Gujarat High Court
Amrutlal Kunvarji Mehta vs State Of Gujarat on 11 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1239 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO: Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes
==========================================================
AMRUTLAL KUNVARJI MEHTA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHIVANG M SHAH(5916) for the Appellant(s) No. 2,3
VISHAL K ANANDJIWALA(7798) 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 appellants - original accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, 4 th Fast Track Court, Navsari (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Corruption) Case No. 4/2003 on 06.05.2005, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Page 1 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act"
for short). The appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 3000/- each and in default, simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
1.1 The appellants are hereinafter referred to as "the accused" in the rank and file as they 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 no. 1 was working as a Circle Officer and the accused no. 2 was working as a Clerk in the Mamlatar Office at Gandevi and were public servants. The complainant - Sureshbhai Ishwarbhai Oad - a resident of Oadnagar, Billimora, Taluka Gandevi, District Navsari was doing the business of collecting sand from the riverbed and Page 2 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined had made an application for lease to collect sand from the riverbed of river Ambika bearing plot nos. 836 and 837 situated at village Morli, Taluka Gandevi with the Office of the District Assistant Geologist, Valsad. The concerned office had verified all the necessary papers and forwarded the papers to the Circle Officer, Gandevi for the "No Objection Certificate". In October 2002, the complainant requested the accused no. 1 to expedite the issuance of the "No Objection Certificate" for the lease. Mahendrabhai Mangalbhai and Manoj Mangalbhai - the brothers of the complainant had also similarly applied for a lease and they had also requested the accused no. 1 to send the necessary "No Objection Certificate" to the concerned Office of the Geologist. The accused no. 2 demanded an amount of Rs.
1500/- each for all the three applications and in all an amount of Rs.4500/- was demanded by both the accused stating that all the applications will be proceeded together and the complainant would have to pay an amount of Rs.4500/- as illegal gratification if he wanted the "No Objection Certificate" to be issued. Subsequently, the Page 3 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined complainant and his two brothers once again met the accused no. 1 and at that time the demand had increased to Rs. 5300/- out of which Rs. 2000/- was for the accused no. 1, Rs. 3000/- was for the accused no. 2 and Rs. 300/- was for the accused no. 3. The complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification and he went to the ACB Police Station, Valsad and the complaint of the complainant was registered.
2.2 The Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and took an amount of Rs. 5300/- from the government fund which consisted of four currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/- each and 33 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each. The panch witnesses were called and under the instructions of the Trap Laying Officer, after the necessary introductions were done, ASI - Babubhai was instructed to conduct the demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and solution of sodium carbonate and he explained the characteristics of phenolphthalein powder and solution of sodium carbonate to the complainant and the panch witnesses after the Page 4 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined demonstration was done. All the currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and folded and placed in the pocket of the shirt of the complainant. The necessary instructions were given and the panchnama part- I was drawn and the signatures of all concerned were taken. As decided, the complainant, panch witnesses and members of the raiding party went in a government vehicle from Valsad to National Highway Road no. 8, Chikhli, Alipore and reached Gandevi and came to Hari Talkies at about 12.30 pm. The complainant and the panch no. 1 alighted from the vehicle and went walking to the Mamlatar Office, Gandevi and the other members of the raiding party and the panch no. 2 followed them and stood scattered around. The complainant went and met the accused no. 2 and told him that he had brought the amount as demanded by him and to conclude his work and also told him that he had brought the amount to be paid to the accused no. 1 and the accused no. 2 told the complainant to go in the office situated on the opposite side and meet the accused no. 1 and accused no. 3 and thereafter to return to him. The complainant and the Page 5 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined panch no. 1 went to the office of the accused no. 1 and the complainant told the accused no. 1 that he had come for the "No Objection Certificate" work for the lease and the accused no. 1 demanded an amount of Rs. 2000/- for himself and Rs.300/- for the accused no. 3 and told him to meet the accused no. 2 thereafter. The complainant took the tainted currency notes and counted Rs. 2000/- and gave it to the accused no. 1 who accepted the same with his right hand and folded the currency notes with his left hand counted the same and placed it with his right hand in the right pocket of his trousers and told the complainant to give Rs. 300/- to the accused no. 3 The complainant gave Rs. 300/- with his right hand to the accused no. 3 who accepted the same with his right hand and counted the same with both hands and placed it in his left pant pocket The complainant placed the remaining amount in his shirt pocket and they went to meet the accused no. 2 who demanded for the amount of Rs. 3000/-. The complainant gave the tainted currency notes to the accused no. 2 who accepted the same with his right hand and opened the Page 6 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined folded currency notes with his left hand, counted the same with his right hand and kept the currency notes in his right hand and told the complainant that the "No Objection Certificate" was already given and that they would reach along with the application to the Office of the Geologist at Valsad and that he could get the necessary permission from the office of the Valsad. The complainant came out and gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and they went up the stairs to the office of the accused no. 2 and thereafter, to the office of the accused no. 1 where all the three accused were caught. After the necessary procedure, the tainted currency notes were recovered from all the accused and the Panchnama Part-II was drawn and the signatures of all concerned were taken and the complaint was registered at Valsad ACB Police Station C.R. No. 3 of 2003 under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act.
2.3 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge- Page 7 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined sheet came to be filed before the Sessions Court, Navsari and the case was registered as Special (Corruption) Case No. 4/2003.
2.4 The accused were 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. 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh. 4, 5 and 6 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 19 documentary evidences on record in support of their case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statements 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 them. After the Page 8 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 06.05.2005, was pleased to find all the accused guilty and sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 3000/- each and in default, simple imprisonment for three 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 appellants - original accused have preferred the present appeal mainly stating that the judgment and order of conviction is erroneous in law, against the weight of evidence and contrary to the well settled principles of criminal jurisdiction. The learned Trial Court has made a serious error in convicting the accused no. 3 as admittedly the accused no. 3 is not a public servant and the accused no. 3 was an ordinary helper, who for some Page 9 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined reason, was working with the accused no. 1 The accused no. 3 was not even a temporary employee of the government appointed on ad-hoc basis and the prosecution could have come out with a case that the accused no. 3 has abetted the offence or by the other two who were public servants but under a serious misconception of law and fact the learned Trial Court has proceeded to pass the judgment and order of conviction even against the accused no. 3. If the evidence is minutely scanned there is not an iota of evidence that there was any demand by the accused no. 3 from the complainant and it is abundantly clear that the accused no. 3 may not even be aware as to why the complainant was in the office of the accused nos. 1 and 2. Hence, so far as the conviction of the accused no. 3 is concerned, in the face of it, it is abundantly bad and erroneous. It is necessary for the investigating agency to preserve the solution as regards the detection of phenolphthalein powder on the person of the accused or on his clothes or on anything that he has touched and it is settled position of law that failure to preserve such a solution would raise an adverse inference to Page 10 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined the prosecution to determine the impact of that inference on the other evidence. In the present case, the solution that was used for the experiment was not preserved and therefore, was not placed before the learned Trial Court. This lapse, has its own significance in light of the fact that the accused persons have in their further statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure emphatically stated that no such experiment of phenolphthalein powder was carried out by the Police Inspector of the ACB at the relevant point of time when the raid was carried out and when the panchnama was drawn. It is pertinent to note that none of the accused had any power or authority to issue a "No Objection Certificate" and the issuance of the "No Objection Certificate" was within the domain of the Mamlatdar. The "No Objection Certificate"
was already ready and the Mamlatdar had already affixed his signature on the same and the Mamlatdar was an important witness who could have explained regarding the procedure for obtaining the lease but the prosecution, for reasons best known to them, has not thought it fit to Page 11 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined examine the Mamlatdar. If the persons had no authority to issue the "No Objection Certificate", there was no reason for them to demand any amount of illegal gratification from the complainant. As far as the first demand is concerned, the complainant has stated that the first demand was in the month of October 2002 but the complaint was lodged with the ACB on 11.05.2003 and the delay has not been properly explained by the prosecution. Even regarding the amount of demand firstly, the complainant has stated that there was demand of Rs. 4,500/- but thereafter the amount had increased to Rs. 5,300/-. If the evidence of the complainant is perused he has stated that he was given only Rs. 4,500/-
and his brother had gone to the house of his uncle to borrow the Rs. 800/- and if that was the case then the currency notes of Rs. 800/- were not smeared with phenolphthalein powder but have traces of phenolphthalein powder on them. As far as the panch witness is concerned he was instructed to be a shadow witness but he has stated that he did not enter into the office with the complainant and he was outside and hence, it is very difficult to accept Page 12 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined the fact that the panch witness had heard the conversation of the complainant with the accused. As far as the acceptance of the currency notes by the accused no. 2 is concerned the evidence on record shows that the accused had placed the currency notes in the right pocket of his trousers but it is also admitted that the accused no. 2 was brought from the Treasury Office to the office of the Mamlatar on the first floor and at that time the currency notes were in the hands of the accused no. 2. There is no explanation as to how the currency notes were found in the hands of the accused no. 2. There are major contradictions in the evidence of the complainant and the panch witness and the evidence of the complainant is shaky and from his evidence it is clear that the panch no. 1 was not at all present when the currency notes were accepted and hence, the evidence of the panch witness becomes insignificant.
The learned Trial Court could not have convicted the accused in view of the shaky and unreliable evidence of the complainant and the panch witness and the judgment and order of conviction is bad in law and deserves to be quashed Page 13 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined and set aside.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr Yash Gupta for learned advocate Mr. Vishal Anandjiwala for the appellant no. 1, learned advocate Mr. Shivang Shah for the appellant nos. 2 and 3 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. Yash Gupta for learned advocate Mr. Vishal Anandjiwala for the appellant no. 1 and learned advocate Mr. Shivang Shah for the appellant nos. 2 and 3 have submitted that the complainant has stated that he was accompanied by his cousin brother Manoj and at the time of the trap the complainant had only an amount of Rs. 4500/- and he fell short of Rs. 800/- and he asked his brother to go to his relative's house and get the difference amount whereupon Manoj went to get the Rs. 800/- and it took him about 30 to 35 minutes to reach the relative's house and the same time to return back. The Trap Laying Officer has Page 14 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined deposed that the entire amount of Rs. 5300/- was handed over to the complainant but he significantly does not state that Manoj had gone to bring the Rs. 800/-. Hence, there are major contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and admittedly Manoj has not been examined as a witness before the learned Trial Court. The sanction for prosecution has also been given without application of mind and the complainant has not described the demonstration proceedings conducted in his presence regarding the characteristics of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution nor has he explained the manner in which the police proposed to use the same for carrying out the trap. He has stated that he is not aware about the powder and is unaware about its characteristics and in fact, he has stated that he was sitting outside the office along with his cousin brother Manoj at the time when the demonstration of the phenolphthalein powder and solution of sodium carbonate was being carried out. The story of the prosecution is a gotup story and the panch witnesses and Investigating Officer have deposed in accordance with the Page 15 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined panchnama, whereas, the complainant who is the key person has come out with an altogether different story. Hence, in light of the fact that there are major contradictions in the evidence the prosecution has failed to lead the evidence beyond reasonable doubts. It is on record that the initial demand was made by the accused no. 1 about one year ago and no initial demand was made by the accused nos. 2 or 3. In the present case the initial demand, demand before acceptance and acceptance and recovery are not established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. The complainant has not deposed freely and independently and his testimony is recorded under a sense of fear. The panch witness has mainly deposed as per the narrative of the panchnama and as the panch witness was not supporting the case of the prosecution, the learned APP had sought permission to declare him a hostile witness but the prayer was rejected by the learned Trial Court and the panch witness was given the copy of the panchnama to read. The panch witness also admits that Manoj was along with them at the time of the trap, whereas, the panch no. 2 Page 16 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined has denied the presence of Manoj at the time of the trap. Learned advocates further submit that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and when even though the vital ingredients of demand and acceptance have not been proved beyond reasonable doubts, the impugned judgment and order of conviction has been passed which is perverse and bad in law and against the settled principles of law and hence, the same is required to be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the respondent State has submitted that the learned Trial Court has discussed the entire evidence in proper perspective after discussing each and every aspect and has considered that the prosecution has produced evidence and proved the aspect of initial demand, demand at the time of the trap, the acceptance and thereafter, the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused and has passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and no interference is required at the same and hence, the Page 17 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined appeal of the appellants must 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 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 Page 18 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 19 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined 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 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:
Page 20 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined "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 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 Page 21 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 22 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 23 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 24 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 25 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 26 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 27 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 28 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 29 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined 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 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 - Sureshbhai Ishwarbhai Oad at Exh. 18 and the witness is the complainant whose written complaint is produced at Exh.19. In his examination-in-chief, he has broadly narrated the prosecution version, stating that he, along with his brother Manojbhai had approached the office and met the concerned officer. He deposed that 45 currency notes of Page 30 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined Rs.100/- denomination were handed over to him by the officer at the ACB Office after application of anthracene powder and the said notes were placed in the pocket of his trousers. He stated that no specific instructions were given to him. Thereafter, he and panch witness Ratilal Rathod proceeded to the Mamlatdar Office, where they were asked to wait. According to him, accused no.1 inquired whether he had brought the money; upon his replying in the affirmative, he paid Rs.2,000/- to accused no.1, who allegedly accepted the amount with his right hand and placed it in the rear pocket of his trousers. He further deposed that he paid Rs.300/- to accused no.3, who placed it in his shirt pocket. Being short of Rs.800/-, his brother Manoj allegedly procured the balance amount from his uncle's house and thereafter Rs.3,000/- was paid to accused no.2, who placed it in his trouser pocket. He stated that upon the trap being executed, the currency notes, when subjected to water test, turned pink and in all, 53 currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination were involved. The witness, however, did not support the prosecution in Page 31 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined material particulars and was declared hostile. In cross- examination by the learned APP, he admitted certain aspects of the incident. However, in cross-examination by the defence, substantial deviations emerged. He stated that during the pre-trap demonstration at the ACB Office, he and his brother Manoj were seated outside and he had no knowledge of what transpired within the office, nor whether any written work was undertaken. He further deposed that upon reaching Gandevi, they halted near the talkies and thereafter, proceeded on foot. He stated that accused no.2 did not demand any money, nor did accused no.3 make any such demand. According to this version, accused no.2 merely informed him that his work was complete and directed him to meet accused no.1. He asserted that the payment to accused no.1 was made outside the office near a water pot placed in the lobby, at a distance of approximately ten feet from where the Trap Laying Officer was standing and that the exchange of currency was visible to the ACB Officers. He further stated that accused no.3 remained inside the office and that accused no.1 instructed Page 32 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined him to complete the work of accused no.3 and pay Rs.300/-. He admitted that his brother Manoj had gone to fetch Rs.800/- from his uncle's residence, situated at a considerable distance and that during Manoj's absence, he remained seated near accused no.2. Upon Manoj's return, the money was handed over to accused no.2 who was allegedly counting the notes when the members of the raiding party intervened. He also stated that accused no.2 was taken from the treasury room upstairs and that several persons were present at the time of the alleged acceptance and recovery. Significantly, the witness stated that he had to respond affirmatively to certain leading questions put by the learned APP. He further admitted that the alleged demand of gratification was made about one year prior to the filing of the complaint. He expressed ignorance as to whether accused no.3 was a public servant.
The testimony of PW1 is thus marked by material inconsistencies, contradictions and departures from the prosecution narrative. The vacillation in his account, coupled with his hostile stance and admissions elicited in Page 33 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined cross-examination, substantially erodes the reliability of his evidence on the crucial aspects of demand and voluntary acceptance.
11.1 PW2 - Ratilal Govindbhai Rathod examined at Exh. 25 is the panch witness. He has identified and proved the panchnama at Exh. 32 and has deposed regarding the pre- trap procedure undertaken at the DCB Police Station, Valsad, when he and the other panch witness, Kulinchandra Daulatray Vashi, were present. He narrated the steps allegedly carried out from the pre-trap demonstration until the execution of the trap. In his examination-in-chief, the witness stated that he accompanied the complainant to the Mamlatdar Office, where they first met accused no.2. According to him, the complainant thereafter met accused no.1 and informed him that he had brought the money. Accused no.1 allegedly demanded Rs.2,000/- for himself and Rs.300/- for the clerk. The complainant purportedly handed over Rs.2,000/- (in Rs.100/- denomination), which accused no.1 accepted with his right hand, counted, and placed in the right pocket Page 34 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined of his trousers. Thereafter, Rs.300/- was allegedly paid to accused no.3, who placed the same in his pocket. It is further deposed that upon being informed, accused no.2 demanded his share, whereupon the complainant paid four currency notes of Rs.500/- each and ten currency notes of Rs.100/- each to accused no.2, who accepted and placed them in his pocket. The members of the raiding party then intervened upon receipt of the predetermined signal and the garments of accused nos.1 and 3 were seized. However, the learned APP sought permission to declare the witness hostile on the ground that he was not fully supporting the prosecution case and that his testimony was adverse to the prosecution. The learned Trial Court declined the request. In cross-examination by the defence, substantial infirmities surfaced. The witness stated that writing work was carried out in the Mamlatdar's room in the absence of the complainant and his brother. He admitted that notes were prepared by Constable - Babubhai and that the panchnama was subsequently prepared on the basis of those notes. He further admitted that although the trousers of all three Page 35 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined accused were brought from their respective homes, he did not know who had gone to fetch them and the trap proceedings were not stayed pending such recovery. The instructions for bringing the trousers were allegedly issued by the Trap Laying Officer yet this aspect finds no mention in the panchnama. The witness also stated that approximately two litres of solution were prepared in the Mamlatdar Office and that the process took about thirty minutes. He admitted that slips were not affixed on the bottles in his presence and that the muddamal articles shown to him bore no identifying slips when exhibited. He further deposed that he had attended as a panch witness on the direction of his superior officer. Significantly, he stated that accused no.2 was brought from the treasury office and at that time, the amount was in his hand; however, he did not know how the money had come into the pocket of accused no.2. He admitted that he had not witnessed the actual exchange of money in the treasury office. He further stated that the complainant and his brother were present at the relevant time. The witness also Page 36 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined admitted that being a government servant, he signed documents prepared in the office. He stated that the offices of accused nos.1 and 2 were situated opposite each other, with a public lobby in between where several visitors were present. Most importantly, he categorically deposed that no conversation regarding demand of money took place in his presence.
The testimony of PW2, when read in entirety, reveals serious discrepancies regarding the alleged demand and acceptance, procedural irregularities in seizure and preparation of muddamal and an express admission that no demand was made in his presence. These aspects materially impair the evidentiary value of his deposition on the core ingredients of the offence.
11.2 PW3 - Kulinchandra Dolatray Vashi examined at Exh. 33 is the second panch witness. He has deposed to the events that transpired in his presence from the time he and the other panch witness proceeded to the ACB Police Station, Valsad, until culmination of the trap proceedings. According to him, he was instructed to remain with the Page 37 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined raiding party. Upon receipt of the predetermined signal, he accompanied the members of the raiding party upstairs to the place where accused no.2 was seated. He stated that the currency notes were found in the fist of accused no.2 and were recovered in the presence of all concerned. He further deposed that the trousers of accused nos.1 and 3 were seized. In cross-examination, significant procedural irregularities and inconsistencies emerged. The witness admitted that alternate trousers for accused nos.1 and 3 were arranged through their relatives, who were contacted telephonically. However, he was unable to state from where the call was made. He further stated that the trousers were received after approximately one and a half hours and that during this interval, the panchnama proceedings were not stayed. He admitted that the Trap Laying Officer had informed accused nos.1 and 3 that their trousers would be seized and had directed them to arrange for substitutes. The witness candidly admitted that he had no prior experience in drafting a panchnama and that approximately two hours were consumed in writing the panchnama. He Page 38 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined further acknowledged that in his earlier statement he had stated that the trousers of accused no.2 were seized, which, according to him, was not correct. He also admitted that the bottles containing sodium carbonate solution bore slips which did not carry the signatures of any panch witnesses and though the C.R. Number was written on the slips, he was unaware as to who had written it. He stated that he had attended as a panch witness pursuant to the directions of his superior officer and for such directions, he would not have participated. He further deposed that when he entered the office, the currency notes were in the right hand of accused no.2, clenched in his fist; however, he could not state whether the notes were crumpled. He admitted that the filter papers used for the chemical test were destroyed under instructions of the Trap Laying Officer and that he did not object to such destruction. The witness also stated that several employees were present in the room, but he could not specify whether the table of accused no.2 was situated therein. He did not witness whether the complainant had descended from the office of accused no.1 Page 39 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined or whether Manoj had handed over Rs.750/- or Rs.800/- to the complainant. He admitted that many persons were present and that he and others rushed upon receiving the signal, though he could not state who else followed. Notably, he stated that the entire panchnama was prepared in the computer room, yet the word "computer" finds no mention in the panchnama itself.
The evidence of this witness, while seeking to support the recovery aspect, discloses material inconsistencies, procedural lapses in the handling of muddamal, destruction of filter papers, absence of panch signatures on slips, and contradictions regarding seizure of trousers. These aspects materially affect the reliability and evidentiary value of the prosecution case. 11.3 PW4 - Mahavirsinh Pravinsinh Raol examined at Exh. 39 is the Trap Laying Officer. He has deposed in detail regarding the procedural steps undertaken upon receipt of the complaint and the execution of the trap. According to him, after the complainant lodged the complaint, pre-trap formalities were completed and upon receipt of the Page 40 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined predetermined signal, he rushed to the office of accused no.2. He instructed accused no.2 to remain in the same position and directed one R.D. Wala to remain with him. Thereafter, he, along with the panch witnesses and other members of the raiding party, proceeded to the office of accused no.1 and brought accused nos.1 and 3 to the office of accused no.2, where the necessary tests were conducted. He stated that the currency notes were found in the right hand of accused no.2 and that the trousers of accused nos.1 and 3 were seized. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he had dictated the panchnama. He further stated that he did not know from where the trousers of accused nos.1 and 2 were procured. He deposed that the trousers of accused no.1 were provided by a friend, while those of accused no.3 were brought by his father. He admitted that no identifying slips were affixed on the seized trousers to distinguish whether they belonged to accused no.1 or accused no.3. He further conceded that if muddamal articles are to be forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, they are required to be duly sealed. He stated Page 41 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined that the muddamal was kept with the Crime Head Constable. He also admitted that Manoj, the brother of the complainant, was not present with the raiding party at the time of the trap.
The testimony of PW4, while outlining the procedural narrative of the trap, reveals material omissions concerning identification, sealing, and preservation of muddamal articles which bear directly upon the integrity of the recovery process.
11.4 PW5 - Ranjitsinh Desaibhaiwala examined at Exh. 41 is the Investigating Officer who carried out the subsequent investigation and filed the charge-sheet. He has deposed to the procedural steps undertaken by him during the course of investigation. In cross-examination, the witness stated that accused no.2, in his statement, had indicated that traces of anthracene powder were found on the left pocket of his trousers and that, consequently, alternate trousers were arranged and the original trousers were seized by the officer. He further referred to the supplementary statement of the complainant, wherein it was stated that the "No Objection Page 42 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined Certificate" was prepared on the relevant date after spot inspection, resolution of the Gram Panchayat and requisite scrutiny. He admitted that the ultimate authority to grant lease vested with the Collector and that prior thereto, opinion of the Circle Inspector and other Competent Authorities was required. He categorically conceded that none of the accused possessed the authority to grant the lease. He further admitted that the authority to issue a "No Objection Certificate" for lease purposes vested with the Mamlatdar, Gandevi.
The evidence of PW5 thus reveals that the accused officials were not the final decision making authority in respect of grant of lease and that multiple statutory stages and approvals were required before such grant, thereby bearing materially upon the question of motive and the alleged demand.
12. Upon a comprehensive and independent re- appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court is constrained to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused Page 43 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court does not withstand scrutiny either on facts or in law. At the outset, it is trite that in prosecutions under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, proof of demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non. The gravamen of the offence is the demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification; recovery of tainted currency is merely corroborative. Unless the foundational facts of demand and acceptance are established by cogent and reliable evidence, the statutory presumption under Section 20 does not arise. In the present case, the complainant, who is the linchpin of the prosecution, did not wholly support the prosecution version and was declared hostile. His testimony is replete with material inconsistencies touching upon the very genesis of the trap. He has given divergent versions regarding the sequence of events, the place where the alleged payments were made, the presence of his brother Manoj, and the specific roles attributed to each of the accused. In material particulars, he admitted that he had to respond Page 44 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined affirmatively to questions put by the prosecution. Such vacillation on core aspects of demand and acceptance materially impairs the evidentiary value of his deposition. The panch witnesses, whose presence is intended to lend assurance to the trap proceedings, do not provide the requisite corroboration. One panch categorically stated that no conversation regarding demand took place in his presence. The other admitted that he did not witness the actual exchange of currency at the treasury office. Their testimonies disclose several procedural irregularities:
absence of identifying slips on seized trousers, uncertainty regarding sealing of muddamal, destruction of filter papers used in the chemical test and preparation of the panchnama at the dictation of the Trap Laying Officer.
These are not minor discrepancies but go to the root of the integrity of the trap proceedings. The Trap Laying Officer himself admitted that he dictated the panchnama and was unaware of the precise source from which alternate trousers of the accused were procured. There is no satisfactory evidence demonstrating that the seized articles were Page 45 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined properly sealed before being forwarded for forensic examination. Where the prosecution relies substantially on recovery and chemical analysis, strict adherence to procedural safeguards is indispensable. Any break in the chain of custody or doubt regarding identification of muddamal ensures to the benefit of the accused. Equally significant is the evidence of the Investigating Officer, who candidly admitted that the final authority to grant lease vested with the Collector and that issuance of a "No Objection Certificate" was within the domain of the Mamlatdar, Gandevi. He further conceded that none of the accused had authority to grant the lease. This admission strikes at the alleged motive for demand. When the accused are not shown to possess determinative authority in respect of the alleged benefit, the theory of illegal gratification becomes inherently doubtful, unless supported by unimpeachable evidence of demand which is conspicuously absent. Moreover, mere recovery, in absence of proof of prior demand and voluntary acceptance pursuant thereto, cannot sustain conviction. The presumption under Section 20 of Page 46 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined the PC Act is not automatic; it arises only when the prosecution first proves the foundational facts of demand and acceptance. In the present case, those foundational facts remain unproved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court appears to have proceeded on the premise that recovery coupled with positive anthracene test is sufficient to establish guilt. Such approach is contrary to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence governing corruption cases. The appreciation of evidence must be holistic and contradictions and infirmities affecting the substratum of the prosecution case cannot be brushed aside as trivial. Criminal conviction entails serious civil consequences and cannot rest on conjecture, surmise, or incomplete proof. Where two views are reasonably possible, the one favouring the accused must prevail. The cumulative effect of the inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, absence of credible corroboration of demand, procedural lapses in the trap, and admissions regarding lack of authority of the accused creates a reasonable and substantial doubt. In the considered opinion of this Court, Page 47 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1239/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of establishing the essential ingredients of the offence under the PC Act. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are thus unsustainable, being predicated predominantly on recovery without satisfactory proof of demand and voluntary acceptance. The appellants are, therefore, entitled to an acquittal.
13. The impugned judgment and order of conviction in Special (Corruption) Case No. 4/2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Navsari on 06.05.2005 is perverse, bad in law and against the settled principle of law and is hereby quashed and set aside and all the accused are acquitted from all the charges against them.
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 48 of 48 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Feb 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:36:08 IST 2026