Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Pravinchandra Tribhovanbhai Jethva on 16 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2611 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PRAVINCHANDRA TRIBHOVANBHAI JETHVA & ANR.
========================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR P B KHANDHERIA(5228) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 16/03/2026
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 Special Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Amreli (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Special Case No.101 of 2001 on 22.07.2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents - original accused from the offences Page 1 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 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 respondents hereinafter are referred to as 'the accused' as they stood in the rank and file 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 the accused no.1 was serving as the Talati-cum-
Mantri of village Gadhadaka, Savarkundla Taluka, District Amreli, while the accused no.2 was working as a Class-IV employee in the Gadhadaka Gram Panchayat. Both were, therefore, public servants within the meaning of the P.C. Act. Kalubhai Harsurbahi Jebaliya, the father of the complainant, owned about 45 vighas of agricultural land situated on the outskirts of village Gadhadaka. Upon family arrangement, 9 vighas each came to the share of the complainant Bhimbhai Harsurbhai, his elder brother Saabbhai and his younger brother Ramkubhai. For the purpose of separating the revenue accounts Page 2 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined of the said lands, the complainant had submitted an application approximately 25 days prior to 20.04.1999. About five days thereafter, the accused no.1 prepared the relevant revenue books and delivered them at the residence of the complainant's elder brother. At that time, the accused no.1 demanded an amount of Rs.750/-, being Rs.250/- for each of the three separate accounts. On the following day, the accused no.1 again met the complainant and reiterated the demand for Rs.750/-. The complainant expressed his inability to pay immediately and stated that he would arrange the money and pay it in a few days. Approximately four days prior to 24.04.1999, the accused no.2 met the complainant in the market and informed him that the accused no.1 had called him to the Panchayat office. Thereafter, on 17.04.1999, when the complainant went to the Gram Panchayat Office to obtain a copy of Village Form no.7/12, the accused no.1 provided the copy but once again demanded the amount of Rs.750/-. Since the complainant did not have the money at that time, he informed the accused no.1 that he would make the payment within a few days. In the meantime, the complainant had to pay Rs.1,500/- towards outstanding Page 3 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined government dues pertaining to his father's land, which amount he arranged with the help of his brothers and deposited accordingly, obtaining a receipt. As the complainant did not wish to pay illegal gratification, he approached the ACB Police Station, Amreli on 20.04.1999, where his complaint came to be recorded.
2.2 The Trap Laying Officer called two panch witnesses. The complainant produced one currency note of Rs.500/-, two currency notes of Rs.100/- each, and one currency note of Rs.50/-, totalling Rs.750/-. Head Constable D.S.Babariya explained the characteristics of anthracene powder and the use of an ultraviolet lamp to the complainant and the panch witnesses and a demonstration was conducted. The currency notes were then smeared with anthracene powder and placed in the left pocket of the complainant's shirt. Necessary instructions were given to all concerned, and panchnama part-I was prepared and signed by the witnesses. As per the plan, the complainant, PW-1 and members of the raiding party proceeded in a government vehicle bearing registration no. GJ- 1-G-1864 via Amreli Bypass - Savarkundla to Pithvadi - Page 4 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined Ganeshgadh and reached village Gadhadaka. The complainant and PW-1 alighted from the vehicle and proceeded towards the Gram Panchayat Office, while PW-2 and the remaining members of the raiding party followed at a distance. Upon reaching the office, the complainant informed the accused no.1 that he had brought the amount of Rs.750/-, which had earlier been demanded at the rate of Rs.250/- per account. At that time, the accused no.1 got up from his chair and went towards the porch, followed by the accused no.2. the accused no.1 instructed the accused no.2 to accept the money and directed the complainant to hand over the amount to him. Accordingly, the complainant took the tainted currency notes from his left pocket with his right hand and handed them over to the accused no.2, who accepted the amount with his left hand and kept it in his left shirt pocket. Thereafter, the accused no.1 returned to the office and sat on his chair. The complainant then gave the pre- determined signal, whereupon, the members of the raiding party immediately entered the office and apprehended both the accused. Upon examination under ultraviolet light, traces of anthracene powder were found on the left hand and shirt pocket Page 5 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined of the accused no.2. Necessary procedures were carried out, and Panchnama Part-II was drawn. Consequently, the offence was registered at ACB Police Station, Amreli C.R.No.7 of 1999. 2.3. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, the chargesheet came to be filed before the Sessions Court, Amreli and the same was registered as Special Case No.101 of 2001. 2.4. The accused were duly served with the summons and both 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.5 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh.6 and Exh.7 respectively, wherein, both the accused denied the allegations made in the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and produced 13 documentary evidences to prove the charge against them. The learned APP filed a closing pursis at Exh.61 and the further Page 6 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence against them and stated that a false case has been filed against them. Both the accused refused to step into the witness box and deposed on oath but the accused has examined 1 witness and produced 2 documentary evidence. 2.5. After the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for both 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 impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant-State has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to the evidence on record. The learned Trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The impugned judgment has been passed without properly appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence available on record of the case which fully support the Page 7 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined case of the prosecution and hence, the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error apparent on the record of the case. The learned Trial Court has not considered various decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court and has not properly appreciated the ratio laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court and whether the same are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is perverse and suffers from legal as well as factual error apparent on the record of the case and therefore, the impugned judgment and order may be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Aditya Jadeja for the appellant - State and learned advocate Mr.P.B.Khandheria for the respondent no.1 - original accused no.1. Though served, the respondent no.2 - original accused no.2 has not appeared either in person or through an advocate. Perused the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal and re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
Page 8 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined
5. Learned APP Mr.Aditya Jadeja for the appellant - State has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record and has vehemently argued that the Learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the respondents by not properly appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. It is contended that the evidence of the complainant PW-1 Bhimbhai Kalubhai, the panch witnesses and the Trap Laying Officer, along with the documentary evidence such as FIR, seizure memo, raid panchnama and other relevant documents produced at the respective exhibits, clearly establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.750/-. Learned APP further submitted that the prosecution has proved that respondent No.1, who was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri, demanded the bribe amount and respondent No.2, a peon, accepted the said amount on his behalf and was caught red- handed during the trap proceedings in the presence of panch witnesses, and the anthracene powder marks were also found on his hands and clothes and the currency notes recovered matched the numbers mentioned in the panchnama. It is further Page 9 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined argued that the learned Trial Court failed to draw the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act despite sufficient material on record and also failed to properly appreciate the consistent and corroborative evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which fully proved the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery. According to the learned APP, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is perverse, contrary to the evidence on record and suffers from legal and factual errors apparent on the face of the record; therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court.
6. Learned advocate Mr.P.B.Khandheria for the respondent no.1 - original accused no.1 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.
Page 10 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined
7. 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 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.Page 11 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined (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.
(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 Page 12 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 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."
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 Page 13 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 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 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) Page 14 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined (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 Page 15 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 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, 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. Upon a careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, it emerges that the prosecution has examined 09 witnesses in support of its case. PW-1 Bhimabhai Page 16 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined Kalubhai Jebaliya, the complainant, is examined at Exh.21 who has narrated the facts stated in the complaint produced at Exh.22. He has deposed that the tainted currency notes were kept by him in his left pocket after they were smeared with anthracene powder and that he had handed over the same to the accused no.2 under the instructions of the accused no.1. However, in his cross-examination, several material facts have emerged which cast serious doubt on the prosecution case. The complainant has admitted that the accounts had already been separated about fifteen days prior to the trap, thereby, weakening the alleged motive for illegal gratification. He has further admitted that he did not know whether any government dues were outstanding in respect of his land. The complainant has also admitted that he had obtained the contact number of the Trap Laying Officer from one Jitubhai Darbar, a Taluka Panchayat member, who allegedly had disputes with the accused no.1 and that the said person had accompanied him to the Court on several occasions.
10.1 PW-2 Parshottambhai Nathabhai Poriya is examined at Exh.23 who has proved the panchnama produced at Exh.25. Page 17 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was standing outside the office in such a manner that he could neither see what was happening inside the office nor hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused. He further admitted that he did not accompany the complainant inside the office. Thus, the testimony of this witness does not support the prosecution case regarding the demand or acceptance of illegal gratification.
10.2. PW-3 Vijaykumar Tuljaram Navle is the Trap Laying Officer examined at Exh.16. The witness has narrated the procedure followed in arranging and executing the trap. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that although a telephone message register was maintained in the office, the complainant's telephone call was not recorded. He also admitted that no inquiry was made regarding the outstanding government dues of the complainant, though the complainant had stated that none were outstanding and the officer simply accepted the statement without verification. Page 18 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 10.3. PW-4 Bhikhubha Balubha Jadeja is the Investigating Officer examined at Exh.35, who filed the charge-sheet after receiving the order of sanction for prosecution, has admitted in cross-examination that the complainant had not stated in his statement that the accused no.1 had demanded Rs.250/- per account.
10.4. PW-5 Bharatdan Ambadan Dangavadar is the shadow panch witness examined at Exh.39. This witness has stated that the complainant told the accused no.1 that he had brought Rs.750/- as earlier discussed and that the accused no.1 asked the accused no.2 to accept the amount. However, in cross- examination, the witness has admitted several significant facts. He has stated that employees of the Electricity Board and other villagers were present in the Panchayat Office at the time of the incident, and that the accused no.1 was busy assisting them by referring to the registers. Importantly, the witness has further admitted that the accused no.1 had told the complainant that a receipt for Rs.750/- would be issued and that the complainant himself insisted that the amount be accepted immediately and the receipt be given later. The witness has also admitted that Page 19 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined there was no conversation between the complainant and the accused no.2 regarding any illegal gratification, either before or after the amount was handed over.
10.5. PW-6 Vinodbhai Bachubhai is an employee of the Electricity Board examined at Exh.41, who has stated that when he had gone to the Gram Panchayat Office for official work, the villagers were present for payment of their dues and the Talati was seated in the adjoining room, and only later did they learn about the trap.
10.6. PW7 Pankaj Jayendraprasad Vyas examined at Exh.50 is the Competent Authority, who has granted sanction for prosecution, has admitted in cross-examination that there was an error in the name of the accused no.2 in the sanction order. 10.7. PW-8 Ujiben Keshavbhai examined Exh.57 is the Sarpanch, who had accorded sanction for prosecution of the accused no.2, has clearly admitted in cross-examination that she is illiterate and does not know the contents of the document on which she affixed her thumb impression and that she had done so merely because she was asked to do so.
Page 20 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 10.8. PW-9 Prahladrai Bhaishankarbhai Desai examined at Exh.59 has stated that the sanction order for prosecution of the accused no.2 was prepared by him after reading the letter received from the Trap Laying Officer. However in cross- examination, he has admitted that no supporting documents were supplied along with the request for sanction and that the Trap Laying Officer had guided them in drafting the sanction order.
11. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , wherein the accused denied the allegations and stated that they had been falsely implicated. The accused did not enter the witness box, however the accused no.1 examined Atulkumar Nanalal Dave, Talati- cum-Mantri of the Gram Panchayat at Exh.63 as a defence witness. The witness produced a notice dated 21.03.1999 at Exh.64 issued to the complainant by the accused no.1 regarding outstanding government dues of Rs.1900/- and a certificate showing that Rs.2620/- was outstanding towards water tax and land revenue.
Page 21 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined
12. From the above evidence, it clearly emerges that government dues were in fact outstanding against the complainant and that the complainant had been issued a notice demanding payment of such dues. Even the evidence of the shadow panch witness indicates that the accused no.1 had stated that a receipt would be issued for the amount of Rs.750/-, which supports the defence version that the amount was towards legitimate dues rather than illegal gratification. In a prosecution under the P.C.Act, proof of demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for conviction. In the present case, the evidence on record does not satisfactorily establish either prior demand or demand at the time of the trap. The complainant's testimony suffers from material contradictions and is not corroborated by the independent witnesses. The second panch witness has not supported the prosecution on the aspect of demand and the shadow witness's testimony itself indicates that the amount was to be receipted. Furthermore, the evidence on record indicates that the complainant insisted on handing over the amount despite the accused stating that the receipt would be issued later. This circumstance probabilises the defence version that Page 22 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined the amount related to legitimate dues. It is well settled that in a prosecution under the P.C.Act, the demand for illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence, and mere recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused is not sufficient to bring home the charge unless the prosecution proves the foundational fact of demand. The Supreme Court of India in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55 has categorically held that proof of demand of illegal gratification is indispensable and in the absence of such proof, even recovery of currency notes cannot sustain a conviction. Similarly, in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152, it has been reiterated that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand will not establish an offence under the P.C.Act. In the present case, the testimony of the complainant itself suffers from serious infirmities. In his cross- examination, the complainant has admitted that the accounts had already been separated about fifteen days prior to the trap, thereby diminishing the very basis of the alleged illegal demand. He has further admitted that he was unaware of Page 23 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined whether government dues were outstanding in respect of his land, though the defence has successfully produced documentary evidence showing that substantial government dues were in fact outstanding against the complainant. The defence witness, examined at Exh.63, has produced the notice issued to the complainant demanding payment of Rs.1900/- towards outstanding dues, and the record further indicates that Rs.2620/- was outstanding towards land revenue and water tax. This evidence lends considerable probability to the defence version that the amount allegedly paid during the trap was towards legitimate government dues. The testimony of the shadow panch witness further weakens the prosecution case. The witness has stated that the accused no.1 had indicated that a receipt for Rs.750/- would be issued, and that the complainant himself insisted that the amount be accepted immediately and the receipt be given later. This circumstance significantly undermines the allegation that the amount represented illegal gratification. Equally significant is the fact that the second panch witness has admitted that he neither heard the conversation nor witnessed the alleged transaction, thereby depriving the Page 24 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined prosecution of independent corroboration regarding the crucial element of demand. Even otherwise, the evidence of the shadow witness clearly establishes that the accused no.2 had no conversation whatsoever with the complainant regarding any demand of money, either before or after the alleged acceptance. Thus, the essential element of demand by the accused no.2 is completely absent. It is also pertinent to note that the evidence on record indicates that several persons, including Electricity Board officials and villagers, were present in the Gram Panchayat office at the relevant time, and the accused no.1 was engaged in official work relating to the registers. This circumstance makes the prosecution version of a clandestine demand and acceptance of illegal gratification less probable. Apart from these deficiencies, the evidence regarding sanction for prosecution also appears doubtful. The Sarpanch who purportedly granted sanction has admitted that she is illiterate and unaware of the contents of the document on which she affixed her thumb impression, and the witness who prepared the sanction order has admitted that no supporting documents were placed before the authority and that the Trap Page 25 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined Laying Officer guided the drafting of the sanction order. Such circumstances further weaken the prosecution case. Before parting, it is necessary to reiterate that the prosecution in a case under the P.C.Act must establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the foundational facts of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification. In the present case, the evidence on record does not inspire confidence regarding the alleged demand either prior to the trap or at the time of the trap. The testimony of the complainant is not corroborated by independent evidence, the second panch witness has admittedly neither heard the conversation nor witnessed the transaction, and the evidence of the shadow witness itself suggests that the amount was to be receipted. Furthermore, the record indicates that government dues were outstanding against the complainant, thereby lending credence to the defence version that the amount was towards legitimate dues. In view of these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the foundational facts required for raising the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the P.C.Act as observed by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Neeraj Dutta (Supra) and once the demand itself is not Page 26 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined proved, the recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused no.2 cannot, by itself, sustain the conviction. Moreover, this Court is exercising appellate jurisdiction against an order of acquittal. The view taken by the learned Trial Court is a reasonable and possible view based on the evidence on record. It is a settled principle that unless the findings of the Trial Court are shown to be perverse or wholly unreasonable, the Appellate Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal, as reiterated by the Supreme Court of India in Surendra Singh (Supra). In the present case, far from being perverse, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are fully borne out by the evidence on record. Interference with the judgment of acquittal would therefore be wholly unwarranted. Thus, when the evidence on record is considered as a whole, the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational fact of demand of illegal gratification, which is a sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act.
12. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Amreli in Special Page 27 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2611/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined Case No.101 of 2001 on 22.07.2008 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 28 of 28 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:59:58 IST 2026