Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mafatbhai Tribhovandas Parekh on 8 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1627 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MAFATBHAI TRIBHOVANDAS PAREKH
========================================================
Appearance:
MS.C.M.SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VINOD M GAMARA(5910) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 08/04/2026
ORAL 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 the order of acquittal passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 11 th Fast Track Court, Kheda at Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Special (ACB) Case No.11 of 2004 on 14.03.2006, whereby, the Page 1 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent - original accused from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C.Act').
1.1. The respondent hereinafter is referred to as 'the accused' as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
2.1. The accused was working as the Talati-cum-Mantri of Kansari Gram panchayat and was a Public Servant. Chunilal Haribhai Patel, the father of the complainant, owned 36 guntas of land of Survey No. 146, Paiki, which was new tenure land and the land was converted to old tenure land on 18-07-2002.
Chunilal Haribhai Patel had executed a sale deed in the name of the complainant - Chetankumar Chunilal Patel, his mother Kamalaben and his sister Vimalaben. On the basis of the sale deed and the index, the complainant had given an application for mutating their names in the revenue record to the Talati- Page 2 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined cum-Mantri of Kansari and the accused had given the notice under Section 135-D of the Land Revenue Code. The outstanding dues of the land was paid on 24.06.2003. On inquiring from the accused, the complainant was told that the entry would be certified, but on 19.02.2004, when the complainant went to the Gram Panchayat Office and met the accused, he was told that the entry was rejected by Macwan Saheb, the Circle Officer, and demanded an amount of illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- for himself and for Circle Officer, Macwan Saheb. The accused told the complainant to give an amount of Rs.2,000/- in the first instance and the remaining amount of Rs.2,000/- after the entry was certified and demanded the amount of Rs.2,000/- on 23.02.2004. The complainant did not want to give the amount of illegal gratification and on 23.02.2004, went to the ACB Police Station, Nadiad and the complaint of the complainant was recorded between 5.00 to 5.30 hours.
2.2. The Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and the demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and solution of Sodium Carbonate was carried out in the presence of the Page 3 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined complainant and the panch witnesses and the characteristics of phenolphthalein powder and solution of Sodium Carbonate were explained to the panch witnesses and the complainant. The complainant gave twenty currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each and all the currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and placed in the left shirt pocket of the complainant and the trap was arranged. The complainant, the panch witnesses and the members of the raiding party started in Government Jeep No.GJ-1-G-3365 from Nadiad to village Kansari, and thereafter, the complainant and the panch witness no. 1 reached the office of Gram Panchayat, Kansari and at about 14:00 hours and met the accused. The complainant inquired from the accused about the cancellation of entry to be mutated in the revenue record of land bearing Survey No.146, the accused told the complainant that he was overburdened withwork and he would do the same, and demanded the amount of illegal gratification, and accordingly, the complainant gave the tainted currency notes of Rs.2,000/- for sanctioning the entry that was cancelled. The accused accepted the same and put the currency notes in his shirt Page 4 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined pocket. The predetermined signal was given and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused red handed. The offence was registered at Nadiad ACB Police Station C.R.No.2 of 2004 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C.Act.
2.3. The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and after the due procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was completed, a charge was framed against the accused at Exh.6 and the statement of the accused was recorded, wherein, the accused denied the allegations made in the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses and produced 18 documentary evidences to prove the charge against the accused. The learned APP filed a closing pursis at Exh.36 and the further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence against him and stated that a false case has been filed against him.
Page 5 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined 2.4. After the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused from all the offences by the impugned judgement and the order.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal, mainly stating that the judgment and order is contrary to law evidence on record and principles of justice. The learned Trial Court has not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, and particularly, the evidence of the complainant, who has clearly deposed that the accused had demanded an amount of illegal gratification. The learned Trial Court has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the ingredients of the offence i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery have been clearly proved beyond reasonable doubts; however, the learned Trial Court has discarded the important aspects and has committed grave error, which has resulted into the miscarriage of justice. The reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court, while Page 6 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined acquitting the respondent, are improper, perverse and bad in law and the impugned judgment is illegal, improper and perverse 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. Vinod Gamara for the respondent - original accused. Perused the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal and have re- appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant - State has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record and has vehemently argued that the impugned judgment of acquittal is illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, inasmuch as the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is cogent, direct as well as circumstantial evidence connecting the respondent with the alleged offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C.Act. The prosecution proved all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery and the involvement of the Page 7 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined respondents in the offence, hence, the appeal must be allowed and the respondent held guilty for the said offence.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Vinod Gamara for the respondent has submitted that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated all the oral and documentary evidence and there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned and judgment and order and the appeal may be rejected.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to produce the observations in Para.11 of the Apex Court in the case of Surendra Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2025 INSC 114, has observed in Para No. 11 as under:
"11. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka6, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R.Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus:
"38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court.
39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 Page 8 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC pp. 482-83, para 29)
29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words : (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] , SCC p. 432, para 42)
42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.Page 9 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581: (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows : (SCC p. 584, para 8) "8. ... XXX XXX XXX 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."Page 10 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined
8. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality or perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of 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 Page 11 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
9. With regard to the cases under the PC Act, the Apex Court, in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248, has observed in Para No. 68 as under:
"68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under: -
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (I) and(ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the 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 Page 12 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined 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 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, Page 13 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined 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 of the settled principles of law, the evidence on record is re-appreciated and PW-1 Chetankumar Chunilal Patel, the complainant, has been examined at Exh.10 and the witness has narrated the contents of the complaint, which was produced at Exh.12. The complainant has narrated the entire procedure undertaken by the Trap Laying Officer for arranging the trap and in the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he went to the ACB office on 19.02.2004 at 5.00pm. He had told the Trap Laying Officer that the accused was demanding the amount of illegal Page 14 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined gratification and had also told him that the amount was for the accused and for the Circle Officer, Macwan Saheb. The entry was rejected by the Circle Officer, Macwan Saheb and the Trap Laying Officer was also in the office on the night of 22.02.2022. He had stayed for the night at the ACB Office and he was awoken at 5.00am by the Trap Laying Officer, and at that time the panch witnesses were present. While his complaint was being written, both the panch witnesses, the Trap Laying Officer and the writer were also present and the complaint was taken down in the handwriting of the writer. He had informed the contents of the complaint to the Trap Laying Officer and as he was narrating the details of his complaint, the complaint was being written by the writer which was dictated by the Trap Laying Officer. He had given an amount of Rs.2000/- to the Trap Laying Officer, but the Trap Laying Officer did not inquire from him whether there was any outstanding dues to be paid at the Kansari Gram Panchayat. He had written a cheque for Rs.11,775/- on 12.08.1987, which was to be paid as conversion tax amount at the Kansari Gram Panchayat which was returned due to "insufficient funds" and a receipt is issued for any Page 15 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined amount that is paid in the Government Office. He does not have any evidence to show that he had paid the entire amount of conversion tax and he had to pay the amount of tax for the year 2000 to the Trap Laying Officer and had to take the receipt for the same from him. On 19.02.2004, when he met the accused, he was informed that the entry was rejected by the Circle Officer, Macwan Saheb. He was fully aware as to who was the person who could certify the entry and knew that Circle Officer Macwan Saheb was the person to certify the entry. He did not give any amount to the accused before 23.02.2004 and he felt that his entry was rejected because of the mistake of the accused. The place where the accused was seated had other employees working and the room was about 10 feet X 14 feet. He had initiated the conversation with the accused and had asked the accused what procedure was undertaken for the entry that was rejected. The accused had told him that he was overburdened with work today and his work would be done at a later date and at that time, he had told the accused that he had brought the amount of Rs.2000/- with him. The accused told him that there was an auction of the acacia trees at the roadside and Page 16 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined he was going to that place and had called the complainant to that place. The accused immediately left for that place on his scooter and he and the panch witness followed the accused. He had a conversation with the accused about certifying the entry and the shirt of the accused was changed at the Panchayat Office but he does not know who had brought the alternative shirt. The witness has produced the copy of the Village Form No.6 Mutation Entry No.2689 dated 19.06.2003 at Exh.11 and on perusal the entry was rejected by the Circle Officer, S.I.Macwan, Deputy Mamalatdar, Khambhat. The witness has also produced the complaint at Exh.12, the notice under Section 135-D of the Land Revenue Code at Exh.13 and a copy of the index at Exh.14.
10.1. PW-2 Sanjaybhai Pranashankar Joshi examined at Exh.15 as the panch witness who has narrated all the events that had unfolded on 23.02.2004 when he and the other panch witness Kanubhai Lalabhai Solanki went to the ACB office at Nadiyad at 5:45am and the procedure undertaken by the Trap Laying Officer for the laying of the trap until the trap was Page 17 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined successful. As far as the trap is concerned, the witness has stated that he and the complainant along with the other panch witness and the Trap Laying Officer and other members of the raiding party reached Kansari village at about 9:45am in a vehicle and halted the vehicle outside of Kansari village. He and the complainant had gone into the panchayat office and the panch no.2 and other members of the raiding party stood scattered around. The complainant met the accused and they sat in the Gram Panchayat Office till about 2:00pm. The accused was overburdened work and at around 2:00pm, the complainant asked the accused what procedure was undertaken for the entry that was rejected and the accused told him that as he was overburdened work, his work would be done and asked whether he had brought the amount. The complainant told him that he had brought Rs.2,000/- and the accused told him that he was going to the roadside where the auction of acacia trees was going on near the pond and had called him to that place. The accused took his scooter and left for that place. The complainant and the witness also followed him and when they reached near the pond, the accused told the Page 18 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined complainant that he would complete the work and the complainant informed the accused that he had brought the amount of Rs.2,000/- and took the currency notes from his left pocket with his right hand and gave it to the accused with his left hand. The accused accepted the amount with his right hand and counted the amount and placed it in his left shirt pocket. The complainant gave the pre-determined signal and the members of the raidng party came and caught the accused and they brought the accused to the Rest House at Kambhat as the 'Pulse Polio Program' was going on and the place where the trap had taken place was a public road. The procedure thereafter was done at the Rest House at Kambhat. The Panchdama Part-II was drawn which was produced at Exh.18 and the seizure memo is at Exh.17. In the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he did not know whether any government dues were outstanding from the complainant and when they reached the office of the Talati till 2:00pm, there was no conversation between the complainant and the accused. In the room where the Talati was seated other employees were also seated and the Page 19 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined complainant started the conversation with the accused at around 2:00p.m. The accused took his scooter and went to the pond where the auction of the acacia trees was going on and the complainant and the panch witness followed the accused to that place. After the trap, the accused was taken to the Rest House and the Panchayat Office was on the way to the Rest House from the pond but they did not go to the Panchayat Office. The Trap Laying Officer had decided to conduct the test at the Rest House and not at the place of the trap and he does not know who had brought the alternative shirt for the accused. The bottles containing the solution of sodium carbonate were sealed with the lac seal of Police Inspector, ACB, Nadiad and the panchnama was signed at the Panchayat Office. He does not know which part of the panchnama was written at the rest house and the signatures were affixed at the Panchayat Office. He cannot say which part of the panchnama was dictated by him and which part was dictated by the Panch No.2. 10.2. PW-3 Shaileshbhai Laherchand Shah examined at Exh.19 is the Competent Authority who has given the order of Page 20 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined sanction for prosecution which is produced at Exh.20. In the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he did not see the notice under Section 135-D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code in the papers that were sent by the ACB but he had seen the Mutation Entry No.2689. He had also read the reasons for rejection of the entry but he cannot say whether the necessary documents for rejection of the entry were placed in the papers or not. A draft sanction order was also sent by the ACB along with the papers and the sanction order as also the draft sanction order are verbatim same and the witness has stated that he had merely filled up the blanks in the draft sanction order. 10.3. PW-4 Manoj Khimjibhai Limbachiya examined at Exh.23 is the Trap Laying Officer who has narrated the entire procedure that was undertaken by him on 23.02.2004 when the complainant came to the ACB office and the procedure undertaken by him for the trap as also the till the trap was successful. In the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had met the Page 21 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined complainant for the first time on 23.02.2004 at 4:45am and the panch witnesses had come at around 5:30am. He had instructed the panch witnesses to come at 5:30am and they came after the complaint of the complainant was recorded. He inquired from the complainant as to whether any Government dues were to be paid at the Kansari Gram Panchayat but he did not verify whether the reply given by the complainant was true or not. On the day of the incident, the work of Pulse Polio Programme was going on but he did not record any statements of any employees. There were other residential houses near the Gram Panchayat Office and he waited outside of the Gram Panchayat Office from 10:00am to 2:00pm but he did not verify as to why the complainant and the panch witnesses were at the Panchayat Office from 10:00am to 2:00pm. The place at the pond was a public road and he may have had some conversation with the panch no.1 at the pond which may be about the acceptance of the bribe amount. He did not record the statement of any person at the rest house and did not take any certificate about the allotment of the room at the rest house. The shirt of the accused was changed at the rest house and the trap money that Page 22 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined was seized was placed in a sealed cover. He could not say what procedure he had undertaken for sealing the solution of sodium carbonate and he had not placed any panch slip with the signatures of the panch witnesses on the mouth of the bottle while tying the bottle with the thread.
10.4. PW-5 Abubakar Mohammedbhai Mansuri examined at Exh.25 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 he did not investigate as to whether any government dues were outstanding from the complainant and the document at Exh.34 shows that the accused was at Khambhat on 19.02.2004. He does not know whether the muddamal bottles were lying at the ACB Office from 27.02.2004 to 04.03.2004 and he had handed and he had taken over the investigation on 27.02.2004. He did not record the statement of the person who had taken the muddamal for analysis to the FSL and as per his say, Police Constable Kiranbhai Chawda had taken the muddamal to hand it over to the FSL for analysis, but Page 23 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined he could not say on which date the muddamal had reached the FSL. As per the record, the muddamal had reached the FSL on 04.03.2004 and during investigation, it was found that the entry was rejected by Circle Officer Macwan Saheb. He recorded the statement of Circle Officer Macwan Saheb and had verified the reason for the rejection of the entry. It was also found during investigation that the power of allowing or rejecting the entry, the mutation entry was with the Circle Officer Macwan Saheb and the complainant did not make any allegations against Circle Officer Macwan Saheb.
11. On a fresh and independent re-appreciation of the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational facts of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt and the view taken by the learned Trial Court in recording acquittal is a possible and reasonable view warranting no interference in an appeal against acquittal. As per the complaint produced at Exh.12, the Mutation Entry for entering the names of the complainant, his Page 24 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined sister and his mother came to be rejected by the Circle Officer S.I.Macwan and it is the case of the complainant that when he visited Kansari Gram Panchayat on 19.02.2004, he came to know from the accused that such entry had been rejected. According to the complainant, on the very same day, the first demand of illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- was allegedly made by the accused for himself as well as for Circle Officer Macwan. However, the prosecution evidence itself creates serious doubt regarding the very presence of the accused at Kansari Gram Panchayat on 19.02.2004. The daily diary of the accused is produced at Exh.34, on perusal, clearly indicates that on 19.02.2004, the accused was at Khambhat and even the Investigating Officer has admitted the said documentary position. This materially contradicts the version of the complainant that he had met the accused at Kansari Gram Panchayat on that date, thereby creating a substantial doubt regarding the very genesis of the alleged first demand. Further, the Investigating Officer has failed to investigate an important defence raised by the accused regarding outstanding government dues payable by the complainant. In the cross- Page 25 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined examination of the complainant, it has come on record that he had issued a cheque of Rs.11,775/- dated 12.08.1997 towards conversion tax, which was dishonoured with the endorsement "Insufficient Funds", and there is no evidence produced by the complainant to show that such amount had been cleared till February, 2004. The defence of the accused that the complainant was making payment of conversion tax in installments and that the amount allegedly accepted by him was towards such outstanding dues, therefore, emerges as a plausible and probable defence. In a prosecution under the P.C.Act, once such a reasonable explanation arises from the record itself, the burden upon the prosecution to prove illegal demand and conscious acceptance becomes heavier, which burden has not been discharged in the present case. Even the trap proceedings do not inspire confidence. As per the prosecution, the tainted amount was accepted near the pond, and immediately thereafter, the accused was taken to the Government Rest House at Khambhat, instead of conducting the necessary verification and recovery proceedings at or near the spot itself, though the Gram Panchayat Office at Kansari was on Page 26 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined the way and other suitable places were available nearby. PW-2 Sanjaybhai Pranayshankar Joshi, the shadow panch, has specifically stated that it was only at the Government Rest House that the Trap Laying Officer inquired from him regarding the details of the transaction. Even the Trap Laying Officer has not categorically stated that any immediate inquiry was made at the place of trap from either the complainant or the panch witness regarding the transaction. Thus, the recovery of tainted currency notes and the panchnama procedure were not undertaken at the spot but subsequently at the Government Rest House, which renders the prosecution version doubtful and affects the sanctity of the trap proceedings. There are also material contradictions regarding the lodging of the complaint itself. The complainant states that he had reached the ACB Office, Nadiad on 22.02.2004 at about 5:00p.m., stayed there overnight and that the complaint was recorded in the presence of the panch witnesses. In contrast, the Trap Laying Officer has categorically deposed that he met the complainant for the first time only on 23.02.2004 at about 4:45am, and that the panch witnesses arrived at about 5:30am, i.e., after the complaint had Page 27 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined already been recorded. This contradiction goes to the root of the prosecution case and affects the credibility of the entire pre-trap procedure. There is also no cogent evidence regarding seizure of the shirt of the accused. There is no evidence as to who arranged the alternate shirt for the accused or who brought it, though the shirt allegedly worn by the accused was seized during the trap proceedings. The Investigating Officer has also not recorded the statements of the father, mother or sister of the complainant, though they were material witnesses in the background of the dispute. It has further come on record that one independent person was present at the place of trap, yet such independent witness has not been examined before the learned Trial Court, thereby depriving the prosecution case of valuable corroboration. As regards the muddamal and F.S.L. procedure, serious inconsistencies are also noticed. Though the trap was conducted on 23.02.2004 and PW-5 Abubaker Mohammadbhai Mansuri states that he took over investigation only on 27.02.2004, the record shows that the muddamal had reached the F.S.L. only on 04.03.2004. There is absolutely no evidence Page 28 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined regarding safe custody of the bottles containing hand-wash samples of the accused marked as Article "A" and "B" during the intervening period from 23.02.2004 till their dispatch. Though the Investigating Officer states that Police Constable Kiranbhai Chawda had carried the muddamal to F.S.L., Ahmedabad, the said constable has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. Thus, the chain of custody of the muddamal remains unproved, creating serious doubt regarding the integrity of the scientific evidence. Even the sanction for prosecution produced at Exh.20 does not inspire confidence. PW-3 Shaileshbhai Laherchand Shah, the Sanctioning Authority, has categorically admitted that the draft sanction order had been sent by the ACB Office and that he had merely filled in the blanks therein. This clearly indicates absence of independent application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority, thereby affecting the validity of sanction itself. In view of the aforesaid serious infirmities, contradictions and omissions, the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court Page 29 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined has, therefore, rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and recorded an order of acquittal. This Court finds no perversity, illegality or misappreciation of evidence in the impugned judgment so as to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court being based on proper appreciation of evidence and being a plausible view, the judgment and order of acquittal deserve to be confirmed.
12. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 11 th Fast Track Court, Kheda at Nadiad in Special (ACB) Case No.11 of 2004 on 14.03.2006 is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds stand cancelled.
13. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) F.S.KAZI.....
Page 30 of 30 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026