Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shankarbhai Kidiyabhai Damor on 23 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2001 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHANKARBHAI KIDIYABHAI DAMOR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR YM THAKKAR(902) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 23/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, 4 th Fast Track Court, Godhra (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case no. 9/2001 (ACB) on 25.04.2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(1)(2)(3) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Page 1 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act" for short). 1.1 The respondent 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 In the year 2001, the accused was working as a Head Clerk in the RTO Office at Godhra, Panchmahal District and was a public servant. The complainant - Laxmansinh Parbatsinh Solanki - Police Inspector, ACB (Field), Ahmedabad had received a secret information that the employees of the RTO Office at Godhra in District Panchmahal were taking illegal gratification of the amounts ranging from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 70/- for getting the vehicles transferred to the names of the purchasers and to verify the same, decided to arrange for a decoy trap. One Abdulmajid Ismail Khalpa, a resident of Singalfalia, Amirpur Road, Godhra was called and his cooperation was sought in the matter and he agreed to cooperate in the decoy trap. 2.2 Two panch witnesses were called and the complainant, Page 2 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined members of the raiding party, panch witnesses and the decoy left in a government vehicle no. GJ-1-G-2942 and Maruti Van registration no. GJ-1-G-3566 and went from Ahmedabad to Dakor, Sevaliya and reached Godhra near the office of the RTO, Godhra. The decoy had to get auto rickshaw registration no. GJ-17-U-1154 and motorcycle no.
GJ-17-H-9121 transferred to the names of the purchasers and he took the documents and gave the papers to the accused who made an endorsement and affixed the seal and also affixed his signature in both the registration books and returned the registration books to the decoy Abdulmajid Ismail Khalpa. The decoy asked the accused how much he had to give for two transfers and the accused asked him whether it was the transfer of two vehicles and on getting an affirmative reply from the decoy, the accused told him that he had to pay an amount of Rs.120/- for the two transfers. The complainant had earlier given currency notes of the denomination of Rs.150/- of various denominations smeared with anthracene powder and had placed them in the left shirt pocket of the decoy and the decoy gave the Page 3 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined amount of Rs.120/- from those tainted currency notes and the accused accepted it with his hands and placed it on the Register on his table and placed a stamp pad on top of the amount at around 12.50 pm on 05.09.2001. The predetermined signal was given and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused and the amount was recovered from the table of the accused. The offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d)(1)(2)(3) and 13(2) of the PC Act was registered at the Godhra ACB Police Station on 25.10.2001 at I - C.R. No. 7 of 2001.
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, Godhra and the case was registered as Special Case no. 9/2001 (ACB). 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 Page 4 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined of the Code. A charge at Exh. 15 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 16 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 18 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, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence, refused to step into the witness box or lead evidence and stated that a false case has been filed against him. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant State has filed the Page 5 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The prosecution has examined a number of witnesses and have also produced various documentary evidences but without appreciating the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence on record in proper perspective, the impugned judgment and order has been passed. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the complainant - Police Inspector ACB (Field) L.P. Solanki had received secret information about the malpractices being committed by the employees of the RTO Godhra and that they were demanding amounts of Rs. 50/- to Rs. 70/- for each vehicle for transfer of the same and the trap was arranged. The decoy as also the panch witness and the Trap Laying Officer have fully supported the case of the prosecution but the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The panchnama also proves that the currency notes were given Page 6 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined by the decoy and accepted by the accused and there were marks of anthracene powder on the currency notes that were accepted by the accused. The amount was recovered and coupled with other circumstances, the entire evidence leads to the conclusion that the amount of illegal gratification was accepted from the decoy. The learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the respondent was a public servant and had demanded for gratification other than legal remuneration and there was sufficient material on record of the case to prove the offence against the respondent but without resorting to the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent and hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Y.M. Thakkar for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
Page 7 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined
5. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah has taken this court through the entire evidence of the prosecution and has stated that the evidence of the decoy as also the panch witness, proves that the amount of Rs. 120/- was demanded for the two vehicles and the panchnama also states that the demand was made and the amount was given by the decoy and accepted by the respondent. There was no reason for the Trap Laying Officer, panch witness or decoy to falsely implicate the respondent and even though the prosecution has fully proved the case against the respondent, the impugned judgment and order has been passed, which is perverse and illegal and is required to be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Y.M. Thakkar for the respondent has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned judgement and order and there is no perversity or illegality and hence, no interference is required and the appeal may be rejected.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the Page 8 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined observations of the Apex Court in para 11 and 12 with regard to the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with acquittal appeals in the case of P. Somaraju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1423:
11. Before proceeding, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the well-settled principles governing interference with an order of acquittal by an Appellate Court, which were also discussed by the High Court in the impugned judgment. At the outset, we rely upon the seminal case of Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka 2007 (4) SCC 415 wherein this Court had laid down the five-point canonical test as follows:
"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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 Page 9 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined 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 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." 4 (2007) 4 SCC 415.
12. To summarize, an Appellate Court undoubtedly has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 and 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, due to the reinforced or 'double' presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be limited. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the record, the acquittal should not be disturbed. Judicial intervention is only warranted where the Trial Court's view is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in manifest miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the Appellate Court must address the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal Page 10 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined before reversing it and assigning its own. A catena of the recent judgements of this Court has more firmly entrenched this position, including, inter alia, Mallappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 104, Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258, Babu Sahebagauda Rudragaudar and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 320 and Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 114.
7.1 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:
"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 Page 11 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined [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 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 Page 12 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined 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. ... 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 Page 13 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent 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 Page 14 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 15 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public 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 Page 16 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined 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 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.
Page 17 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined
(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 view of the settled principles of law in acquittal appeals, the evidence is reappreciated and to prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution has in all examined five witnesses. PW1 - Abdulmajid Ismail Khalpa examined at Exh. 33 is the decoy who has narrated the entire events that had unfolded on the day of the trap when he was called to the ACB Police Station and was explained about the procedure and the decoy trap. The witness has stated that he had consented for the trap and in the presence of the panch witnesses, the Trap Laying Officer gave currency notes of various denominations amounting to Page 18 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined Rs. 150/- and those currency notes were placed in his left shirt pocket after being smeared with anthracene powder. The procedure of smearing the notes with anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp and the demonstration was done in their presence and Bhavanji Nathuji Gaur had conducted the entire procedure under the instructions of the Trap Laying Officer. They had all gone in the two vehicles, Tata Sumo and Maruti Van to the ACB Office Godhra and when they reached the RTO Office, he and the panch witness went into Room No. 14 and he himself had taken the Register of the auto rickshaw and went to Jadhav Saheb. Jadhav Saheb had made the necessary entry for the transfer and after the entry was made, he took the Register to the accused and got the signature of the accused affixed in the Register and left his papers there and went to Room No. 4. He took the Register of the motorcycle from Room No. 4 and came to Room No. 14 and Patel Saheb had made the entry of the transfer of both the vehicles and had thereafter taken the signature of the accused in that Register. He asked the accused whether he had to take the transaction Page 19 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined and the accused told him that Rs. 120/- was for the transfer of two vehicles. He inquired from the accused whether the amount could be reduced, but the accused refused and he took Rs. 120/- from the tainted currency notes from his left shirt pocket, with his right hand and with his left hand took two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/- and one currency note of the denomination of Rs. 20/- and gave it in the right hand of the accused. The accused counted the amount with both the hands and kept it on the Register and placed a stamp pad on the currency notes. The decoy came out and gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and the accused was caught red-handed and the currency notes were checked in the ultraviolet lamp and traces of anthracene powder were found on them. Traces of anthracene powder were also found on both the hands of the accused, on the Register and on the currency notes and the necessary procedure was done. In the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he does not have any license for Page 20 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined transfer of vehicles in the RTO and the RTO is a government office. No private person can enter into the government office and is not permitted to take any Register. Room No. 4 and Room No. 14 are situated far away from each other and he did not keep a note of how many times he had gone in Room No. 4 and how many times he had gone in Room No. 14. The vehicles for which he had sought to be transferred were not of his ownership and he did not take any fees from the person whose vehicles had to be transferred. He was working in this manner in the RTO Office for the past three years and once the transfer fee is paid, the vehicles were transferred. He does not remember in these three years how many vehicles had he got transferred. He had met the Trap Laying Officer as a Police Inspector, ACB in Ahmedabad and he had given his consent on the say of the Trap Laying Officer and thereafter, he had got the papers of the two persons whose vehicles had to be transferred. When he went to the ACB Office at Ahmedabad, the Trap Laying Officer had told him that they had to make a successful trap and any employee Page 21 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined of the RTO was to be caught in the trap. The Trap Laying Officer had told him that he was his friend and he would do as per his say and he had promised that the accused would anyhow be caught under any circumstances and he would not allow him to go scot free. He had also assured the Trap Laying Officer that giving of the amount of illegal gratification was a game of his left hand. They had gone to Godhra with the determination that the trap had to be successful and he had decided that he had to give a complaint against the accused only. The transfer fee for both the vehicles were paid before he had gone to the ACB Office at Ahmedabad and the receipts were also received and the order of the transfer of both the vehicles were already done on 03.09.2001. The RTO Officer had also made an endorsement of transfer and had signed and sealed the book and the RC books were in his possession on the 5th. When he had gone for the first time, no amount of illegal gratification was demanded from him and he did not make an effort to give any amount of illegal gratification and even at the second time Shri Jadhav or the accused did Page 22 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined not demand any amount of illegal gratification. On the second time also, after the signature was affixed, he had placed the Register on the table of Room No. 14. The amount of illegal gratification was not found from the person of the accused or from the drawer of his table. 10.1 PW2 - Maheshbhai Dhanraj Dalvani examined at Exh. 46 is the panch witness, who has narrated the entire procedure undertaken by the Trap Laying Officer in his presence when he and the other panch witness - Rajnikanth Parshottambhai Parmar had gone to the ACB Office and thereafter they left for the RTO Office from Ahmedabad until the trap was successful. As far as the trap is concerned, the accused has stated that the decoy had gone into the Room No. 14 and brought the Register and had got the signature of the accused affixed on them and then had gone to the other room and had done the same and after the entries were made, he came once again to the accused and asked him how much he had to give and the accused told him that he had to give Rs. 120/-. The decoy took the amount from his left shirt pocket with his Page 23 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined right hand and gave it to the accused who accepted it with his right hand and folded the same and placed it on the Register which was on the left side of the table and placed the stamp pad on top. The members of the raiding party came after the predetermined signal was given by the decoy. In the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that he had spoken to the Trap Laying Officer, on the telephone before his deposition and the Trap Laying Officer had called him on his telephone at his residence and the conversation was about the case. The witness has admitted that if he did not depose as per the documents, he would have to face a departmental inquiry and would have problems in his service and hence, he had carefully given his deposition. There was no endorsement made in any diary of the secret information received by the Trap Laying Officer and the arrangement of the trap and there was no complaint filed, when they had gone to the ACB Police Station. At the time of the raid, there were many persons in Room No. 14 and hence, they left Room No. 14 and came outside. He does Page 24 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined not know in whose handwriting was the panchnama written and does not know which Police Inspector had dictated the panchnama . He does not know whether Prabhudas Gadvi had written the panchnama but has admitted that he had affixed his signatures on the say of the Trap Laying Officer. His signature was taken in Room No. 14 but he does not know the time when he had affixed his signature and after they left Room No. 14, he does not know the procedure that was undertaken by the Trap Laying Officer and the members of the raiding party. The Register was open when it was lying on the table and the situation was such that any person could have put anything on the Register. After the procedure was completed by Mr. Jadhav, the accused had made the necessary entry in the Register and registration book and had affixed his signature. One or two persons were standing at the table of the accused at that time and once the registration book was received by the decoy, there was no other work pending for him at the table of the accused.
10.2 PW3 - Bhavanji Nathuji Gaur examined at Exh. 56 is Page 25 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined the Lamp Operator and member of the raiding party who has supported the case of the prosecution. In the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that the amount was not recovered from the person of the accused or from the drawer of the table of the accused or from his hands. He does not know whether the Trap Laying Officer had recorded the statements of any members of the public who were present there.
10.3 PW4 - Laxmansinh Parvatsinh Solanki examined at Exh. 61 is the Trap Laying Officer who had filed the complaint and had received the secret information and accordingly, has narrated all the procedures undertaken by him until the trap was successful and thereafter he had filed the complaint at ACB Police Station, Godhra under Section 7, 13(1)(d)(1)(2)(3) and 13(2) of the PC Act which was registered at C.R. No. 7 of 2001. In the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he did not make a note or endorsement of the secret information received by him and if the decoy had Page 26 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined complained that the accused was demanding any amount of illegal gratification, he would have recorded his complaint but the decoy did not say any such facts about any person demanding any amount of illegal gratification from him. He had taken the decoy after informing him and seeking his cooperation in the matter and he was known to the decoy. He had verified the Register that was taken by the decoy from Room No. 4 to Room No. 14 but he did not test the Register under the ultraviolet lamp. The witness has produced the complaint at Exh. 62.
10.4 PW5 - Rameshchandra Chhaganlal Rana examined at Exh. 63 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during the investigation. The witness has produced the order of sanction for prosecution at Exh. 60. In the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that during investigation, no evidence was found that the accused had demanded any amount of illegal gratification from the decoy in the presence of the panch witness. He did not seize any documents regarding the case during his investigation and Page 27 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined the complainant and Trap Laying Officer - L. P. Solanki did not produce any note made by him in any Station Diary or the note regarding the secret information received by him. The witness has admitted that there is an ACB Police Station at Godhra but the complainant who was an ACB Police Inspector at Ahmedabad had arranged for the trap at RTO Office Godhra.
11. Upon a comprehensive re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds no infirmity in the conclusions arrived at by the learned Trial Court warranting interference in an appeal against acquittal. The prosecution case originates from alleged "secret information" received by PW4 - Laxmansinh Parvatsinh Solanki, Police Inspector, ACB Ahmedabad regarding purported illegal gratification being demanded at the RTO Office, Godhra. However, it is an admitted position that such information was neither recorded in any Station Diary nor reduced into writing in any contemporaneous record. No preliminary verification was undertaken prior to laying the trap. This omission assumes significance, as it strikes Page 28 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined at the very foundation of the prosecution case and renders the genesis of the trap doubtful. Further, the evidence discloses that the decoy - Abdulmajid Ismail Khapa was well acquainted with the complainant for over two decades. The decoy himself has admitted that even prior to departure from Ahmedabad, there was a predetermined intent to ensure a "successful trap at any cost." Such an admission casts a serious shadow on the fairness and impartiality of the trap proceedings. On the crucial aspect of demand, which constitutes the sine qua non for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, both the decoy and the panch witness have unequivocally stated that no demand of illegal gratification was made by the accused at the spot. On the contrary, it has come on record that it was the decoy who initiated the query by asking the accused as to what amount was to be paid. The alleged amount was thus not demanded but was elicited at the instance of the decoy himself. Equally significant is the manner of recovery. The tainted currency notes were not recovered from the person of the accused nor from his exclusive possession such as a Page 29 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined drawer or personal effects, but merely from the table. The evidence further indicates the possibility of the complainant having placed the currency notes on the table, even covering them with a stamp pad. Such a recovery, in the absence of proof of conscious acceptance, loses evidentiary value. The conduct of the decoy also assumes importance. It has emerged that he was well versed with the functioning of the RTO Office having worked in relation to such transactions for several years. He independently moved between rooms, accessed Registers and facilitated entries relating to the transfer of vehicles. The record further reveals that the relevant entries in the RC books had already been made prior to the alleged demand and the documents pertaining to the transfers forming the substratum of the prosecution case were not even seized. Additionally, though the alleged incident occurred in a public office with several employees and members of the public present, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. This omission further weakens the credibility of the prosecution case. The complainant has Page 30 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined also admitted that had any genuine complaint been made by the decoy regarding illegal gratification, the same would have been formally recorded and acted upon in accordance with law. Significantly, in the present case, the complaint came to be lodged only after the trap.
12. In view of the settled position of law this Court finds that there is a complete absence of reliable evidence establishing demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. In such circumstances, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not attracted. The view taken by the learned Trial Court is thus a plausible and reasonable one based on the evidence on record. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, unless the findings are perverse or wholly unsustainable, interference is unwarranted. No such perversity is demonstrated in the present case. The appeal therefore, deserves to be dismissed, and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby confirmed.
Page 31 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined
13. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Godhra in Special Case no. 9/2001 (ACB) on 25.04.2008, is hereby confirmed.
14. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 32 of 32 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026