Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Popat Rajaram Jadav on 17 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 175 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
POPAT RAJARAM JADAV & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR SHIVANG M SHAH(5916) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MS DHARA M SHAH(5546) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 17/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari, Ahwa Dang (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ACB) Case No. 2/2014 [(Old) Special ACB Case No. Page 1 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined 4/2002] on 20.11.2015, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act"
for short).
1.1 During the pendency of the present appeal, the respondent No. 2 - Jalamsingbhai Revijibhai Naik expired on 21.04.2021 and the appeal qua the respondent No. 2 was abated vide an order of this Court dated 19.02.2026, the respondent No. 3 - Jayeshbhai Dhirubhai Shimpi expired on 06.10.2023 and the appeal qua the respondent No. 3 was abated vide an order of this Court dated 15.04.2024 and the respondent No. 4 - Dineshbhai Devabhai Patel expired on 19.07.2023 and the appeal qua the respondent No. 4 was abated vide an order of this Court dated 02.09.2025.
1.2 The respondents 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 On 22.09.2001, the accused No.1 was posted as an Page 2 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined armed Driver Head Constable at the Ahwa Police Headquarters, MT Branch, the accused No.2 was an Assistant Sub-Inspector, the accused No.3 was an Unarmed Police Constable and the accused No.4 was an Armed Police Constable and all three were posted at Ahwa Police Station and all the four accused were public servants. Police Inspector - M.P. Raol, ACB Police Station, Valsad had received secret information that the police during night patrolling were halting heavy goods and vehicles coming from Maharashtra State on the Saputara-Waghai Road and without any legal procedure on the pretext of entry fee were demanding various amounts as illegal gratification. To verify the same, a decoy trap was planned and two panch witnesses were called to the ACB Police Station at Valsad on 21.09.2001 and after the necessary introductions of the panch witnesses to the members of the raiding party, the Panchnama Part-I was drawn between 17:00 hours to 17:45 hours. At around 18:00 hours, the panch witnesses and the members of the raiding party sat in a private Tata Sumo bearing registration number GJ-15-C-9459 and went via Dharampur Vada Road from Saputara to Hatgad village in Maharashtra and reached there around 21:00 hours. Truck bearing registration No. MH-14-F-Page 3 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined 7965 was coming from Maharashtra and the truck was halted and the driver Vijay Saradu Mujbal a resident of Alegaon, Taluka Junnar, District Pune was informed about the decoy trap to be arranged and he gave his consent for the same. Currency notes of denomination Rs.100/- were smeared with anthracene powder and placed in the right pant pocket of the decoy - Vijay Saradu and necessary instructions were given to the decoy and the panch witnesses and the Panchnama Part-II was drawn at 22:45 hours. At around 22:50 hours, the entire party left Hatgad village and entered into the jurisdiction of Gujarat State on the Saputara Road near Malegaon on the road towards District Dang. A police jeep was parked facing Saputara and the four accused were in police uniform and one of the police made a gesture to halt the truck with the torch in his hand, as it was a hilly road and the truck could not be stopped immediately and the truck driver took the vehicle a little ahead. Immediately, the police mobile van followed and overtook the truck and halted it. One of the inmates of the police mobile signaled from the moving vehicle by flashing a torch towards the cabin of the truck and questioned the driver to stop the vehicle. The decoy halted the vehicle and three policemen got down and the accused No.1 asked the driver Page 4 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined why he did not stop the truck even though he was asked to do so. The accused No.4 asked the driver to get down from the vehicle and the accused No.3 inquired from the truck driver why he did not halt the truck, even though he had flashed the torchlight and inquired from him about the contents of the truck. The decoy replied that he had tomatoes and the truck driver and the panch No.1 got down from the truck with the papers and the decoy gave the papers to the accused No.1. The accused No.2 was seated in the vehicle and he told the accused No.1 to verify the papers properly and take an amount of Rs.100/- as an entry fee and the accused No.1 checked the papers and returned them to the decoy and demanded an amount of Rs.100/- as entry fee. The decoy took the tainted currency note of Rs.100/- from his right pant pocket with his right hand and gave it to the accused No.1, who accepted the same with his right hand. The decoy gave the predetermined signal and at that time accused No.1 suspected doubt and immediately placed the currency note smeared with anthracene powder on the middle part of the bonnet of the police mobile van. The members of the raiding party came and caught all the four accused. The tests were done and traces of anthracene powder were found on the Page 5 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined currency note and the fingers and thumb of the right hand of the accused No.1. The Panchnama Part-III was drawn and Police Inspector - M.P. Raol filed the complaint under Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, which was registered at ACB Police Station, Valsad
- C.R. No. 7 of 2001.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation and receipt of the order of sanction for prosecution, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the Sessions Court, Navsari and the case was registered as Special (ACB) Case No. 2/2014 [(Old) Special ACB Case No. 4/2002].
2.3 The accused were duly served with the summons and the appeared before the learned Trial Court and 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. 11 was framed against all the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh. 12, 13, 14 and 15 respectively, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. Page 6 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined 2.4 The prosecution examined 1 witness and produced 2 documentary evidences on record in support of their case and after the evidence of the prosecution was closed, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, all the accused denied all the evidence and refused to step into the witness box or lead evidence and further stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from the charges levelled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and order of acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the judgement and order of acquittal is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice and is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumptions not permitted by law. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the witness and has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubts. As per the deposition of the panch witness, traces of Page 7 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined anthracene powder were found on the fingers and thumb of the right hand of the accused No.1, which clearly indicates that the tainted currency note was accepted by the accused No.1. The learned Trial Court has erred in holding that the recovery of muddamal amount of Rs.100/- found lying on the bonnet of the mobile van, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts. The panchnama at Exh.79 proves that the amount was demanded, accepted and recovered and the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and hence, the impugned judgement and order of acquittal is required to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Shivang Shah for the respondent No. 1. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah has taken this Court through the entire evidence and has stated that the evidence of the panch witness at Exh.55 and the panchama at Exh.79 proves that all the four accused were present at that spot and they had halted the truck of the decoy and had thereafter, Page 8 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined demanded the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.100/-. The accused No.1 had accepted the same on behalf of all the other accused and as soon as he had a doubt, he quickly placed the currency note on the bonnet of the mobile van, from where it was recovered. The test of ultraviolet lamp showed the presence of anthracene powder on the fingers and thumb of the right hand of the accused No.1 and also on the bonnet of the vehicle which proves that the amount of illegal gratification was accepted by the accused No.1 on behalf of all the accused, but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and, hence, the appeal must be allowed.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Shivang Shah for the respondent No.1 has vehemently opposed the present appeal and submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has not committed any error in passing the order of acquittal. It is contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are sine qua non for constituting an offence under the provisions of the PC Act. Learned advocate has further submitted that the panch witness does not inspire confidence and his testimony Page 9 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined suffers from material discrepancies. It is therefore submitted that in absence of cogent and reliable evidence to prove demand and conscious acceptance, mere recovery of currency notes would not be sufficient to convict the accused. It is, therefore, urged that the view taken by the learned Trial Court being a plausible view based on appreciation of evidence, this Court may not interfere with the well-reasoned order of acquittal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in para 11 and 12 with regard to the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with acquittal appeals in the case of P. Somaraju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1423:
11. Before proceeding, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the well-settled principles governing interference with an order of acquittal by an Appellate Court, which were also discussed by the High Court in the impugned judgment. At the outset, we rely upon the seminal case of Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka 2007 (4) SCC 415 wherein this Court had laid down the five-point canonical test as follows:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the Page 10 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and Page 11 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 4 (2007) 4 SCC 415.
12. To summarize, an Appellate Court undoubtedly has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 and 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, due to the reinforced or 'double' presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be limited. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the record, the acquittal should not be disturbed. Judicial intervention is only warranted where the Trial Court's view is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in manifest miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the Appellate Court must address the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal before reversing it and assigning its own. A catena of the recent judgements of this Court has more firmly entrenched this position, including, inter alia, Mallappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 104, Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258, Babu Sahebagauda Rudragaudar and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 320 and Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 114.
8. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal Page 12 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality or perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
Page 13 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined
9. With regard to the cases under the PC Act, the Apex Court, in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248, has observed in Para No. 68 as under:
"68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under: -
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (I) and(ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand 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 Page 14 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)
(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1) (d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and inturn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification Page 15 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined may be made by a Court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the Court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the Court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d)
(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature." Page 16 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined
10. In view of the settled principles of law in acquittal appeals, the evidence is reappreciated and to prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution has in all examined only one witness. PW1 - Chandubhai Balubhai Patel examined at Exh. 55 is the panch witness who has narrated details as stated in the panchnama which is produced at Exh.79. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and has also identified his signature on the Seizure Memo which is produced at Exh.78. The witness was the panch witness who was instructed to be in the Tata Sumo with the members of the raiding party and had to sit in the vehicle at a safe distance away from the truck in which the decoy, the shadow witness and other members of the raiding party were seated. In the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had come about 20 times for his deposition to the Court and his first deposition was recorded on 06.03.2009 and as he was a little afraid, he had sought for an adjournment and thereafter, his deposition was recorded on 08.06.2011 after he had thought over the incident. His superior officer did not give him any order in writing to be a panch witness in the case Page 17 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined and he did not know whether his superior officer had any conversation with ACB Officers. The Trap Laying Officer did not give him any document where the secret information was written down and when he and the other panch witness - Dahyabhai Chaganbhai Patel reached the ACB Office, the Panchnama Part-I written by the ACB Officer was already drawn. He does not know whether they had gone into the territory of Maharashtra and the Trap Laying Officer had introduced himself to the truck driver and at that time, the Trap Laying Officer was in civil clothes, but had an official revolver with him. The Trap Laying Officer did not see any documents from the truck driver in his presence and he did not verify the contents of the truck at the time of the trap. He did not verify whether any entry fees were taken from any other vehicles which were coming in Gujarat State and he does not know about the currency note of Rs.100/- that was given by the Trap Laying Officer to the decoy. He does not know of which company was the lamp that was used and he has never used anthracene powder and did not read about the characteristics of anthracene powder. The panchnama was not written at his insistence and he did not give any instructions for the panchnama. He ran to the truck after the Page 18 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined predetermined signal was given and the truck driver was outside the truck near the cabin and the policemen were also near the truck. The witness has admitted that he had picked up the currency note from the bonnet of the mobile van, but he does not know who had placed the currency note, in whose presence it was placed and does not remember how it was placed. He did not see the currency note being recovered from any of the accused.
11. On perusal of the record of the case and particularly the rojkam, it appears that the chargesheet was filed before the Sessions Court on 17.06.2002 and the charge was framed against the accused at Exh.11 on 28.10.2004. The matter was pending for evidence of the prosecution and the evidence of the prosecution was not recorded for a long time. The evidence of prosecution witness No. 1 was recorded at Exh.55 on 06.03.2009 and the examination-in-chief could not be concluded, as the muddamal had not been received by the learned Trial Court. The further examination-in-chief and cross-examination of prosecution witness No.1 came to be concluded on 08.04.2011 and thereafter, the examination-in- chief of prosecution witness No.2 was recorded at Exh.90 on 17.09.2011. In spite of numerable adjournments, the Page 19 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined evidence of the prosecution was not being recorded and on 03.10.2011, the accused gave an application at Exh.95 to close the evidence of the prosecution, which was allowed by an order of the learned Trial Court on the same day. On the next adjournment I.e. on 02.11.2011, an application was preferred by the prosecution at Exh.96 for reopening of the evidence and the application was allowed by the learned Trial Court with cost of Rs.1000/- on the same day. The prosecution did not pay the amount of cost and challenged the order by filing Revision Application No.572 of 2011 before this Court but the proceedings were not stayed and as the case was more than 15 years old and as per the circular of this Court, priority was to be given to old cases and old matters were to be conducted on a day-to-day basis and the matter was proceeded with. The summons was issued to the prosecution witness No.2 - Dahyabhai Chaganbhai Patel, for cross examination but the summons returned unserved as the witness had expired and the summons along with the copy of the death certificate was placed on the record at Exh.120. The prosecution gave an application at Exh.130 on 07.10.2015 to stay the matter, but the application was rejected by an order dated 07.10.2015 by the learned Trial Page 20 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined Court and as the evidence of the prosecution was closed after hearing the parties, the impugned judgement and order was passed.
12. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in cases arising under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove, beyond reasonable doubts, the fundamental facts of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. It is now well settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) that mere recovery of tainted currency notes or proof of phenolphthalein/ anthracene test is not sufficient to bring home the charge unless the demand and voluntary acceptance are independently established. In the present case, the evidence on record falls short of establishing these crucial ingredients. The prosecution has failed to examine the decoy, who was the most material witness to prove the alleged demand and actual payment of the tainted currency. In absence of his testimony, the very genesis of the prosecution case remains unsubstantiated. Similarly, the shadow witness, who could have provided corroboration regarding the demand and acceptance, could not be cross-examined as he expired before his cross- Page 21 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined examination and therefore, his testimony cannot be relied upon. The only witness examined by the prosecution is the panch witness who was along with the members of the raiding party. A careful reading of his evidence reveals that he had not witnessed either the demand or the acceptance of the alleged illegal gratification. He has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he reached the spot only after the predetermined signal was given and that he himself picked up the currency note from the bonnet of the police vehicle. He has further admitted that he did not see as to who had placed the said currency note on the bonnet. Thus, his evidence does not advance the case of the prosecution insofar as the essential ingredients of the offence are concerned. The recovery of the tainted currency note from the bonnet of the police vehicle, in the absence of clear and cogent evidence linking the same to conscious and voluntary acceptance by accused No.1, cannot be treated as incriminating. The explanation put forth by the prosecution that accused No.1 had accepted the amount and immediately placed it on the bonnet upon suspicion is not supported by any direct evidence and rests merely on inference. Such inference cannot substitute proof in a criminal trial. Though, the Page 22 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined prosecution has relied upon the presence of anthracene powder on the fingers of accused No.1, such evidence is only corroborative in nature and in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance, cannot by itself sustain a conviction. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. It is also pertinent to note that the trial in the present case suffered from considerable delay and lapses on the part of the prosecution. Despite opportunities, the prosecution failed to examine material witnesses and did not take effective steps even after obtaining permission to reopen the evidence. This has resulted in serious prejudice to the prosecution case and has left material gaps in the chain of evidence.
13. In an appeal against acquittal, the scope of interference by the appellate Court is limited. Unless the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are perverse, manifestly erroneous, or contrary to the evidence on record, the Appellate Court would not be justified in overturning an acquittal. If two views are possible on the basis of the evidence available, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. In the present case, the view taken by the learned Trial Court is a plausible and reasonable view based on the evidence, or rather the lack of it. No material has been Page 23 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/175/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined brought to the notice of this Court to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court suffer from perversity or illegality. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.
14. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari, Ahwa Dang in Special (ACB) Case No. 2/2014 (Old Special ACB Case No. 4/2002) on 20.11.2015, is hereby confirmed.
15. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) ROHAN SONI Page 24 of 24 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 22:05:09 IST 2026