of
the State's case.


32.    These defects generate a serious and reasonable doubt
which, in the criminal justice system, must necessarily ensure to
the benefit of the accused. The conviction of both Appellants,
therefore, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.


33.    In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the State has failed to establish, beyond a
reasonable doubt, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged
against either of the Appellants. The findings of the trial court on
demand, acceptance and conspiracy are unsustainable, having been
arrived at by relying on inadmissible material and by overlooking
material inconsistencies and exculpatory circumstances. The
Appellants are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt.

                                     ORDER

Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.04.2017, passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act)/I Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, are set aside. Both Appellants, C.K. Soni

Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2017 -------Chandan Kumar Soni vs State of Uttarakhand with Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2017 -------Brijesh Kumar Singh Bhoj vs State of Uttarakhand

Ashish Naithani J.

and Brijesh Kumar Singh Bhoj, are acquitted of all charges. If they are in custody, they shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Their bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.

Let the lower court record be remitted back without delay.

Ashish Naithani, J.

16.12.2025 Arti ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Date: 2025.12.16 18:07:59 +05'30'

Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2017 -------Chandan Kumar Soni vs State of Uttarakhand with Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2017 -------Brijesh Kumar Singh Bhoj vs State of Uttarakhand

Ashish Naithani J.