Gujarat High Court
Dansinh Rupsinh Parmar vs The State Of Gujarat on 11 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1727 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO: Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes
==========================================================
DANSINH RUPSINH PARMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MB PARIKH(576) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 11/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant - original accused under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Amreli (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case (ACB) No. 47/1997 on 30.09.2004, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Page 1 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act" for short). The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. 1.1 The appellant is hereinafter referred to as "the accused" as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 The accused was working as the Talati Cum Mantri of Galkotdi Gram Panchayat, Taluka Babra, District Amreli and was a public servant. The complainant - Devarajbhai Gordhanbhai Navapariya, a resident of Galkotdi village had purchased two plots in the names of his son Suresh and his cousin Madhabhai from Bachubhai Raghavbhai Bavaliya of village Galkotdi about one and a half years prior to 27.05.1997 and the names of the owners were not mutated in the revenue record. The complainant met the accused and asked him to mutate their names in the revenue record Page 2 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined but the accused demanded an amount of Rs. 400/- for the same. The complainant agreed to pay the amount and about three days prior to 27.05.1997, the accused called the complainant and the complainant went to the office of the Gram Panchayat but as other persons were sitting there, he did not have any conversation about the money. As the complainant was leaving for home, the accused followed him and inquired about the amount and the complainant told him that he would give the same after two days. The complainant had also purchased an old house from Maganbhai Virjibhai Vasani and his name was not mutated in the record and had to go and give the papers of the house for mutating his name in the record. As the complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification, he went on 27.05.1997 to the ACB Police Station, Amreli and the complaint of the complainant was recorded.
2.2 The Trap Laying Officer, Police Inspector - Vikramsinh Jivatsinh Puwar, ACB Police Station, Amreli called the panch witnesses and the complainant gave eight currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/- each. Police Sub-Page 3 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined Inspector - Pancholi, under the instructions of the Trap Laying Officer, conducted the demonstration of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp and explained the characteristics of the anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp to the complainant and the panch witnesses. All the currency notes were smeared with anthracene powder and placed in the left shirt pocket of the complainant and necessary instructions to all concerned were given. The Panchnama Part-I was drawn and the signatures of the panch witnesses as also the Trap Laying Officer was affixed on the Panchnama Part-I. As decided, the complainant, panch witnesses and members of the raiding party went in government vehicles bearing registration numbers GJ-1-G- 1864 and GJ-1-G-2383 and left from the Amreli ACB Police Station and went via Ishwariya, Varashda, Lathi Sheikh, Pipariya and reached the Galkotadi Bus Stand at around 15.35 hours. The complainant and the shadow witness alighted from the vehicle and went to the office of the Galkotadi Gram Panchayat. The accused was sitting in the office and both of them sat on the chairs in front of the Page 4 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined accused. The complainant and the accused had a conversation and the complainant tried to bargain and tell the accused that the amount of Rs. 400/- was excessive and gave Rs. 200/-, but the accused demanded for some more amount and the complainant gave another Rs. 100/- which were all currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/- smeared with anthracene powder. The complainant accepted the amount with both hands and placed it in his shirt pocket. The complainant gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and the currency notes were recovered from the custody of the accused. The necessary tests were done and the offence under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act was registered at ACB Police Station, Amreli vide I - C.R. No. 2/1997.
2.3 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after receipt of the order of sanction for prosecution and completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the Sessions Court, Amreli and the Page 5 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined case was registered as Special Case (ACB) No. 47/1997. 2.4 The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 4 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 5 wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.5 The prosecution examined 5 witnesses and produced 9 documentary evidences on record in support of their case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused denied the evidence and refused to step into the witness box or lead any evidence and stated that a false case has been filed against him. After the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court, by the Page 6 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2004, was pleased to find the accused guilty and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction, the appellant has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is contrary to law and facts of the case and the learned Trial Court has grossly erred in considering the evidence of the complainant who has stated that the names of the purchasers of the plot have not been mutated in the revenue record when in fact on the date of the complaint, the names were already mutated in the revenue record on 20.05.1997. There is no evidence that the appellant had demanded any amount of illegal gratification as the entries were already mutated and it is the case of the appellant that an amount of Rs. 410/- was due towards the tax of the complainant. The appellant has brought on record Page 7 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined that the appellant had filed a complaint against the complainant for encroachment of government land and a penalty was levied on the complainant and as the complainant had a grudge against the appellant, to take revenge, has filed a false case against the appellant. The prosecution has not proved the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubts and there are major contradictions in the evidence of the complainant and the evidence of the panch witness as also the panchnama. As per the material evidence on record the complaint was written on 27.05.1997 at 13.10 hours whereas in the FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the time is mentioned at 19.45 hours and the date of offence is shown as 27.05.1997 at about 15.50 hours. This material contradiction suggests that the complaint was filed with a view to harass the complainant and the date of panchnama is 27.05.1997 at about 07.30 hours. There are major contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and it is on record that the Trap Laying Officer has not heard the conversation between the complainant and the appellant, Page 8 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined whereas, the complainant has stated that at the time of the conversation and dealing with the appellant, the Trap Laying Officer was present. The learned Trial Court has not considered that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and the judgment and order of conviction is perverse and must be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must be allowed and the appellant must be acquitted from all the offences.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.B. Parikh for the appellant and learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the respondent State. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned advocate Mr. M. B. Parikh for the appellant has taken this court through the entire evidence of the prosecution and has submitted that as per the complaint, the amount was demanded for the names of the son and cousin of the complainant to be mutated in the revenue Page 9 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined record as the complainant had purchased plots in the name of his son Sureshbhai and his cousin brother Madhabhai. The complaint has been filed on 27.05.1997 but the document produced at Exh. 13 which is the Form No. 6 Mutation Entry No. 1219 dated 22.03.1994 proves that the entry regarding the house of the complainant was mutated in the revenue record and was certified on 13.05.1994. The document produced at Exh. 14 which is the Form No. 6 Mutation Entry Nos. 1333 and 1334 both dated 20.05.1997 show that the entries regarding the plots were mutated on 20.05.1997. It is the case of the appellant that an amount of Rs. 410/- was due towards the tax and the water tax and the demand notice issued to the complainant was attempted to be produced on record but the learned Trial Court refused to take the notice issued by the appellant to the complainant on record. The demand was for the outstanding tax and there are major contradictions in the deposition of the complainant and the panch witness. The appellant has also successfully brought on record that the complainant had encroached some government land and the Page 10 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined appellant had initiated the procedure for removal of the encroachment which was disliked by the complainant. The complainant has admitted that he had a grudge from the year 1992 till the case was filed against the appellant. Moreover, if the deposition of the complainant is perused, the complainant has stated that after they reached village Galkotdi, he went home and was at home for five to seven minutes where he had water and thereafter, he left with the panch witness for the Galkotdi Gram Panchayat Office but the panch witness or the panchnama does not show any such act taking place. Moreover, the complainant has stated that when he went to the ACB Office, Maganbhai Virjibhai Vachadiya had accompanied him and was also with him in the jeep while they left for the trap but the said Maganbhai Virjibhai Vachadiya has not been examined as a witness before the learned Trial Court. The panch witness, the panchnama or the Trap Laying Officer does not state anything about the presence of Maganbhai Virjibhai Vachadiya at the time of filing of the complaint or thereafter, and these are major contradictions which strike to the root Page 11 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined of the case and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. The impugned judgment and order of conviction is perverse and illegal and bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside and learned advocate for the appellant has urged this court to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant from all the offences.
6. Learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the State has submitted that the learned Trial Court has considered all the evidence and has discussed the entire oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and has rightly convicted the appellant as all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery have been proved beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution and hence, no interference is required in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and the appeal may be rejected.
7. Before appreciating the evidence of the prosecution on record, it is necessary to reiterate the cardinal principles of jurisprudence as settled by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions and the first cardinal principle is that the Page 12 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined prosecution is required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubts. The prosecution cannot take any benefit of the weaknesses of the defense. The second cardinal principle is that in a criminal trial, the accused is presumed to be innocent until he/she is proved guilty by the evidence adduced by the prosecution on record beyond reasonable doubts and the third cardinal principle is that the onus of burden never shifts from the prosecution.
8. As far as conviction appeals are concerned, the Apex Court in Goverdhan & Anr. Vs. State of Chattisgarh reported in 2025 INSC 47 has observed in para 18 to 26 as under:
18. In case of a crime committed, upon completion of investigation by the investigation agency, the accused are brought before the court to face trial. Under our criminal jurisprudence, the court ordinarily is not privy to the evidence collected during the investigation by the investigation agency. After completion of the investigation, what is brought before the trial court is an array of evidence, both documentary and oral, collected by the investigating agency against the accused which are required to be marshalled and analyzed by the court to arrive at appropriate conclusions. The prosecution seeks to recreate the incident of crime before the court in sequence, based on the evidence so collected, linking the accused with the commission of crime. Such Page 13 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined recreation of crime by the prosecution before the court is akin to putting the evidence together as in a jigsaw puzzle whereby all the relevant pieces of evidence are put together to complete the picture of the crime. The prime responsibility of the court is to see whether this jigsaw puzzle has been properly placed by the prosecution from which a clear picture emerges as to the happening of the incident with the assigned role of the accused as part of the aforesaid jigsaw puzzle. Only, thereafter, the role of the accused in perpetrating the offence can be properly ascribed and proved and accordingly, criminal liability fastened on the accused.
19. As per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a fact can be said to have been proved when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act up on the supposition that it exists. The court undertakes this exercise of examining whether the facts alleged including the particular criminal acts attributed to the accused are proved or not.
20. It is also to be noted that the law does not contemplate stitching the pieces of evidence in a watertight manner, for the standard of proof in a criminal case is not proof beyond all doubts but only beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, if a clear picture emerges on piecing together all evidence which indicates beyond reasonable doubt of the role played by the accused in the perpetration of the crime, the court holds the accused criminally liable and punishes them under the provisions of the penal code, in contradistinction to the requirement of proof based on the preponderance of probabilities as in case of civil proceedings.
21. It will be relevant to discuss, at this juncture, what is meant Page 14 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined by "reasonable doubt". It means that such doubt must be free from suppositional speculation. It must not be the result of minute emotional detailing, and the doubt must be actual and substantial and not merely vague apprehension. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense as observed in Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395 wherein it was observed as under :
"24. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than the truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overly emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case."
22. While applying this principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt the Court has to undertake a candid consideration of all the evidence in a fair and reasonable manner as observed by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhagirath (1999) 5 SCC 96 as follows:
"8. It is nearly impossible in any criminal trial to prove all the elements with a scientific precision. A criminal court could be convinced of the guilt only beyond the range of a reasonable doubt. Of course, the expression 'reasonable doubt' is incapable of definition. Modern thinking is in favour of the view that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge.
9. Francis Wharton, a celebrated writer on criminal law in Page 15 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined the United States has quoted from judicial pronouncements in his book Wharton's Criminal Evidence (at p. 31, Vol. 1 of the 12th Edn.) as follows: 'It is difficult to define the phrase "reasonable doubt". However, in all criminal cases a careful explanation of the term ought to be given. A definition often quoted or followed is that given by Chief Justice Shaw in the Webster case [Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cush 295 : 59 Mass 295 (1850)] . He says:"It is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs and depending upon moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that consideration that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge."'
10. In the treatise The Law of Criminal Evidence authored by H.C. Underhill it is stated (at p. 34, Vol. 1 of the 5th Edn.) thus: 'The doubt to be reasonable must be such a one as an honest, sensible and fair-minded man might, with reason, entertain consistent with a conscientious desire to ascertain the truth. An honestly entertained doubt of guilt is a reasonable doubt. A vague conjecture or an inference of the possibility of the innocence of the accused is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one which arises from a consideration of all the evidence in a fair and reasonable way. There must be a candid consideration of all the evidence and if, after this candid consideration is had by the jurors, there remains in the minds a conviction of the guilt of the accused, then there is no room for a reasonable doubt.'
23. The concept of reasonable doubt has to be also understood in Page 16 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined the Indian context, keeping in mind the social reality and this principle cannot be stretched beyond a reasonable limit to avoid generating a cynical view of law as observed by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 as follows:
"6. Even at this stage we may remind ourselves of a necessary social perspective in criminal cases which suffers from insufficient forensic appreciation. The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence and to the soothing sentiment that all acquittals are always good regardless of justice to the victim and the community, demand especial emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime and escape. The judicial instrument has a public accountability. The cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. The excessive solicitude reflected in the attitude that a thousand guilty men may go but one innocent martyr shall not suffer is a false dilemma. Only reasonable doubts belong to the accused. Otherwise any practical system of justice will then break down and lose credibility with the community. The evil of acquitting a guilty person light heartedly as a learned Author [ Glanville Williams in 'Proof of Guilt'.] has sapiently observed, goes much beyond the simple fact that just one guilty person has gone unpunished. If unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to a public demand for harsher legal presumptions against indicted "persons" and more severe punishment of those who are found guilty. Thus, too frequent Page 17 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial protection of the guiltless. For all these reasons it is true to say, with Viscount Simon, that "a miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of the innocent ...." In short, our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and realistic. A balance has to be struck between chasing chance possibilities as good enough to set the delinquent free and chopping the logic of preponderant probability to punish marginal innocents. We have adopted these cautions in analysing the evidence and appraising the soundness of the contrary conclusions reached by the courts below. Certainly, in the last analysis reasonable doubts must operate to the advantage of the appellant. In India the law has been laid down on these lines long ago."
24. Further, what would be the standard degree of "proof" which would be required in any particular case was also discussed in the aforesaid case of Ramakant Rai (supra) in the following words:
"23. A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to "proof" is an exercise particular to each case. Referring to (sic) of probability amounts to "proof" is an exercise, the interdependence of evidence and the confirmation of one piece of evidence by another, as learned author says : [see The Mathematics of Proof II : Glanville Page 18 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined Williams, Criminal Law Review, 1979, by Sweet and Maxwell, p. 340 (342)] "The simple multiplication rule does not apply if the separate pieces of evidence are dependent. Two events are dependent when they tend to occur together, and the evidence of such events may also be said to be dependent. In a criminal case, different pieces of evidence directed to establishing that the defendant did the prohibited act with the specified state of mind are generally dependent. A juror may feel doubt whether to credit an alleged confession, and doubt whether to infer guilt from the fact that the defendant fled from justice. But since it is generally guilty rather than innocent people who make confessions, and guilty rather than innocent people who run away, the two doubts are not to be multiplied together. The one piece of evidence may confirm the other."
24. .................... ....................
25. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimisation of trivialities would make a mockery of the administration of criminal justice. This position was illuminatingly stated by Venkatachaliah, J. (as Page 19 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined His Lordship then was) in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal [(1988) 4 SCC 302 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 928 : AIR 1988 SC 2154]."
25. At this point, it may be also relevant to mention an observation made by Lord Denning, J. in Miller v. Miller of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372, 373 H:
"That degree is well settled. It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the court of justice...."
26. Thus, the requirement of law in criminal trials is not to prove the case beyond all doubt but beyond reasonable doubt and such doubt cannot be imaginary, fanciful, trivial or merely a possible doubt but a fair doubt based on reason and common sense. Hence, in the present case, if the allegations against the appellants are held proved beyond reasonable doubt, certainly conviction cannot be said to be illegal.
9. With regard to the cases under the PC Act, the Apex Court, in the case of Aman Bhatia Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) reported in 2025 INSC 618 has observed in Para No. 51 to 54 and 63 to 65 as under:
51. It is well settled that mere recovery of tainted money, by itself, is insufficient to establish the charge against an accused under the PC Act. To sustain a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act respectively, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubts that the public servant voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be Page 20 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined a bribe. The courts have consistently reiterated that the demand for a bribe is a sine qua non for establishing an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act.
52. A five-Judge Bench of this Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731, categorically held that an offer by bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. Mere acceptance of illegal gratification without proof of offer by bribe-giver and demand by the public servant would not make an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
"88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 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 Page 21 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections 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 Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act."
53. It was further explained by this Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthyv. State of A.P., reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152, as follows:"
23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and13(1)(d)(i) and
(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof,unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder."
54. From the above exposition of law, it may be safely concluded that mere possession and recovery of tainted currency notes from a public servant, in the absence of proof of demand, is not sufficient to establish an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act respectively. Consequently, without evidence of demand for illegal gratification, it cannot be said that the public servant used corrupt or illegal means, or abused his position, to Page 22 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage in terms of Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
55.xxxxx
56.xxxxx
57.xxxxx
58.xxxxx
59.xxxxx
60.xxxxx
61.xxxxx
62.xxxxx v. Presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act
63. Insofar as the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act is concerned, such presumption is drawn only qua the offence under Sections 7 and 11 respectively and not qua the offence under Section13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The presumption is contingent upon the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification to the effect that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated under Section 7 of the PC Act. Such proof of acceptance can follow only when the demand is proved.
64. In that case, the prosecution evidence alone cannot be considered for the purpose of coming to the conclusion. The evidence led by the prosecution and, the suggestions made by the defence witnesses, if any, are also required to be considered. It is then to be seen as to whether the total effect of the entire evidence led before the court is of a nature by which the only conclusion possible was that the public servant accepted the amount. If the answer is in affirmative, then alone it can be held that the prosecution established the case beyond reasonable doubt.
65. Undoubtedly, the presumption under Section 20 arises once it is established that the public servant accepted the gratification. However, in determining whether such acceptance occurred, the totality of the evidence led at the trial must be appreciated. The Page 23 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined evidence led by the prosecution, the suggestions made by the defence witnesses, if any, the entire record is required to be considered. Only if the cumulative effect of all the evidence is such that the sole possible conclusion is that the public servant accepted the gratification can it be said that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt.
10. As per the settled principles of law in conviction appeals and as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Goverdhan (supra), when the appellate Court finds that the findings of fact was based on a wholesome erroneous approach and the very basis of reasoning was not in the right perspective and the intrinsic merit of the evidence of the witness who was not considered and the trial was perversely disposed of permitting manifest errors and glaring infirmities, the appellate Court can interfere and exercise the powers in a conviction appeal and a finding on merits, after considering and meticulously dissecting the evidence on record, is imperative. As far as the conviction under the PC Act is concerned it is settled by the Apex Court that the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts and proof of demand is a sine qua non for an offence under the PC Act. Only if the demand is Page 24 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined proved beyond reasonable doubts with cogent and convincing evidence, the prosecution would benefit by the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act and the conviction would be sustained.
11. In light of the above settled principles of law the evidence on record is minutely dissected and the prosecution has examined PW1 - Devrajbhai Gordhanbhai
- the complainant - at Exh. 9 and the witness has proved his written complaint at Exh. 10. He has further stated that after the members of the raiding party proceeded to village Galkotdi, he first went to his residence and thereafter to the office of the Gram Panchayat where the accused was present. According to him, the accused initially demanded Rs. 400/-; he paid Rs. 200/-, upon which the accused demanded a further sum, and he allegedly paid an additional Rs. 100/-. In cross-examination, material infirmities emerge. The witness was unable to state basic particulars of the office premises such as the number of doors, windows, tables, or chairs in the room where the alleged payment was made. He admitted that at the time of Page 25 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined the alleged payment, the mutation entry had not been effected, but subsequently learnt that the entry in the name of his son had already been mutated in the revenue record. He expressed ignorance as to whether the relevant mutation entry of his house had been certified earlier and denied that Rs. 410/- was demanded towards tax. Significantly, the complainant admitted that he had encroached upon the communal pasture land of the village and that proceedings in respect of such encroachment were pending against him. He further conceded that his brother and uncle had similarly encroached upon the communal pasture land. He acknowledged that he had requested the accused to regularize or allot the land in his favour, which was not acceded to and admitted harbouring a grievance against the accused since the year 1992 on that account. The complainant further stated that the alleged demand of Rs. 400/- was made three days prior to lodging the complaint and again one day prior thereto, though he did not meet the accused when allegedly called to the office. He deposed that he travelled to the ACB Office from Galkotdi to Page 26 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined Amreli on a motorcycle along with Maganbhai and asserted that the accused had also demanded money and illegal gratification from Maganbhai, who allegedly agreed to locate the office. During the trap, Maganbhai accompanied him but remained seated outside the office. The complainant stated that after returning to the village in the vehicle of the Trap Laying Officer, he went home with the panch witness to drink water, and thereafter, upon being called by the peon, proceeded to the Gram Panchayat Office where he allegedly handed over the tainted currency notes to the accused in the presence of the Trap Laying Officer, who, according to him, remained standing near the table of the accused. He was unable to state whether the office was closed or darkened after the trap proceedings.
The testimony of PW1, thus, reveals significant omissions, inconsistencies, and admissions touching upon prior animosity and pending encroachment proceedings, which bear directly upon his credibility and the genesis of the complaint.
11.1 PW2 - Ghanshyambhai Virjibhai Kariya examined at Page 27 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined Exh. 16 is the panch witness to the trap proceedings. He has, in his examination-in-chief, broadly supported the prosecution version and affirmed the contents of the panchnama drawn at Exh. 17, which he identified and proved. In cross-examination, the witness deposed that a total sum of Rs. 3,200/- was recovered from the pocket of the accused, out of which Rs. 2,700/- constituted government money and Rs. 500/- belonged to the accused personally. He stated that he had verified the accounts pertaining to the sum of Rs. 2,700/- and had seen the relevant record in that regard. He further admitted that he had read the panchnama prior to entering the witness box for his deposition. The witness stated that, at the relevant time, apart from the accused, no other person was present inside the office. He denied the suggestion that Maganbhai had accompanied them in the jeep. However, he expressed inability to recollect whether the accused had informed the Trap Laying Officer that the names of the complainant's relatives had already been mutated in the revenue record. The panchnama at Exh. 17 has been duly produced and Page 28 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined proved through this witness.
His testimony, while corroborative of the procedural aspects of the trap, also discloses certain limitations in recollection and raises issues regarding the segregation and accounting of the recovered currency.
11.2 PW3 - Jayantilal Khimabhai Thesiya examined at Exh. 20 is the Competent Authority who accorded sanction for prosecution which is produced at Exh. 21. He has deposed to having granted sanction upon perusal of the materials placed before him. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he had not inquire into the quantum of tax, if any, outstanding against the complainant at the relevant time. He further conceded that the matter pertained to mutation of an entry on the basis of a registered sale deed and that, upon receipt of a copy of the sale deed along with a requisite application, it was incumbent upon the accused to effect the mutation entry in the prescribed record. He clarified that certification of such entry was within the competence of the appropriate authority. The witness also stated that a notice under Section 135D of the Land Page 29 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined Revenue Code is required to be issued after the mutation entry is recorded and that a decision thereon is to be taken upon expiry of the statutory period of thirty days from service of notice. He further admitted that issuance of notice under Section 135D is obligatory even where the mutation is based upon a registered sale deed.
The testimony of PW3 thus reflects that certain foundational aspects relating to the statutory procedure governing mutation entries and any ancillary financial liabilities were not independently verified by the sanctioning authority prior to according sanction.
11.3 PW4 - Vikramsinh Jivatsinh Puwar examined at Exh. 22 is the Trap Laying Officer who deposed to the procedural steps undertaken upon receipt of the complaint and the laying of the trap culminating in the alleged recovery. He has narrated the sequence of events from the time the complainant approached his office, the pre-trap formalities, the demonstration of anthracene powder, the preparation of the panchnama and the execution of the trap. He further stated that, subsequent to the trap proceedings, the Page 30 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined investigation was handed over to the Police Inspector of the ACB Police Station, Jamnagar. In cross-examination, the witness candidly admitted that he had neither heard the conversation between the complainant and the accused nor personally witnessed the alleged demand or acceptance of illegal gratification. He further stated that he did not examine or seize any documentary record at the time of the raid and was unable to recollect whether any such documents were shown to him. He expressed inability to state whether he had attempted to verify or produce the relevant record during the raid proceedings. The witness denied the suggestion that any other person had accompanied the complainant at the time of lodging the complaint. He deposed that upon entering the office after receipt of the predetermined signal, he found the accused seated in his chair and instructed him not to move, which direction was complied with. He stated that currency notes pertaining to the Panchayat were recovered from the pocket of the accused. However, he admitted that he was unaware whether the mutation entry in question had already been Page 31 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined effected in the revenue record.
The evidence of this witness, while establishing the procedural framework of the trap, does not furnish direct proof of demand or voluntary acceptance, the foundational ingredients of the offence.
11.4 PW5 - Bhikhubha Balubha Jadeja examined at Exh. 24 is the Investigating Officer who completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet. He has deposed to the procedural steps undertaken by him during the course of investigation and has produced the sanction order for prosecution at Exh. 21 as well as the service record of the accused at Exh. 25. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he had not drawn any separate panchnama for seizure of documentary evidence, nor had he seized any relevant record during the course of investigation. He further stated that the document produced at Exh. 14 was forwarded by him along with the charge-sheet.
The testimony thus indicates that no independent documentary verification or formal seizure of contemporaneous official record was undertaken by the Page 32 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined Investigating Officer during the investigation.
12. Upon an independent and comprehensive re- appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence and the documentary record, the substratum of the prosecution case does not withstand judicial scrutiny. The gravamen of the allegation is that the accused demanded illegal gratification for effecting mutation entries in the revenue record. The complaint is produced at Exh. 10. The prosecution has also relied upon copies of the registered sale deeds at Exhs. 11 and 12 and Village Form No. 6 entries at Exhs. 13 and 14. Exh. 13 Mutation Entry No. 1219 unequivocally demonstrates that the name of Manjulaben Devarajbhai - guardian of Sureshbhai Devarajbhai, in respect of Survey No. 93 paiki, had already been mutated in the revenue record and duly certified several years prior to the lodging of the complaint. Exh. 14 further reflects that Mutation Entry Nos. 1333 and 1334, concerning Survey No. 25 and Plot No. 17 respectively, had been entered in the revenue record before the complaint was instituted. Thus, on the date of the complaint, the relevant Page 33 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined mutation entries stood already effected. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused specifically asserted that an amount of Rs. 410/- was outstanding towards panchayat tax for the relevant assessment years, and copies of the notices were produced in support thereof. The documentary material placed on record lends prima facie corroboration to this defence. The prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions. The complainant has deposed that upon reaching the village for the trap, he and the panch alighted from the vehicle, proceeded to his residence to drink water, and were thereafter summoned by the peon to the Gram Panchayat Office. This circumstance finds no mention either in the panchnama at Exh. 17 or in the testimony of PW2, the panch witness. The omission is not trivial; it strikes at the continuity and credibility of the trap narrative. Equally significant is the inconsistency regarding the presence of Maganbhai Virjibhai Vachadiya. The complainant asserted that Maganbhai Virjibhai Vachadiya accompanied him to the ACB Office and later travelled with the raiding party. In Page 34 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined contradistinction, the Trap Laying Officer and the panch witness categorically denied his presence. The said Maganbhai Virjibhai Vachadiya has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. The non-examination of this material witness, coupled with conflicting versions, casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story. Most crucially, the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational ingredient of demand. It is trite that proof of demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the PC Act. In the present case, the alleged prior demand is not substantiated by reliable, independent evidence. The demand at the time of trap is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the Trap Laying Officer himself admitted that he did not hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused. The surrounding circumstances probabilise the defence version. The mutation entries had already been made. Notices regarding outstanding panchayat tax had been issued. It was part of the official duty of the accused to recover such dues. The evidence discloses that immediately upon Page 35 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined payment of the amount, the complainant proceeded outside and gave the predetermined signal without waiting for issuance of any receipt. This conduct is consistent with the defence plea that the amount represented tax dues rather than illegal gratification. Additionally, the complainant admitted to having encroached upon the communal pasture land and to harbouring a longstanding grievance against the accused on account of refusal to regularise such encroachment. This admitted animus furnishes a motive for false implication. The learned Trial Court failed to evaluate these material contradictions and surrounding circumstances in their proper perspective. The prosecution having failed to prove demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction cannot be sustained. The impugned judgment and order of conviction, being contrary to the evidence on record and the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, are unsustainable in law and deserve to be set aside.
13. The impugned judgment and order of conviction in Page 36 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined Special Case (ACB) No. 47/1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Amreli on 30.09.2004 is perverse, bad in law and against the settled principle of law and is hereby quashed and set aside and the accused is acquitted from all the charges against him.
14. Bail bonds stand cancelled. Fine to be refunded to the accused after due verification. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 37 of 37 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:12 IST 2026