Gujarat High Court
Dineshbhai Ramanlal Dabhi vs State Of Gujarat on 18 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 94 of 2005
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 282 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO: Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes
==========================================================
DINESHBHAI RAMANLAL DABHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS NIYATI B KATIRA(5095) 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 : 18/03/2026
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants - original accused under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No. 5, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case No. 19/2000 on 10.01.2005, whereby, the learned Trial Court was pleased to convict the appellants and sentence the appellants to rigorous Page 1 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs. 1500/- each and in default, simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sections 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act"), rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs. 1500/- each and in default, simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sections 12 of the PC Act and rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs. 1500/- each and in default, simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) of the PC Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
1.1 Criminal Appeal No. 94/2005 has been filed by the original accused no. 1 and Criminal Appeal No. 282/2005 has been filed by the original accused no. 2 against the same impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Trial Court in Special Case No. 19/2000 on 10.01.2005 and hence, both the appeals have been disposed of by this common judgement.
1.2 The appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 94/2005 and Page 2 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 282/2005 are referred 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 PSI and the accused no. 2 was a Police Constable and both were posted at the Rakhiyal Police Station in September 1999 and were public servants. On 08.09.1999 an offence at Rakhiyal Police Station I - C.R. No. 93 of 1999 was registered and the complainant of this case Umashankar Brahmjitsinh Bhadoriya was named as an accused in the FIR. Both the accused came to the cycle stand of the complainant situated in ESI General Hospital, Bapunagar and demanded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as a legal gratification to remove the name of the complainant from the FIR and to not beat him and to produce him directly before the concerned Magesterial Court and after bargaining the amount was settled at Rs. 15,000/-. On the same day an amount of Rs.Page 3 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined 1000/- was accepted by the accused no. 2 for the benefit of the accused no. 1 and thereafter, an amount of Rs. 250/- was accepted on 13.01.2000 by the accused no. 2. Once again on 16.01.2000 an amount of Rs. 1000/- was accepted as illegal gratification and in all an amount of Rs. 2,250/- was accepted by both the accused. On 18.01.2000, at around 05.30 pm, the accused no. 2 came to the cycle stand of the complainant and told him that he would come on the next day between 04.00 pm and 05.00 pm at the cycle stand and to keep an amount of Rs. 4000/- ready. The complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal gratification and on 19.01.2000 went to the ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad and the complaint of the complainant was registered.
2.2 The Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and the complainant gave 8 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/- each. Assistant Sub-Inspector - Manikant Shukal under the instructions of the Trap Laying Officer conducted the demonstration of ultraviolet lamp and anthracene powder and explained the characteristics of the Page 4 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined same to the complainant and the panch witnesses. All the currency notes were smeared with anthracene powder and placed in the left shirt pocket of the complainant and necessary instructions to all were given and the Panchnama Part-I was drawn. As decided, the complainant, panch witnesses and members of the raiding party left in government Tata Sumo registration no. GJ-1-G-2942 and went to the ESI General Hospital, Bapunagar and halted the vehicle in a lane near the Bapunagar Municipal School. The complainant and the panch no. 1 alighted and walked to the General Hospital, Bapunagar and at around 17.30 hours, the accused no. 2 came walking to the cycle stand and sat on a bench and took the Daily Sandesh in his hand and started reading the newspaper. The accused no. 2 sat on the same bench where the panch no. 1 was seated and after some time, he went to the complainant and asked the complainant whether it was done. The complainant told him that the money was arranged for and tried to bargain for the Rs. 4000/- and the accused no. 2 refused to reduce the amount and accepted the amount of Rs. 4000/- which was Page 5 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined given by the complainant with his right hand from his left shirt pocket. The accused no. 2 accepted the amount with his left hand and placed it in the front pocket of his jeans and at that time, the complainant told the accused no. 2 to give the amount to the accused no. 1. The complainant gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and the accused no. 2 was caught red-handed. The offence was registered at Ahmedabad City ACB Police Station C.R. No. 2 of 2000 under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) (1) (2)(3) 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- sheet came to be filed before the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad and the case was registered as Special Case No. 19/2000.
2.4 The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and after the procedure under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was followed, a charge was framed by the Page 6 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined learned Trial Court at Exh. 1 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 2 and 3 respectively. The accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.5 The prosecution examined 4 witnesses and produced 4 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 were 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 arguments of the learned APP and learned advocates for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2005, was pleased to find the accused nos. 1 and 2 guilty and sentence them to rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs. 1500/- each and in default, simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sections 7 of the PC Act, rigorous imprisonment of three years and Page 7 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined fine of Rs. 1500/- each and in default, simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sections 12 of the PC Act and rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs. 1500/- each and in default, simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) of the PC Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction, the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2005 who is the original accused no. 1 has filed the appeal mainly stating that the judgment and order of conviction is illegal contrary to the principles of criminal jurisprudence and is liable to be quashed and set aside. The learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated that the charge has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts and has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has not established their case of demand, acceptance and recovery from the appellant. The prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses and no recovery of the alleged money is made from the appellant. The appellant has been Page 8 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined convicted only on the basis of the statement made by the accused no. 2 and only on the basis of the deposition of the complainant that the appellant had taken Rs. 1000/-, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the complainant has categorically stated that the accused no. 2 had demanded the alleged bribe amount for not implicating the complainant and there is no iota of evidence that the appellant had ever demanded any amount of illegal gratification and accepted any amount at any time from the complainant and that no amount of illegal gratification was recovered from the appellant. The impugned judgement and order is perverse and illegal and has been passed without considering that no ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery are proved and hence, the appeal may be allowed and the appellant be acquitted from the offence. 3.1 The original accused no. 2 has filed Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2005 and has challenged the impugned judgment and order being aggrieved by the same mainly stating that the judgment and order of conviction is neither warranted Page 9 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined by law nor by evidence adduced by the prosecution. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts and has not appreciated that the appellant was not the Writer of the original accused no. 1. That in fact, the appellant was the Writer of Police Inspector
- D. A. Damor who was posted in the Rakhiyal Police Station at the relevant time and the Writer of the original accused no. 1 was one Dashvishsinh Solanki and the appellant was never serving under the original accused no. 1. The appellant has never met the complainant on 08.09.1999 and has never demanded any amount from the complainant. That in fact, the complainant was an absconding accused in connection with I - C.R. No. 93 of 1999 registered at Rakhiyal Police Station and has totally filed a false case and trapped the appellant and co-accused just to get rid of the case registered against him. The defense raised by the appellant was more probable than the case of the prosecution as the complainant had a grudge against the original accused no. 1 as he was absconding Page 10 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined and with a view to get out of the same, he has filed the false case against the appellant. The impugned judgment and order of conviction is illegal, unjust, improper and bad in law and the same is required to be quashed and set aside and the appellant must be acquitted for the offence.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.P. Majmudar assisted by learned advocate Ms. Niyati Katira and learned advocate Mr. Suraj Matieda for the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 94/2005 and learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharma for learned advocate Mr. Nitin Amin for the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 282/2005 and learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the respondent State in both the appeals.
5. Learned advocate Mr. P.P. Majmudar assisted by learned advocate Ms. Niyati Katira and learned advocate Mr. Suraj Matieda for the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 94/2005 and learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharma for the appellant of Criminal Appeal no. 282/2005 have both taken this court through the entire evidence of the prosecution and have submitted that the learned Trial Court has not Page 11 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined appreciated that no demand of any amount of illegal gratification was made by the appellant and in fact, the complainant was an absconding accused in a case registered at Rakhiyal Police Station. There was no connection between both the appellants and they could not have worked on the same case and even though the probable defense was taken up, the same has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. In their further statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, both the appellants have explained the reason for them being falsely implicated but the same has not been considered by the learned Trial Court and merely relying on the evidence of the complainant, who was an absconding accused in the case registered at Rakhiyal Police Station I C.R No. 93/1999, has passed the impugned judgment in order of conviction. As per the case of the complainant, there were a number of independent witnesses but no such independent witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial Court. As far as the demand is concerned, there is no independent evidence regarding the Page 12 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined prior demand and the panch witness at the time of the trap did not hear the demand as per the case of the prosecution. The appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2005 and the complainant had walked away and there is no iota of evidence of any demand, acceptance or recovery from the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2005. It is on record that the panchnama was dictated by the Trap Laying Officer to his Writer and the panch witnesses did not dictate the panchnama. Moreover, there are major contradictions in the depositions of the complainant and panch witness and the impugned judgment in order of conviction is illegal, perverse, bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeals of the appellants must be allowed.
6. Learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the respondent State has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned judgement and order and no interference is required hence, both the appeals may be rejected.
7. Before appreciating the evidence of the prosecution on Page 13 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined 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 23 to 26 as under:
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 Page 14 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined necessary social perspective in criminal cases which suffers from insufficient forensic appreciation. The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence and to the soothing sentiment that all acquittals are always good regardless of justice to the victim and the community, demand especial emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime and escape. The judicial instrument has a public accountability. The cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. The excessive solicitude reflected in the attitude that a thousand guilty men may go but one innocent martyr shall not suffer is a false dilemma. Only reasonable doubts belong to the accused. Otherwise any practical system of justice will then break down and lose credibility with the community. The evil of acquitting a guilty person light heartedly as a learned Author [ Glanville Williams in 'Proof of Guilt'.] has sapiently observed, goes much beyond the simple fact that just one guilty person has gone unpunished. If unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to a public demand for harsher legal presumptions against indicted "persons" and more severe punishment of those who are found guilty. Thus, too frequent 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 Page 15 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and realistic. A balance has to be struck between chasing chance possibilities as good enough to set the delinquent free and chopping the logic of preponderant probability to punish marginal innocents. We have adopted these cautions in analysing the evidence and appraising the soundness of the contrary conclusions reached by the courts below. Certainly, in the last analysis reasonable doubts must operate to the advantage of the appellant. In India the law has been laid down on these lines long ago."
24. Further, what would be the standard degree of "proof" which would be required in any particular case was also discussed in the aforesaid case of Ramakant Rai (supra) in the following words:
"23. A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to "proof" is an exercise particular to each case. Referring to (sic) of probability amounts to "proof" is an exercise, the interdependence of evidence and the confirmation of one piece of evidence by another, as learned author says : [see The Mathematics of Proof II : Glanville 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 Page 16 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined dependent. In a criminal case, different pieces of evidence directed to establishing that the defendant did the prohibited act with the specified state of mind are generally dependent. A juror may feel doubt whether to credit an alleged confession, and doubt whether to infer guilt from the fact that the defendant fled from justice. But since it is generally guilty rather than innocent people who make confessions, and guilty rather than innocent people who run away, the two doubts are not to be multiplied together. The one piece of evidence may confirm the other."
24. .................... ....................
25. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimisation of trivialities would make a mockery of the administration of criminal justice. This position was illuminatingly stated by Venkatachaliah, J. (as 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:
Page 17 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined "That degree is well settled. It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the court of justice...."
26. Thus, the requirement of law in criminal trials is not to prove the case beyond all doubt but beyond reasonable doubt and such doubt cannot be imaginary, fanciful, trivial or merely a possible doubt but a fair doubt based on reason and common sense. Hence, in the present case, if the allegations against the appellants are held proved beyond reasonable doubt, certainly conviction cannot be said to be illegal.
9. With regard to the cases under the PC Act, the Apex Court, in the case of Aman Bhatia Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) reported in 2025 INSC 618 has observed in Para No. 51 to 54 and paras 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 Page 18 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined the public servant have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. Mere acceptance of illegal gratification without proof of offer by bribe-giver and demand by the public servant would not make an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
"88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and
(ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-
giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification 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 Page 19 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act."
53. It was further explained by this Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthyv. State of A.P., reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152, as follows:"
23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and13(1)(d)(i) and
(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof,unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder."
54. From the above exposition of law, it may be safely concluded that mere possession and recovery of tainted currency notes from a public servant, in the absence of proof of demand, is not sufficient to establish an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act respectively. Consequently, without evidence of demand for illegal gratification, it cannot be said that the public servant used corrupt or illegal means, or abused his position, to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage in terms of Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
55.xxxxx
56.xxxxx
57.xxxxx Page 20 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined
58.xxxxx
59.xxxxx
60.xxxxx
61.xxxxx
62.xxxxx v. Presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act
63. Insofar as the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act is concerned, such presumption is drawn only qua the offence under Sections 7 and 11 respectively and not qua the offence under Section13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The presumption is contingent upon the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification to the effect that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated under Section 7 of the PC Act. Such proof of acceptance can follow only when the demand is proved.
64. In that case, the prosecution evidence alone cannot be considered for the purpose of coming to the conclusion. The evidence led by the prosecution and, the suggestions made by the defence witnesses, if any, are also required to be considered. It is then to be seen as to whether the total effect of the entire evidence led before the court is of a nature by which the only conclusion possible was that the public servant accepted the amount. If the answer is in affirmative, then alone it can be held that the prosecution established the case beyond reasonable doubt.
65. Undoubtedly, the presumption under Section 20 arises once it is established that the public servant accepted the gratification. However, in determining whether such acceptance occurred, the totality of the evidence led at the trial must be appreciated. The evidence led by the prosecution, the suggestions made by the defence witnesses, if any, the entire Page 21 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined 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 was not considered and the trial was perversely disposed of permitting manifest errors and glaring infirmities, the appellate Court can interfere and exercise the powers in a conviction appeal and a finding on merits, after considering and meticulously dissecting the evidence on record, is imperative. As far as a 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 Page 22 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined 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 PW1 - Umashankar Panikar examined at Exh. 23 is the complainant who has narrated the facts as stated in the complaint which is produced at Exh. 24. The complainant has narrated the events that had taken place on the day of the trap and in the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he was running a cycle stand at the ESI General Hospital, Bapunagar and a tender for the cycle stand is issued every year. From the year 1981 for a period of 2-3 years, the contract of the cycle stand was with Udayvir Singh and from the year 1983 to 1999, the contract was with some other person. He was working in the New Textile Mill, Dyeing Department and he was being paid whenever he was present at the mill. One Sajansingh Bhardoriya was Page 23 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined the Security Guard at the ESI General Hospital, Bapunagar and the security point is near the gate of the cycle stand. Kanubhai Koshti, Pratap Punjabhai Parmar and Deepak Manilal Chaudhary were working at the cycle stand on the day of the incident and on 08.09.1999, he was at the hospital campus at around 11.45 and at that time as Shivam was injured with a knife, there was a stampede at the hospital and Shivam was immediately taken to Shardaben Hospital. He had gone away from the Bapunagar Hospital Campus at that time and he does not know what procedure was undertaken by the Rakhiyal Police Station Mobile Van. The offence that was registered wherein Shivam was injured was being investigated by the accused no. 1 and on 08.09.1999, he did not have any conversation with the accused no. 1. He did not have any contact with the accused from 08.09.1999 to 08.01.2000. The accused no. 2 was the Writer of Police Inspector Damor and the accused no. 2 would frequent his cycle stand to have tea. He knew that in the investigation, it had emerged that with regard to the incident on 08.09.1999, he was the Page 24 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined person who had assaulted Shivam with a knife and he wanted that his name should be removed from the FIR as the person who had assaulted Shivam. On 08.09.1999, the accused no. 1 had come to the cycle stand and had recorded the statements of all the persons working at the cycle stand and the security person and the statements were recorded at the cycle stand at around 04.30 pm. He had taken the copy of the complaint about the incident of assault by knife from the Gheekanta Court after two days and he knew that he was an accused in that case. His elder brother Udayvir Singh had a lot of influence with the police and he was not arrested by the Rakhiyal Police. He was produced in the court and released on bail on 28.03.2000 and the charge sheet was filed against him before the Magisterial Court. In his complaint with regard to the incident and conversation on 18.01.2000 with the accused no. 2, there was no reference about the accused no. 1 and he had earlier gone twice to the ACB Office. They had reached the cycle stand at General Hospital, Bapunagar at about 04.30 pm and the accused no. 2 came after about Page 25 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined half an hour. He had gone with the accused no. 2 a little away and at that time the panch no. 1 was sitting on the bench.
11.1 PW2 - Madhubhai Patel examined at Exh. 29 is the panch witness who has narrated the entire procedure undertaken by the Trap Laying Officer on 19.01.2000 when he and the other panch witness Girishkumar Hirabhai Vaghela had gone to the ACB Office until the trap was successful. The witness has stated that he was the shadow witness and at the time of the trap, the accused no. 2 came and sat on the bench and thereafter, the complainant and the accused no. 2 walked for a distance of about 10 feet away and had a conversation and he saw the complainant take out the currency notes from his left shirt pocket and give it to the accused no. 2 who took it and placed it in the left pocket of his trousers. The complainant gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused. The witness has stated that the test of ultraviolet lamp was done at the same place and the panchnama was drawn and the trousers of the accused Page 26 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined no. 2 including the currency notes were seized. The panchnama is produced at Exh. 30. In the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that he does not know who had come from the ACB Office to call them and he did not wish to go to the ACB Office but had gone as per the instructions of his superior officer. He is aware that if he does not depose as per the panchnama, steps can be taken against him and he would face difficulty in his service. The panchnama was dictated by the Trap Laying Officer and the Writer was writing the panchnama and he or the other panch witness did not dictate the panchnama. At the time of the trap, the complainant and the accused no. 2 had gone at a distance of about 10 feet away and from a distance he felt that they were arguing. The accused no. 2 was caught at the table which is placed near the shed but he does not know who had caught the accused no. 2. He was given a copy of the panchnama to read before his deposition in the learned Trial Court and the Panchnama Part-II was written at the cycle stand. The Panchnama Part-II was also dictated by Page 27 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined the Trap Laying Officer and written by the Writer and thereafter they were asked to affix their signatures. They were called to the ACB Office after two days where their statements were recorded and they were asked to affix their signature.
11.2 PW3 - Laxmanbhai Solanki examined at Exh. 33 is the Trap Laying Officer who has narrated the entire procedure undertaken by on 19.01.2000 until the trap was successful. In the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that he was not aware whether the complainant was an accused in the assault by knife incident that had taken place on 08.09.1999 as the complainant did not bring a copy of the FIR with him when he came to file the complaint. The complainant was not arrested till 19.01.2000 and he did not inquire as to why the complainant was not arrested in the offence. He did not have any information that the complainant was a wanted accused in a case at Rakhiyal Police Station and he himself had gone to call the panch witnesses and at that time the complainant was seated in his office. At the time of the Page 28 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined trap, the panch no. 1 was seated on the bench and the complainant and the accused no. 2 went walking for a distance of about 6 to 7 feet. The accused no. 2 was not arrested at that same place and he had walked a little away from the place where he was with the complainant towards the gate.
11.3 PW4 - Hirabhai Nayak examined at Exh. 36 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. The witness has produced the order of sanction for prosecution at Exh. 37. In the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the complainant was an accused in Rakhiyal Police Station, I - C.R. No. 93 of 1999 and the trap was in relation to that offence. He had seized a copy of the FIR of Rakhiyal Police Station I - C.R. No. 93 of 1999 and the same is produced at Exh. 38. He had also seized a copy of the case diary of the offence. He had recorded the statement of the complainant on 23.01.2000 but does not know whether the complainant was arrested in Rakhiyal Police Station I - C.R. No. 93 of Page 29 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined 1999. When he recorded the statement of the complainant, he knew that the complainant was an absconding accused at Rakhiyal Police Station, I - C.R. No. 93 of 1999 but he did not arrest him. The accused no. 2 was not the Writer of the accused no. 1 but was the Writer of Police Inspector - V.D. Damor.
12. Upon a meticulous reappreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational requirement of demand of illegal gratification which is sine qua non for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the complaint, the initial demand is alleged to have been made on 08.09.1999 at the cycle stand in the compound of ESI General Hospital, Bapunagar shortly after the alleged incident, when both accused had arrived in a mobile van. It is further alleged that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was demanded and settled at Rs. 15,000/- and that on the very same day an amount of Rs. 1000/- was paid at Hardasnagar Crossroads at the milk shop of one Umesh Tomar. However, the complainant has admitted in his Page 30 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined evidence that he had no conversation with accused no.1 on the said date and the alleged presence of independent witnesses namely the workers at the cycle stand, has not been substantiated by their examination before the learned Trial Court. The alleged payment at the milk shop also remains uncorroborated as neither the said Umesh Tomar nor any other independent witness from the shop has been examined. The complainant has further admitted that he did not meet the accused between 08.09.1999 and 08.01.2000, thereby rendering the alleged continuity of demand doubtful. In these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the initial demand. Insofar as the alleged subsequent demands and the trap proceedings are concerned, the evidence is equally deficient. The prosecution case that on 16.01.2000 accused no.2 reiterated the demand at the cycle stand and accepted the tainted amount, is not supported by reliable evidence. The panch witness has categorically stated that the conversation between the complainant and accused no.2 took place at a distance and was not audible to him, thereby rendering the Page 31 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined alleged demand at the time of trap unproved. There are material contradictions between the evidence of the complainant and the panch witness with regard to the manner in which the panchnama was prepared. While the prosecution asserts that the panchnama was drawn contemporaneously, the panch witness has deposed that both parts of the panchnama were dictated by the Trap Laying Officer and merely signed by the panchas, casting serious doubt on its evidentiary value. Further, the ultraviolet lamp test is stated to have been conducted at an open public place and there is no cogent evidence as to the handling or preservation of the clothes of accused no.2 including the unexplained change of garments, which further weakens the prosecution case. Significantly, there is no reliable evidence to establish any nexus between accused no.1 and accused no.2. The Investigating Officer himself has admitted that accused no.2 was not attached to accused no.1 but was a writer to another officer at the Police Station. In the absence of proof of demand, acceptance and recovery in accordance with law, and in light of the failure of the Page 32 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined prosecution to examine material witnesses who were allegedly present at the time of demand and payment, the prosecution case is rendered doubtful. The learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate these material infirmities and has also not adequately considered the defence raised by the accused. In view of the aforesaid deficiencies and inconsistencies, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Court is therefore unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. The accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt and are accordingly acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Consequently, the appeals succeed and are allowed.
13. The impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No. 5, Ahmedabad in Special Case No. 19/2000 on 10.01.2005, is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 94/2005 and the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 282/2005 are acquitted from all the charges against Page 33 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/94/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026 undefined 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 34 of 34 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:18:25 IST 2026