Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bhavansinh Revajibhai Rathva on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 52 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHAVANSINH REVAJIBHAI RATHVA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.C.M.SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. JAVED S QURESHI(6999) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 12/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1] This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13-10-2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vadodara (herein after referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Special (ACB) Case No. 06 of 1999, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)
(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein Page 1 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined after referred to as the " the PC Act).
1.1] The respondent is hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2] The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1] On 08-12-1998, the accused was serving as a Talati- cum-Mantri at the Rarod Group Gram Panchayat. The complainant viz. Kalpit Navinchandra Patel, a native of village Rarod was residing at Karjan and the complainant's father owned ancestral agricultural lands situated in the outskirts of Rarod, Para and Oze villages. As the complainant's father was aged, he desired that during his lifetime, the name of the complainant be mutated in the revenue records of the agricultural land. For this purpose, the complainant obtained copies of extracts of village Form No. 7/12 and Form 8-A relating to the ancestral lands from the Talati- cum-Mantries of the respective villages. In respect of the agricultural lands bearing Block Nos. 109, 113, 119, 151, 223, 263, 268 and 1065 situated in village Rarod, the present accused had demanded and accepted Rs. 50/- from the complainant as illegal gratification before issuing the copies of village Form No. 7/12 and Page 2 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined Form 8-A extracts. After receiving the said amount of Rs. 50/-, the accused supplied the said extracts to the complainant on 15-04- 1998. Thereafter, the complainant informed the accused that he intended to have his name entered in the revenue records in respect of the said lands and showed the accused a rough draft of an application prepared by him for that purpose. However, the accused stated that such writing would not be acceptable and asked the complainant to bring his father to the Rarod Gram Panchayat Office, further stating that they would have to understand the "transaction". As the complainant's father was not in good health, the complainant again met the accused on 03-12-1998 at the Karjan Taluka Panchayat Office, carrying with him applications signed by his father and sister requesting that the complainant's name be mutated in the revenue records. The accused, after perusing the applications, stated that such applications would not be acceptable and returned them to the complainant. When the complainant inquired as to how the application should be drafted, the accused asked him to come to the Rarod Gram Panchayat Office and once again told the complainant that the "transaction" would have to be settled. Upon the complainant asking how much money would have to be paid, the accused initially demanded Rs. Page 3 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined 1,000/- and subsequently agreed to accept Rs. 700/-. The accused further instructed the complainant to bring the said amount to the Rarod Panchayat Office, after which he would proceed with the necessary action on the complainant's applications. As the complainant was unwilling to pay the illegal gratification of Rs. 700/-, he approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau Office at Vadodara and lodged a complaint against the accused on 08-12- 1998.
2.2] The Trap Laying Officer called the panch-witnesses and the complainant gave 7 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each. Head constable Dilipsingh Rathod conducted the demonstration of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp in the presence of the complainant and the panch witnesses and explained the characteristics of the same and all the currency notes were smeared with anthracene powder and folded and placed into the left shirt pocket 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 the members of the raiding party left in a private Matador Registration No. GJ-7-0-4095 at around 10:00 am from Vadodara and went via Kothi Cross-Roads, Page 4 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined Lalbagh, Makarpura and Karjan on the Palej Highway and reached the bus stand of Rarod village. The complainant and the panch No. 1 alighted from the Matador at about 11.35 and walked to the Gram Panchayat Office and returned to the matador to inform the Trap Laying Officer that the accused was present at the office and once again they walked to the Rarod Gram Panchayat Office and reached the office at about 12.30 pm. The complainant and the panch-witness went into the office and at that time, there were two persons sitting at the table and talking to the accused and after some time those persons left. The complainant met the accused and had a conversation with him and the accused took a paper and started writing something on the paper and then asked the complainant to affix his signature on the paper and told the complainant that he would have to get three persons as witnesses. The complainant went out and returned and after some time told the accused that three persons were coming. After some time, one uncle came and sat at the table of the accused and two other persons came and they all signed the paper and the two persons went away, whereas, the uncle sat at the table. The complainant inquired whether he had to give any money and the accused made a sign to the uncle named Kantibhai Ashabhai and called him Page 5 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined outside and both of them went out of the office and after some time returned and sat on their chairs and the accused told the complainant that as Kamlibhai Ashabhai was present, he was doing the work at this rate. The complainant took the tainted currency notes from his left shirt pocket with his left hand and gave it to the accused, who accepted it with his right hand, and accepted the currency notes below the table and counted the same with both his hands and thereafter he opened the zip of a purse lying on his left and placed the currency notes inside the purse and closed the zip of the purse. The complainant gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and the accused was caught red-handed. The offence was registered under Sections 7, 13 (1)(d), and Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, which came to be registered at Vadodara ACB Police Station, I-C.R.No. 12 of 1998.
2.3] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and received the order of sanction for prosecution and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the Sessions Court, Vadodara as Special (ACB) Case No. 09 of 1999. Page 6 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined 2.4] The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the papers papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 6 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 7, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.5] The prosecution produced six oral and fourteen documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 55, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on his behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against him. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit the accused from all the charges leveled against him.
Page 7 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined 3] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant-State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and has committed a grave error in passing the order of acquittal. The prosecution has examined 6 witnesses and produced 14 documentary evidences but the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the same in proper perspective. The learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution and has stated in his evidence that he put the bribe amount in the hands of the respondent and the respondent had accepted the same. The respondent ought to have been convicted only on the evidence of the panch-witness who has specifically stated that he had accompanied the complainant and heard all the conversation and had seen the transaction and there is there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the panch-witnesses. The prosecution has proved all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery and the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent was a public servant serving in the government department, where honesty and integrity is very important and Page 8 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined being a member of the disciplinary force has indulged in a grave offence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification from the complainant. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal is improper, perverse and bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside.
4] Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M.Shah for the appellant - State and learned advocate Mr. Javed Qureshi for the respondent - original accused. 5] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M.Shah for the Appellant-State has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record and has submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the direct and indirect evidence in the case. The order passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must be allowed.
6] Learned advocate Mr. Javed Qureshi for the respondent - submits that the judgment and order has been passed after appreciation of all the evidence and the learned Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the Page 9 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined appeal of the appellant-State must be rejected. 7] With regard to acquittal appeals, at this juncture, it would be appropriate to reproduce the observations of the Apex Court in Para 11 and 12 in the case of P Somaraju Versus State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2025 INSC 1263:-
" 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,4 wherein this Court had laid down the five-point canonical test as follows:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasis 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 Page 10 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 4 (2007) 4 SCC 415.
12. To summarize, an Appellate Court undoubtedly has full power to review and re appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal under Sections 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 judgments of this Court has more firmly entrenched this position, including, inter alia, Mallappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 104 6 2024 INSC 258, Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 320 and Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in 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 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 Page 11 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined 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. 9] With regard to the provisions of 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 Page 12 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined 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 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.
Page 13 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature."
10] In light on the above settled principles of law in acquittal appeals under the PC Act, considering the evidence of the prosecution, to bring home the charge against the accused, Prosecution Witness No. 1 - Pravinchandra Veljibhai Nathani has been examined at Exh:10 and the witness is the competent authority, who has given the order of sanction for prosecution, Page 14 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined which is produced at Exhibit 11.
In the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that he had given the order of sanction for prosecution on the basis of the government notification and the muddamal was not sent along with the papers for the order of sanction for prosecution.
10.1] Prosecution Witness No. 2 - Maheshkumar Naveenchandra Joshi is the panch-witness, who has narrated the contents of the Panchnama, which is produced at Exhibit 18 and has narrated all the incidents that had taken place on 11-12-1998 when he and the other panch witness - Ashokkumar Ramjibhai Makwana were called to the ACB Police Station at Vadodara and the procedure undertaken by the Trap Laying Officer for the trap until the trap was successful. The witness has stated that he was the shadow witness and as far as the trap is concerned, the witness has stated that the complainant went outside to call the witnesses and his return, he told the accused that the witnesses were coming and requested him that his father's health was not good and to complete his work at the earliest. Two persons came and they affixed their signatures and went away and thereafter, one uncle came but he does not know whether the uncle had affixed his Page 15 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined signature. The complainant told the accused that he was in a hurry and whatever had to be given should be understood, and, during that time, the uncle who was present took the accused outside. During this conversation, the accused told the complainant to give his residence address and the documents would be sent to his house, and also told him that as this uncle was present, he was completing the work and the complainant gave the accused the amount of illegal gratification and gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and the Trap Laying Officer introduced himself and the necessary tests were done.
In the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witnesses admitted that the amount that was seized was placed in blank papers and it was not mentioned as to how the currency notes were seized and there was no note made on the paper. The Trap Laying Officer dictated the panchnama and his writer was writing the panchnama and most of the panchnama was dictated by Police Inspector Gohil without any interruption. After the Trap Laying Officer came into the office, he introduced himself and immediately told Police Constable Dilipsinh to take out the ultraviolet lamp and to do the test and the hands of the accused were checked in the ultraviolet lamp. Before the hands of the Page 16 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined accused were checked, the hands of no other person was checked, and, thereafter, the hands of the complainant were checked. At that time, the complainant, accused, Peon Kanubhai, uncle Kantibhai Ashabhai and staff members of the ACB were present and the items that were seized from the table of the accused were not checked under the ultraviolet lamp light.
10.2] Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Kalpitbhai Navinchandra Patel examined at Exhibit 20 is the complainant, who has narrated the facts as stated in his complaint, which is produced at Exhibit 15. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and has narrated the procedure for the trap that was undertaken by the Trap Laying Officer and as far as the trap is concerned, he has stated that the accused took Kantibhai and went outside of the office and spoke to him for about two minutes and returned and when he came inside the office, he told him that the prices have increased and the work could not be done in this much amount but because of the uncle, he was doing the work in such amount. The complainant took the tainted currency notes from his left shirt pocket and gave it to the accused, who sat on his chair and counted the amount and placed it in a purse. At that time, the complainant gave the predetermined signal and the members of Page 17 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined the raiding party came and caught the accused.
In the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the issue was regarding the mutation of his name in the revenue record of the land situated at village Rarod, village Para and village Oze. He did not give an application for mutation of his name in the revenue record till the trap was arranged and he did not make any representation before the Mamlatdar or the Taluka Development Officer that the accused was not accepting his application. He did not file any grievance against the superior officer of the accused regarding the demand of illegal gratification and at the time of the trap, he was a student and was fully dependent on his father for his finances. His uncle was a lawyer-cum-politician and his uncle had told him about the ACB Office and his uncle was also a Social Worker in Karjan. He had gone to the ACB office and met Police Inspector Gohil. He does not know whether the ultraviolet lamp was working on electricity or a battery and when they reached Rarod, he had sent his cousin Maheshbhai Chandubhai to inquire whether the accused was in the office or not. When his cousin Maheshbhai informed him that the Talati was in the office, he went to the vehicle and informed the Trap Laying Officer, who told him to go on ahead and that they Page 18 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined would follow him. He had informed the accused regarding the mutation of his name in the revenue record and on inquiring from him, the accused had prepared the pedigree and had requested him to bring the signatures of three persons and hence he went and called the three persons. He had gone to the house of Kantibhai Ashabhai and informed him that the signatures of three persons were required in the pedigree and they came to the outskirts of the village and took two persons and he and Kantibhai had gone to the Rarod Gram Panchayat Office. When they reached the Rarod Gram Panchaya Office, Kantibhai Ashabhai had affixed his signature on the pedigree and the peon of the Gram Panchayat Office had gone outside and called the other two persons, who came and affixed their signatures on the pedigree. Thereafter, the accused had drawn three lines on a paper and asked him to bring the signature of his mother, father and sister. The witness has admitted that he thereafter told the accused that he was starting his job in a bank on Tuesday and he was ready to complete the transaction and hence the accused took Kantibhai Ashabhai Patel outside of the office and when they returned, he did not have any conversation with Kantibhai Ashabhai Patel. The witness has admitted that after he gave the amount to the accused and gave the predetermined signal, Page 19 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined he went out of the office and went into the village. Immediately when the Trap Laying Officer came into the office, he introduced himself and told Constable Jaideep Baria to take out the ultraviolet lamp and conduct the test and at first, the hands of the accused were checked. He does not remember, whether the hands of any other persons were checked at that time. The muddamal pant was not seized in his presence and there were no marks or circles drawn on the pant in the front or at the belt. He cannot say how the currency notes that were placed in a paper were seized and thereafter, the Trap Laying Officer started dictating the Panchnama and the Panchnama was written by the writer of the Trap Laying Officer.
10.3] Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Vanrajsinh Juvansinh Gohil examined at Exhibit 29 is the Trap Laying Officer, who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him on 08-12-1998 when the complainant Kalpit Navinchandra Patel came to his office and the procedure undertaken by him for arranging the trap until the trap was successful.
In the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that, at the time of the trap, Kantibai Ashabhai Patel, a resident of Rarod and Kanubhai Page 20 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined Mangabhai Vasava - the peon of Rarod Gram Panchayat Office were present. The witness has admitted that, as per the complaint, the complainant wanted his name to be mutated in the revenue record of his ancestral property but he did not inquire whether an application for the same was given by the complainant or not. The father of the complainant Navinchandra did not come to ACB office and at the time of the incident, the lands were in the name of the father of the complainant. He also did not inquire from the father of the complainant about this issue and he did not inquire from the sister of the complainant regarding the consent given by them. They had verified whether the accused was in the office or not and after hearing the complainant, he felt that a cognizable offence had taken place.
10.4] Prosecution Witness No. 5 - Rakesh Baldevprasad Sharma examined at Exhibit 47 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation.
In the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that during a trap, the conversation between the complainant and the accused, had taken place in the presence of the shadow witness and usually the shadow witness Page 21 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined informs the Trap Laying Officer about the conversation and procedure that had taken place but he did not verify whether these details are noted in the panchnama and whether the Trap Laying Officer had written the panchnama properly or not. During investigation, he has not seized any application given by the complainant to get his name mutated in the revenue record of the ancestral property.
11] Upon a careful appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational fact of demand of illegal gratification, which is the sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As per the case of the prosecution, the initial demand was allegedly made on 03.12.1998 in the presence of the father of the complainant when the complainant had taken his father to the Taluka Panchayat Office. However, the father of the complainant, who was the most material witness to the alleged prior demand, has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. The non- examination of such a crucial witness creates a serious dent in the prosecution case. It has further come on record that the land for which mutation was sought stood in the name of the father of the complainant. Despite this, neither the Trap Laying Officer nor the Page 22 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined Investigating Officer thought it fit to verify the factual position from the father of the complainant or to record his statement during investigation. It has also emerged from the evidence that the complainant was a student and financially dependent upon his father, and therefore any amount required to be paid would ordinarily have been arranged by the father. In such circumstances, the failure of the prosecution to examine the father of the complainant assumes considerable significance and weakens the credibility of the prosecution story regarding the alleged prior demand. Further, the evidence on record indicates that Kantibhai Ashabhai Patel and Kanubhai Mangabhai Vasava, the peon working in the office, were present in the same room at the relevant time and had allegedly heard the conversation between the complainant and the accused. Despite independent witnesses being available, none of them have been examined before the learned Trial Court. The prosecution has thus withheld material witnesses who could have corroborated the allegation of demand. So far as the demand at the time of the trap is concerned, the testimony of PW-2 Maheshkumar Navinchandra Joshi, the panch witness, does not support the prosecution case that any demand was made by the accused at the time of the trap, on the contrary, Page 23 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined the evidence indicates that the complainant himself initiated the transaction. The circumstances emerging from the evidence suggest that the complainant was more enthusiastic in offering the tainted currency notes, even in the absence of any specific demand from the accused. Moreover, both the complainant and Panch No.1 have deposed that immediately upon entering the office, the Trap Laying Officer introduced himself and directed that the ultraviolet lamp test be conducted, however, there is no clear evidence as to how the Trap Laying Officer came to know about the conversation or events that allegedly took place prior to his entry. This circumstance also casts doubt on the manner in which the trap proceedings were conducted. It has also come on record that the accused had briefly gone outside the office with Kantibhai Patel and that the tainted currency notes were ultimately recovered from a purse lying on the table of the accused, and not from his person. The recovery in such circumstances does not conclusively establish conscious acceptance of the amount by the accused. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta (supra) has authoritatively held that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for establishing offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Page 24 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined Act, and that mere recovery of tainted money by itself is not sufficient to convict an accused unless the demand is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Similarly, in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152, the Supreme Court reiterated that in the absence of proof of demand, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be invoked, and mere possession or recovery of currency notes from the accused is insufficient to establish the offence. In the present case, since the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational fact of demand, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act cannot be drawn against the accused. The learned Trial Court has thus appreciated the entire evidence in its proper perspective and has rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the trial court do not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or mis-appreciation of evidence so as to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. 12] In view of the settled position of law in Neeraj Datta (Supra), the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of Page 25 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/52/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined acquittal and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. 13] The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Vadodara in Special (ACB) Case No. 06 of 1999 on 13-10-2010 is hereby confirmed. 14] Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) VISHAL MISHRA Page 26 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 20:41:11 IST 2026