Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mensibhai Ramabhai Ram Ahir on 16 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1382 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MENSIBHAI RAMABHAI RAM AHIR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
SHIVANGI D VYAS(10117) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 16/03/2026
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 (ACB) Judge & 2nd Fast Track Judge, Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ACB) Case No. 10/2000 on 29.01.2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Page 1 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act" for short).
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 In the year 2000, the accused was working as a Mamlatdar at Vanthali, District Junagadh and was a public servant. The complainant - Kanjibhai Mepabhai Chavda, was a resident of village Ravni, Taluka Vanthali and he had applied for a license to run a Fair Price Shop and he was given the license to run the Fair Price Shop at Navlakhi village. When he had gone to get his license at the Mamlatdar Office, Vanthali, he met the accused who told him that the cards at Navlakhi village are less and he would also be given the license of the Fair Price Shop at the neighbouring Barbada Village and would be given the license to distribute kerosene at the Fair Price Shop and demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification for the same. The complainant told the accused that he was poor and could not Page 2 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined give the entire amount, but the accused demanded an amount of Rs.2,000/- in the first instance and told the complainant to pay the remaining amount in monthly installments of Rs.1,000/- each. The complainant gave the amount of Rs.2,000/- to the accused in his office about one and a half months prior to 12.05.2000 and at that time, there was no other person in the office besides the complainant and the accused. On 10.05.2000, the complainant went to get his stock of food grains and the accused saw the complainant in front of his chamber and sent his peon to call the complainant and when the complainant went to him, he demanded for the amount of illegal gratification. The complainant did not have the amount and told the accused that he would make arrangements for the same and give the amount within two to three days. As the complainant did not want to give the amount of illegal gratification, he went to the ACB Police Station at Junagadh and the complaint of the complainant was recorded.
2.2 The Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and the complainant gave 10 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each. Assistant Sub-Inspector - G.S. Chudasma was instructed to demonstrate the use of anthracene powder and Page 3 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined ultraviolet lamp and he explained the characteristics of the same to the complainant and the panch witnesses. All the currency notes were smeared with anthracene powder and placed in the left shirt pocket of the complainant and necessary instructions to all concerned were given. The Panchnama Part-I was drawn and the signatures of all concerned were taken. As decided, the complainant, panch witnesses and members of the raiding party left in Government Vehicle Number GJ-09-G-2399 and went via Vanthali-Keshod road to Vanthali village. The complainant and the shadow witness alighted and went to the Mamlatdar Office, Vanthali and found that the accused was not in his office, as he had gone outside. They went back to the place where the jeep was parked and after some time, they saw the accused going into his chamber. Once again, the complainant and the panch witness went into the office and met the accused and in the presence of the panch witness, the accused inquired from the complainant whether he had brought the remaining amount. The complainant took the tainted currency notes from his left shirt pocket with his right hand and told the accused that he had brought Rs.1000/-. The accused took a khaki envelope from the drawer of his table Page 4 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined and gave it to the complainant and told the complainant to put the amount in the envelope. The complainant took the currency notes from his pocket and placed them in the khaki envelope and gave the envelope to the accused who accepted the same and left the envelope on the table. The complainant came out and gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and the necessary tests were done and the amount was recovered. No traces of anthracene powder were found from the hands of the accused and the Panchnama Part-II, as well as the Seizure Memo, was drawn.
The offence was registered under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, at Junagadh ACB Police Station, C.R. No. 4 of 2000.
2.3 The accused was 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. 6 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exh. 7, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
Page 5 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 2.4 The prosecution examined 4 witnesses and produced 16 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, 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 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 judgement and order was pleased to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant State has filed the present appeal, mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The prosecution has examined 4 witnesses and produced 16 documentary evidences, but without appreciating these evidences in its proper perspective, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offence. The learned Page 6 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined Trial Court has failed to appreciate that on the date and at the place mentioned in the complaint, the respondent had demanded the amount of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant in the presence of the panch witness and the complainant as well as the panch witness have fully supported the case of the prosecution. After following the due procedure, the traces of anthracene powder were found on the currency notes which were recovered from the envelope on the table of the respondent and the learned Trial Court has given undue importance to minor omissions and contradictions and has disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution. The panchnama clearly states that the amount of illegal gratification was accepted by the respondent and without resorting to the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent. The impugned judgment and order is perverse and illegal and is required to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant State and learned advocate Ms. Shivangi D. Vyas 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.
Page 7 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined
5. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah has taken this court through the entire evidence of the prosecution and has submitted that the prosecution has in the oral and documentary evidence, proved all the ingredients of demand acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification from the table of the respondent and the prosecution has proved that the amount of illegal gratification was demanded by the respondent in the presence of the panch witness. The learned Trial Court has not appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and beyond reasonable doubts, the appeal must be allowed and the impugned judgment and order must be set aside and the respondent must be found guilty for the said offences.
6. Learned Advocate Ms. Shivangi D. Vyas for the respondent has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and in a well reasoned judgment has discussed the entire evidence and found that no traces of anthracene powder were found on the hands of the respondent and there is an admission of the complainant that when the respondent had gone to the window to spit outside, he himself had placed the tainted Page 8 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined currency notes in the envelope and had thereafter, given the predetermined signal. The learned Trial Court has fully appreciated that the complainant had the full opportunity of placing the tainted currency notes without the knowledge of the respondent and the defence was a plausible defence and has appreciated the same in proper perspective and no interference is required in the impugned judgment and order and the appeal of the appellant must be rejected.
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 9 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 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 10 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 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 unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the Page 11 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 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.
9. With regard to the cases under the PC Act, the Apex Court, in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of Page 12 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 13 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 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 Page 14 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 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 15 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 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 four witnesses. PW1 - Kanjibhai Mepabhai Chavda examined at Exh. 12 is the complainant who has narrated the facts as stated in the complaint which is produced at Exh.13. The witness has stated that the accused had demanded an amount of Rs.15,000/- from him and he had earlier given an amount of Rs.5,000/- and thereafter, had to give a monthly amount of Rs.1,000/-. As far as the trap is concerned, the complainant has stated that when he and the shadow witness went to the office of the accused, the accused asked him whether he had brought the amount of illegal gratification as he had promised and the accused told him to place the amount in the envelope which was lying on the table was taken by the complainant and the amount of Rs.1,000/- was placed in the envelope and the envelope was once again placed on the table. The complainant came out of the office and gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused. In the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that till the complaint was filed, he had Page 16 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined given an amount of Rs.5,000/- and did not give any other amount to the accused. He has stated for the first time before the learned Trial Court that he had given an amount of Rs.5,000/- and till 24.04.2000, no amount of illegal gratification was demanded from him. The Mamlatdar Office at Vanthali supplies the food grains to be sold in the Fair Price Shop and the amount was demanded after he had got the license for the Fair Price Shop. On that day, he did not give any amount and he met the accused for the first time on 10.05.2000. He had received the license on 24.04.2000 and had returned the license on 25.05.2000. He had a wish to get the license to distribute kerosene and on 10.05.2000, when he met the accused, it was night and the office was closed. He did not meet the accused at the office and before 10.05.2000, when he met the accused, he had asked him for the license of kerosene and the accused had told him that he would see the progress of his shop and thereafter, the Collector would decide whether the license for kerosene had to be given or not. The cards of the other village could not be transferred without the order of the Collector and on the day when the amount was demanded, he did not give any amount to the accused. He met the accused on 10.05.2000 at 8:00 pm and Page 17 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined did not meet him before that and when he was in the chamber of the accused, the accused did not demand any amount of illegal gratification from him. He went to file the complaint on 12.05.2000 and he asked the accused for the license of kerosene and the accused had told him to give an application in the Supply Department. There is a window in the chamber of the accused behind the place where he was sitting and when he placed the amount in the envelope, the accused had gone to the window to spit out of the window and before he could return to his chair, he had placed the tainted currency notes in the envelope and placed the envelope at the side on the table. No traces of anthracene powder were found on the envelope or on the hands of the accused.
10.1 PW2 - Vinodrai Bhagvanjibhai Trambadiya examined at Exh. 14 is the panch witness who has narrated all the events narrated in the panchnama that had taken place when he and the other panch witness, Virendra Manmohandas Chhatrabhuj had gone to the ACB Police Station at Junagadh and till the trap was successful. As far as the trap is concerned, the witness has stated that when they went to the Mamlatdar Office at Vanthali, the accused was Page 18 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined not present and they had gone back to the vehicle to inform the Trap Laying Officer and after some time, the accused came and went into his chamber. At around 17:50 hours, he accompanied the complainant in the chamber of the accused and both of them sat in the vacant chairs in front of the table of the accused. The accused inquired from the complainant as to whether he had brought the money and when the complainant replied in the affirmative, the complainant took the tainted currency notes from his left shirt pocket with his right hand and offered it to the accused who took an empty khaki envelope from the drawer of his table and told the complainant to place it in the same and the complainant placed the tainted currency notes in the envelope and gave the envelope to the accused who kept it on the table at the side. The complainant went out and gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and the necessary procedure was undertaken. In the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that a black rexine purse was seized as per the Seizure Memo from the accused but he does not know where was it seized from. The panchnama does not mention that the rexine purse was seized from any person and he does Page 19 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined not know whether the khaki envelope was tested in the ultraviolet lamp. He does not remember who had placed the envelope below the ultraviolet lamp and as per instructions, he had removed the currency notes from the envelope and had counted the same and at that time, had placed the envelope on the table. The witness has admitted that if he did not depose as per the panchnama, he would have a problem in the department.
10.2 PW3 - Usmangani Mohammedbhai Chopra examined at Exh. 20 is the Trap Laying Officer who has narrated the entire procedure undertaken by him on 12.05.2000 when the complainant came to the ACB Office and the procedure undertaken by him for the trap until the trap was successful. In the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had drawn a panchnama of the house of the accused and before removing the currency notes from the envelope, the envelope was not tested under the ultraviolet lamp. The place where the envelope was lying on the table was also not tested in the ultraviolet lamp and the envelope was first taken by ASI Chudasma. Immediately thereafter, the witness has stated that the envelope was tested but no traces of anthracene Page 20 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined powder was found on the envelope and similarly no traces of anthracene powder was found on the table but these facts are not mentioned in the panchnama produced at Exh.15. 10.3 PW4 - Prathvibhai Rumalbhai Parmar examined at Exh. 32 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 the panchnama produced at Exh.15 does not mention the place from where the black rexine purse was seized, from whose possession it was seized, whether it was empty or filled with something and whether any test of anthracene powder was done on the same. The panchnama does not mention who had searched the accused and who had taken the tainted currency notes and whether those currency notes were tested for the traces of anthracene powder.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational facts of demand and conscious acceptance of illegal gratification, which are sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The material Page 21 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined contradictions in the testimony of the complainant regarding the quantum of demand, absence of particulars of prior demand, the admitted possibility of the complainant himself placing the tainted currency notes in the envelope without the knowledge of the accused, coupled with the complete lack of scientific corroboration inasmuch as no anthracene powder traces were found either on the envelope or on the hands of the accused, render the prosecution case wholly unreliable. In terms of the law laid down in Neeraj Dutta (Supra), mere recovery of tainted currency or suspicion cannot substitute the proof of demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt and in the absence of proof of demand, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not arise. Further, while considering an appeal against acquittal, the scope of interference is well-settled. As held in P. Somaraju (Supra), if two views are reasonably possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court, unless the same is perverse or manifestly illegal. In the present case, the view taken by the learned Trial Court is not only a possible view but a plausible and well-reasoned one based on proper appreciation of evidence. Accordingly, this Page 22 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1382/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined Court finds no infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court. The appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned 2nd Fast Track Judge, Junagadh in Special (ACB) Case No. 10/2000 on 29.01.2008, is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) ROHAN SONI Page 23 of 23 Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Thu Apr 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 03 21:57:47 IST 2026