Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Manuskhbhai Shivabhai Parmar on 16 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANUSKHBHAI SHIVABHAI PARMAR
========================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 16/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha @ Himmatnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Special Case No.7 of 2007 on 26.02.2009, whereby, Page 1 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent - original accused from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)
(i)(ii)(iii) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C.Act'). 1.1. The respondent hereinafter is referred to as 'the accused' as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
2.1. The accused was serving as an Economic Investigator at the District Industries Center, Himmatnagar and was thus a Public Servant within the meaning of law. The complainant, Mukundkumar Somabhai Vankar, had applied for a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- for establishing a Small-scale fodder business for livestock at the office of the Commissioner, Cottage and Rural Industries, where the accused was functioning as the In-charge Economic Investigator. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant for processing and sanctioning Page 2 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined the said loan. Upon negotiation, the demand was allegedly reduced to Rs.1,000/-. As the complainant was unwilling to pay the illegal gratification, he approached the ACB Police Station at Himatnagar, where his complaint came to be recorded.
2.2. The Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and the demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and solution of Sodium Carbonate was carried out in the presence of the complainant and the panch witnesses and the characteristics of phenolphthalein powder and solution of Sodium Carbonate were explained to the panch witnesses and the complainant. As decided earlier, for sanctioning the loan of Rs.1,00,000/-, the complainant was required to pay Rs.1,000/- to the accused;
however, as the complainant could arrange only Rs.300/-, consisting of three currency notes of Rs.100/- each, the remaining amount of Rs.700/- was taken from the Government Treasury, which included one currency note of Rs.500/- and two currency notes of Rs.100/- each. All the currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and were kept in the left pocket of the complainant's shirt, and thereafter the trap was arranged. The complainant, along with the panch witnesses and Page 3 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined members of the raiding party, proceeded to the office of the accused at Himmatnagar in a government vehicle bearing No. GJ-1-G-3752. At that time, several persons were present in the office, and after the crowd dispersed, the complainant approached the accused and inquired about his application. The accused asked the complainant about the person accompanying him, to which the complainant replied that he was his relative. The accused then asked the complainant to step outside; however, Panch Witness No.1 remained standing near the door so that he could hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused. Thereafter, the accused instructed the complainant to give the amount of illegal gratification in a handkerchief. The complainant arranged a handkerchief from a person named Deepakbhai who was present there and informed Panch Witness No.1 about the same. The complainant then went to the urinal and placed the tainted currency notes in the handkerchief. Subsequently, he handed over the handkerchief to the accused, who placed it in the drawer of his table. After some time, the accused returned the handkerchief to the complainant. The predetermined signal was given and the Page 4 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined members of the raiding party came and caught the accused red handed. The offence was registered at Himmatnagar ACB Police Station C.R.No.1 of 2007.
2.3. The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and after the due procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was completed, a charge was framed against the accused at Exh.19 and the statement of the accused was recorded, wherein, the accused denied the allegations made in the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses and produced 20 documentary evidences to prove the charge against the accused. The learned APP filed a closing pursis and the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded refused to step into the witness box and deposed on oath and examined witnesses, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence against him and stated that a false case has been filed against him. Page 5 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 2.4. After the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused from all the offences by the impugned judgement and the order.
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 is contrary to law evidence on record and principles of justice. The learned Trial Court has not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, and particularly, the evidence of the complainant, who has clearly deposed that the respondent had demanded an amount of illegal gratification. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the ingredients of the offence i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery have been clearly proved beyond reasonable doubts; however, the learned Trial Court has discarded the important aspects and has committed grave error, which has resulted into the miscarriage of justice. The reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court, while acquitting the respondent, are improper, perverse and bad in law and the Page 6 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined impugned judgment is illegal, improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the appellant - State and learned advocate Mr. Viral Vyas for learned advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli for the respondent - original accused. Perused the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the appellant - State has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record and has vehemently argued that the impugned judgment of acquittal is illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, inasmuch as the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is cogent, direct as well as circumstantial evidence connecting the respondent with the alleged offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is contended that the prosecution has examined six witnesses and produced twenty documentary evidence, which clearly establish the demand, Page 7 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification by the respondent, a public servant serving with the District Industry Centre, Himmatnagar. The complainant has consistently deposed regarding the initial demand of Rs.2,000/-, which was subsequently settled at Rs.1,000/-, and the subsequent trap arranged by the ACB on 08.01.2007. The evidence of the complainant is fully corroborated by the independent panch witness PW-2, who has categorically stated that the respondent demanded and accepted the tainted currency notes in his presence. The recovery of the tainted amount from the drawer of the respondent's table, coupled with the positive phenolphthalein test on the hands of the respondent and on the articles involved in the transaction, further establishes the acceptance of illegal gratification. It is further submitted that the evidence of the Trap Laying Officer and Investigating Officers also supports the prosecution case in material particulars and nothing adverse has been elicited in their cross-examination. Despite such cogent and consistent evidence proving the essential ingredients of the offence, namely demand, acceptance and recovery, the learned Trial Judge has given Page 8 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined undue importance to minor omissions and contradictions and has failed to draw the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal being illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence on record deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Viral Vyas for the respondent has submitted that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated all the oral and documentary evidence and there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned and judgment and order and the appeal may be rejected.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to produce the observations in Para.11 of 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:Page 9 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined "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 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 Page 10 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 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."
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. ... XXX XXX XXX 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 Page 11 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined perversity;
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, should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken the Page 12 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 13 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 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) 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 Page 14 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 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 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 light of the settled principles of law, the evidence on record is re-appreciated and PW-1 Mukundkumar Somabhai Vankar, the complainant, was examined at Exh.24 and the complaint lodged by him was produced at Exh.25. In his deposition, he has narrated the events leading to the lodging of the complaint as well as the procedure undertaken by the ACB Police at Himatnagar for laying the trap. According to him, after the complaint was recorded, the members of the trap party completed the preliminary formalities and he was instructed to Page 15 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined accompany the shadow witness to the office of the accused. The complainant deposed that he, along with the shadow witness, went to the office of the accused where several persons were present near the table of the accused. After the crowd dispersed, he approached the accused and inquired about the status of his loan application. At that time, the accused asked about the identity of the person accompanying him and directed the shadow witness to wait outside. The shadow witness thereafter stood near the door of the office from where he could overhear the conversation. The accused then asked the complainant whether he had brought the amount and informed him that two other persons were also required to pay such amount. The complainant further stated that since he did not have a handkerchief, he obtained one from Deepakbhai, a person from his village. Thereafter, he and the shadow witness went near the urinal where, in the presence of the panch witnesses, he placed the tainted currency notes amounting to Rs.1,000/- in the said handkerchief. He then returned to the table of the accused and handed over the handkerchief containing the tainted notes to the accused. The accused Page 16 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined accepted the handkerchief and kept it in the drawer of his table, and thereafter returned the handkerchief to the complainant, who in turn returned it to Deepakbhai. The complainant then gave the predetermined signal and the members of the trap party, immediately rushed to the spot. Upon search, the tainted currency notes were recovered from the drawer of the table of the accused. He further deposed that the phenolphthalein powder test was carried out by preparing a Sodium Carbonate Solution and the fingers of the accused were dipped therein. The solution relating to the right hand of the accused turned pink and the solution relating to the left hand also turned pink. In his cross-examination, the complainant admitted that he had met the accused for the first time on 28.12.2006, and thereafter, on 04.01.2007, when he had submitted copies of his caste certificate and ration card. He stated that he did not remember when he had submitted his income certificate, quotation bill and photographs. He further admitted that on 08.01.2007, he had visited the office again and that his relative Bhupendrabhai had accompanied him on two or three occasions and had also met the accused. He also stated Page 17 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined that Bhupendrabhai was present at the time when the bargaining regarding the amount had allegedly taken place. The complainant further admitted that for the first time before the Court he had stated that the tainted currency notes were kept in his left shirt pocket as per the instructions of the trap officer. He also admitted that when he went to the urinal, both the panch witnesses were accompanying him and that the handkerchief was obtained from Deepakbhai Jayeshbhai, whose handkerchief was tested and the solution relating to the left hand had also turned pink. He further stated that he had informed Deepakbhai that the amount was to be given to the accused after wrapping it in the handkerchief and that in front of the table of the accused he had taken the handkerchief from Deepakbhai, taken out the currency notes and placed them in it before handing it over to the accused.
10.1 PW-2 Atulkumar Padamsinh Bhatti was examined at Exh.34. He acted as a panch witness and the panchnama drawn during the trap proceedings was produced at Exh.35. In his examination-in-chief, he has broadly narrated the events in accordance with the contents of the panchnama. However, in his Page 18 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined cross-examination, the witness stated that whatever he had deposed before the Court was on the basis of the panchnama and the statement recorded during the investigation. He further admitted that he had not been given any written instructions to act as a panch witness. The witness also stated that he was standing at some distance and, therefore, he did not hear the conversation that had taken place between the complainant and the accused. He further deposed that when they had gone near the table of the accused, there were several persons present there and there was a crowd of about 20 to 25 people. He also stated that he had noticed the presence of a peon in the office at that time. However, he admitted that he had not observed the drawer of the table of the accused carefully and did not know whether the drawers were open or closed. According to him, the currency notes were seen in a drawer which did not have a shutter. The witness further admitted that the water used for preparing the Sodium Carbonate Solution for the experiment was taken from the toilet and that the same was not tested by the Trap Laying Officer prior to conducting the experiment. Page 19 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 10.2 PW-3 Kanubhai Harjibhai Patel was examined at Exh.39. He was serving as a Scientific Officer at the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The witness produced the FSL report at Exh.42. He also produced the receipt evidencing that the muddamal articles were received at the FSL, Ahmedabad, which was marked at Exh.40, along with the forwarding letter at Exh.41. In his deposition, the witness stated that the muddamal articles were examined at the FSL. According to the report, muddamal article marked as "B" was described as the right- hand wash of the accused, while muddamal article marked as "C" was also described as the right hand wash of the accused. In the cross-examination, the witness admitted that the results in respect of articles "B" and "C" were contradictory, and both the hand-wash samples could not belong to the same person. He further admitted that the muddamal handkerchief was found to contain traces of phenolphthalein powder; however, there was no evidence indicating the presence of Sodium Carbonate Solution on the same. The witness also stated that the currency notes did not bear any pink stains and there were no traces of Sodium Carbonate Solution detected on the currency notes. He Page 20 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined further admitted that no acid treatment had been carried out for the purpose of removing or confirming the pink coloration. 10.3. PW-4 Girishbhai Harsukhrai Vasava was examined at Exh.43. He was the Trap Laying Officer and has deposed regarding the entire procedure undertaken by him on 08.01.2007 when the complainant approached the ACB Police Station for lodging the complaint. The witness has narrated the steps taken by him from the stage of recording the complaint, arranging the panch witnesses, explaining the trap procedure, applying phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes, and thereafter proceeding to the office of the accused where the trap was laid and executed. According to the witness, after the trap was completed and the trap party entered the office, one Deepakbhai was present at the spot. The witness stated that he took the handkerchief from Deepakbhai and rubbed it with a filter paper. The filter paper was then dipped in a solution of Sodium Carbonate, upon which the solution turned pink. However, the said solution was thereafter destroyed and the handkerchief was seized as muddamal. The witness further stated that the hand wash of Deepakbhai was also taken and Page 21 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined when his right hand was dipped in the Sodium Carbonate Solution, the solution turned pink. In the cross-examination conducted by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness admitted that the hand wash of Deepakbhai was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. He also admitted that in the application produced at Exh.26, the inward no.2492 and the date 26.12 were mentioned and the application contained a recommendation addressed to Dena Bank, Vijaynagar Branch. The witness further admitted that the office where the accused was working did not have the authority to sanction the loan and that it could only recommend the loan to the concerned bank. He also admitted that the Investigating Officer, R.G. Rathod, was a member of the trap party. 10.4 PW-5 Poonamchand Khemchand Parmar was examined at Exh.46. He was the competent authority who granted the sanction for prosecution against the accused. The order of sanction issued by him was produced on record at Exh.47. In his examination-in-chief, the witness stated that after considering the materials placed before him, he granted sanction to prosecute the accused for the alleged offence. In the Page 22 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness admitted that the documents produced at Exh.26 and Exh.31 were loan application forms relating to the complainant. However, he further admitted that both the application forms were filled in with different particulars and details. This discrepancy in the contents of the two application forms was acknowledged by the witness during his cross-examination. 10.5. PW-6 Ratansinh Gobarsinh Rathod was examined at Exh.52. He was the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation after the trap. In his examination-in-chief, he has deposed regarding the steps undertaken by him during the course of investigation, such as recording the statements of witnesses, collecting relevant documents and completing the investigation before filing the charge-sheet. In the cross- examination, the witness admitted that he was also a member of the trap party along with Police Inspector Vasava and had accompanied the Trap Laying Officer from the time the complaint was registered and during the entire trap procedure. He further admitted that although he had recorded the statement of Deepakbhai during the investigation, he had not carried out Page 23 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined any search in that regard. The witness also admitted that he did not seize or notice any other articles from the table of the accused at the time of the trap. He further stated that the statement of the complainant was recorded by him on 07.02.2007 during the course of investigation.
11. Upon an overall and careful appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, certain material infirmities emerge in the prosecution case. As per the version of the complainant, he had first met the accused on 28.12.2006 and had allegedly paid an amount of Rs.500/- to the accused on 21.12.2006. The complainant has further stated that his surety, Bhupendrabhai, had accompanied him on two to three occasions when he had gone to the office of the accused and that Bhupendrabhai was present at the time when the alleged demand was made and when, after bargaining, the amount was settled at Rs.1,000/-. However, despite being an independent and material witness to the alleged demand, the said Bhupendrabhai has not been examined by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court, which creates a serious gap in the prosecution evidence with regard to the crucial element of Page 24 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined demand. Further, the documentary evidence on record, particularly the loan application form produced at Exh.26, reflects that inward no. 2492 dated 26.12.2006 bears a recommendation addressed to Dena Bank, Aniyor Branch. This circumstance indicates that the recommendation for the complainant's loan application had already been made on 26.12.2006. In that view of the matter, the prosecution has not satisfactorily established the alleged demand of illegal gratification by the accused for processing or recommending the loan. Insofar as the demand at the time of the trap is concerned, the panch witness has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he had not heard the conversation between the complainant and the accused at the relevant time. His evidence merely indicates that he noticed the exchange of the handkerchief and that the complainant subsequently informed him that the accused had accepted the amount. Thus, the evidence of the panch witness does not independently establish the demand of illegal gratification. Moreover, as per the case of the prosecution, the complainant had obtained a handkerchief from Deepakbhai Jayeshbhai, wrapped the Page 25 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined tainted currency notes therein and handed it over to the accused. The said handkerchief was later seized as muddamal from the possession of Deepakbhai. However, despite his role being material in the sequence of events, the prosecution has not examined Deepakbhai as a witness before the Trial Court, which further weakens the prosecution case. With regard to the aspect of acceptance, the prosecution case is that the complainant wrapped the tainted currency notes in the handkerchief and handed the same to the accused, who accepted the handkerchief containing the currency notes and placed them in the drawer of his table. However, the evidence on record reveals that the Sodium Carbonate Solutions relating to both the right hand and the left hand of the accused turned pink. No satisfactory explanation has been offered by the prosecution as to how the solution relating to the other hand, which had allegedly not come into contact with the handkerchief or the currency notes, also turned pink. Further, as per the FSL report produced at Exh.42 and the deposition of PW-3 Kanubhai Harjibhai Patel, articles marked as "B" and "C" were both described as the hand wash of the right hand of the Page 26 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined accused, thereby creating a contradiction regarding the samples sent for analysis. It has also come on record that the office where the accused was serving did not possess the authority to sanction the loan and was only empowered to make a recommendation to the concerned bank. The documentary evidence indicates that such recommendation had already been made on 26.12.2006. In these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredient of demand, either prior to the trap or at the time of the trap. The learned Trial Court has minutely examined the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and has recorded cogent reasons while arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from perversity or illegality. Hence, no interference is warranted with the well-reasoned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court.
12. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha Page 27 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined @ Himmatnagar in Special Case No.7 of 2007 on 26.02.2009 is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds stand cancelled.
14. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) F.S.KAZI.....
Page 28 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:50 IST 2026