Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vivek Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208
1 CRA-9915-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9915 of 2018
VIVEK SAHU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Jasneet Singh Hora - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sanjay Sarwate - Advocate for the respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 12.12.2025
Delivered on : 18.12.2025
JUDGMENT
(18/12/2025) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (Lokayukta), Jabalpur in Special Case No.03/2016 convicting the present appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') and by virtue of Section 71 of the IPC sentencing him under Section 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act to suffer R.I. for four years and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default, further R.I. for one month, this appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. In brief the case of prosecution is that Devi Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') submitted a written complaint (Ex.P/4) dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 2 CRA-9915-2018 03.07.2015 before the local office at Jabalpur of Special Police Establishment, Bhopal stating therein that an arrest warrant was issued against him by the Court of Shri Santosh Kol, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in a matter relating to cheque bounce and he was released on bail in the said matter from that court but the present appellant, who at the relevant point of time was posted at Police Station Shahpura Bhitoni, under the threat of handcuff and arrest was harassing him in the name of compliance of said arrest warrant. The accused/appellant was not having any regard to the bail order passed by the Court. The accused/appellant had taken Rs.3000/- and was demanding Rs.2000/- more as illegal gratification. On the aforesaid complaint, the then Superintendent of Police directed the Inspector Rajeev Gupta (PW-7) to take necessary action. Thereafter, the complainant carrying a Digital Voice Recorder along with one Jahar Singh (a shadow witness) was sent to the accused/appellant. The complainant informed to Rajeev Gupta (PW-7) that he had recorded the conversation with the accused regarding demand of bribe. Later on, on the same day i.e. 03.07.2015, complainant along with Jahar Singh appeared in the office of Lokayukta, Jabalpur and submitted a second complaint dated 03.07.2015 (Ex.P/8) before the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur. As per the directions, panch witnesses, namely, Khemraj Shyam (PW-4) and Suraj Narayan Pandey (PW-6) appeared in the Lokayukta office at Jabalapur. The complainant was read aloud the contents of complaints (Ex.P/4 and P/8) by both the panch witnesses. On the basis of conversation recorded between accused and complainant in the Digital Voice Recorder, a transcript (Ex.P/7) Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 3 CRA-9915-2018 was prepared. Rajeev Gupta (PW-7) has registered an offence at Crime No.0/15 dated 03.07.2015 against the present appellant, copy of which is Ex.P/34. Original Crime No.284/2015 has been registered on the basis of Ex.P/34, which is Ex.P/36.
3. Three C.Ds. have been prepared by the Digital Voice Recorder and the seizure memo of which has been prepared as Ex.P/28 and the envelop of C.D. is Article-A and in respect of which Certificate of Section 65B of the Evidence Act is Ex.P/35. Thereafter, complainant Devi Singh presented four currency notes having denomination of Rs.500/- each and the serial numbers thereof were noted down on a separate paper (Ex.P/19) by panch witness Suraj Narayan Pandey (PW-6). These currency notes were treated with Phenolphthalein Powder. The treated currency notes were kept in the left pocket of the paint of complainant and he was directed not to come in contact with these treated currency notes unless accused makes demand of illegal gratification, so also he has not to shake hand with accused and while handing over these notes, he has to take care as to where these notes are being kept by accused and thereafter he has to give signal to the trap party by patting hand over the head. A pre-demonstration of change of colour of the aqueous solution of sodium carbonate was conducted in the office of Lokayukta. As per the panchnama (Ex.P/9), a Digital Voice Recorder was also handed over to the complainant in order to record the conversation with the accused at the time of alleged demand and handing over money to accused. The hands of panch witnesses, members of trap party and the complainant were again got washed in the aqueous solution of Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 4 CRA-9915-2018 sodium carbonate, the colour of which remained unchanged and the same was disposed of. A Digital Voice Recorder again has been handed over to the complainant and necessary directions have been given to him. Again the hands of the panch witnesses and trap party were got washed in aqueous solution of sodium carbonate but the colour of which remained unchanged. The Initial Panchnama was prepared as Ex.P/10.
4. It is the further case of prosecution that the trap party proceeded to place of incident i.e. Police Station Shahpura, District Jabalpur (M.P.) and parked their vehicles on the main road. The members of the trap party hiding their presence surrounded the building of Police Station Shahpura. After half an hour, accused came out of the building of Police Station - Shahpura and after reaching at Ambe Pan Bhandar gave a signal to complaint to reach at that place. After receiving the signal of accused, complainant immediately reached near Ambe Pan Bhandar. Inspector Manoj Gupta (PW-8) while sitting at the barber shop besides Ambe Pan Bhandar was keeping a watch on the transaction of alleged amount between the accused and complainant. The accused/appellant kept the tainted currency notes in the left pocket of his uniform paint and moved towards the police station. On receiving the signal, when the members of the trap party surrounded the accused, he started running from there but he was caught by Constables Jahar Singh and Biharilal Tiwari. Since the place of trap was full of traffic and crowd, therefore the accused was taken to the Building of Police Station, Shahpura for completing further formalities. When both the hands of accused were got washed in the aqueous solution of sodium carbonate, it turned pink. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 5 CRA-9915-2018 tainted hand wash of appellant was kept in a separate sealed bottle (Article A/6). The tainted currency notes were taken out from the left pocket of paint of accused by panch witness Suraj Narain. When the corner portion of currency notes were dipped in the aqueous solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of which turned to pink.
5. Necessary memos have been prepared in respect of entire proceedings and by way of seizure memo Ex.P/23, a register of warrant of arrest of Police Station, Shahpura has been seized, copy of which is Ex.P/30. The left pocket of uniform paint of accused was also got washed in the aqueous solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of which turned to pink and seizure memo Ex.P/20 has been prepared. After completion of entire proceedings, a spot map (Ex.P/22) has been prepared. Accused has been arrested and memorandum (Ex.P/21) has been prepared. As per memorandum (Ex.P/12) the complainant has returned DVR given to him second time. The DVR could not be activated by the complainant at the time when the said currency notes were being handed over to the accused. Further the search of house of accused was conducted as per memo (Ex.P/25) but nothing objectionable has been seized. As per Ex.P/27, the accused has denied to give his voice sample. Thereafter the final memorandum has been prepared as Ex.P/13.
6. The various solutions prepared and sealed by Rajeev Gupta (PW-
7) have been sent for examination by FSL, Sagar. A draft of which is Ex.P/38, acknowledgement is Ex.P/39 and positive report of FSL is Ex.P/40 in respect of Article A/6, A/7 and A/10. Thereafter Nilesh Dohare (PW-9) Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 6 CRA-9915-2018 has conducted investigation and recorded police statement of witnesses. Service record of the accused has been seized. The prosecution sanction has also been obtained from the State Government, Home Department as Ex.P/3 and charge sheet has been filed on 10.02.2016 by Nilesh Dohare (PW-9).
7. After the investigation was over a charge sheet was submitted before the learned Special Judge, who framed charges punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act against the appellant, which he denied and claimed to be tried.
8. The defence of the appellant which he set forth in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is that the arrest warrant relating to the complainant was not given to him for its service. The arrest warrant relating to the complainant did not receive at his police station from the court of Shri Santosh Kumar Kol. A campaign was underway to execute the perpetual arrest warrant during the Holi festival. The complainant was arrested and brought to Shahpura police station on the basis of the warrant. Following the proceedings, on the orders of senior officers, the complainant was produced in court by Head Constable Anarilal Daheria (DW-1). A jail warrant was obtained from there and the complainant Devi Singh Rajput, was taken to Patan sub-jail. Devi Singh had said, "You are doing wrong. I am a Rajput, I will see you. You have arrested me and imprisoned me on the occasion of Holi. I will see you when the time comes." He harbored a grudge against him and threatened to take revenge. He never demanded a bribe from the complainant, nor did he receive the same. The complainant tried to Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 7 CRA-9915-2018 forcibly place something in his pocket at Ambe paan shop. Then he realized that it was the said currency, hence he took it out of his pocket and threw it on the ground and scolded Devi Singh. During that time, four or five people caught hold him and took him to Shahpura police station. Two hours later, while exerting pressure on him, the Lokayukta officer made him to execute a lot of documents. He signed the documents under pressure. He is completely innocent. The complainant has falsely implicated him due to enmity in connivance with the Lokayukta police.
9. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges has examined as many as 09 witnesses, which are ASI Sunita Tiwari (PW-1), Vikash Sawankar (PW-2), complainant Devi Singh Rajpoot (PW-3), Khemraj Shyam (PW-4), SI Ashok Kumar Garg (PW-5), Inspector Suraj Narayan Pandey (PW-6), Inspector Rajeev Gupta (PW-7), Inspector Manoj Gupta (PW-8) and Inspector Nilesh Dohare (PW-9) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/44 and Ex.D/1 to D-5 the documents on record. Anarilal Dehariya (DW-1) and Manish Kumar Kewat (DW-2) were examined in defence by the accused/appellant.
10. The learned Special Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that appellant did commit the offence for which he was charged and eventually convicted and passed the sentence, which have already been mentioned herein above.
11 . In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 8 CRA-9915-2018
12. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the present appellant is that the present appellant has been implicated falsely in this case. There is no motive for making demand and accepting illegal gratification from the complainant because neither copy of the warrant issued from the court of Shri Santosh Kumar Kol has been produced in this case nor there is any entry or cancellation in the Register (Ex.P/30). There is only entry of original warrant issued from the court of Shri Nisar Ahmad in the Register (Ex.P/30) which was handed over to HC 1901 for its service. There is no document to show that the warrant issued either by Shri Nisar Ahmad or Shri Santosh Kumar Kol, the Presiding Officers of the Court, was ever assigned for its service to the present appellant. There is no entry in Rojnamcha that the assistance of present appellant was ever sought for the execution/service of warrant issued against the complainant. The warrant issued against the complainant shown at Sr. No.45 of the Register (Ex.P/30) had already been executed on 25.03.2015 and thus there was no work pending for execution of the said warrant in the police station Shahpura.
13. The further contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the demand and acceptance are also not proved from the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. Complainant Devi Singh (PW-3) has turned hostile and he did not support the story of prosecution. Complainant Devi Singh (PW-3) has stated that Rupesh Patel has demanded money from him but he has not been made an accused by the prosecution agency, for which no reason has been assigned. No conversation in between the accused and complainant in respect of demand and acceptance has been recorded.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 9 CRA-9915-2018 Whatever conversation recorded in the Digital Voice Recorder (DVR) and the transcript thereof have not been found admissible in evidence by the learned Trial Court. The complainant Devi Singh (PW-3) and other witnesses have not recognized the voice of present appellant in the DVR. Though the present appellant has denied to give his voice sample but the prosecution has not made any request to the court concerned for taking the voice sample of the present appellant. The panch witnesses have admitted the disturbance in conversation in DVR. Moreover, Rajeev Gupta (PW-7) has not stated in FIR that when and where such conversation was recorded. DVR has not been seized and kept in safe custody. Recorded conversation has also not been matched with the transcript (Ex.P/7) and the voice recorded therein has not been scientifically tested with the voice of present appellant.
14. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that keeping in view the statement of complainant himself as well as the fact revealed from the statements of panch witnesses and Rajeev Gupta (PW-7), it is clear that the present appellant has been implicated falsely in the alleged trap on the spot. It is submitted that the complainant, due to a pre-existing animosity with the present appellant, forcibly attempted to place currency notes into the appellant's pant pocket. The appellant denied this attempt and threw the notes onto the ground. At that moment, the trap party arrived and falsely implicated the appellant in the present case. At that time, the trap party reached there and implicated him falsely in this case. Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to examine any independent witnesses. In absence of any proven demand, on the basis of alleged seizure of current notes from Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 10 CRA-9915-2018 the possession of present appellant, no case is made out against the appellant. In view of above, it is prayed that in the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside and the appeal be allowed, in the interest of justice.
15. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Lokayukta has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that the motive as well as demand and acceptance have been categorically proved by the prosecution on the anvil of oral and documentary evidence adduced by it. The entry in column 13 of Exhibit P/30 clearly demonstrates that the Shahpura Police Station received information regarding the cancellation of an arrest warrant for the complainant on July 3, 2015, which confirms that a warrant against the complainant had indeed been issued. The evidence on record further establishes that the appellant had harassed and threatened the complainant with arrest and handcuffing in connection with this warrant. The present appellant has offered no explanation for the established facts during his chief examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, nor he rebutted it. In cross- examination of the witnesses, no fact emerged from the evidence which supports the contentions of the defence. The complaints, marked as Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/8, were prepared by the complainant himself and bear his signatures. The complainant has admitted these complaints in his own handwriting, and bear his signatures. These complaints were read aloud by the panch witnesses to the complainant thereby reinforcing the appellant's Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 11 CRA-9915-2018 demand.
16. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the trap proceedings have also been elaborately explained by Investigating Officer Rajeev Gupta (PW-7) and his statement has been supported by the panch witnesses and member of trap party Manoj Gupta (PW-8) in its entirety, which establishes that the present appellant has accepted the illegal gratification and after taking money he moved towards police station. It is also established that the appellant on seeing the trap party started running, then members of the trap party caught him and since there was heavy traffic and crowd therefore he was taken to the police station Shahpura which was situated in the vicinity. The phenolphthalein test was also found to be positive when the hands of the present appellant were dipped and washed in the aqueous solution of sodium carbonate. There is no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned Trial Court with regard to conviction of the present appellant as well as the sentence which is also appropriate.
17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record meticulously.
18. It is not in dispute that the present appellant was posted as Constable in Police Station, Shahpura Bhitoni, District Jabalpur on the date of offence i.e. 03.07.2015 and prior to it. The arrest of the present appellant in this case is also not in dispute. It is admitted in this case that an arrest warrant was issued against the complainant in Criminal Complaint Case Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 12 CRA-9915-2018 No.11317/07 (Shrichand Vs Devi Singh) from the Court of JMFC (Shir Nisar Ahmad), Jabalpur and that was forwarded to the Police Station Shahpura for its execution/service. In this case the sanction to prosecute the appellant has been accorded by the Home Department of State Government vide order dated 20.01.2016 (Annexure P/3) which is not challenged. It is also not in dispute that the accused has refused to give his voice sample vide voice sample panchnama (Ex.P/27) dated 03.07.2015, .
19. At the outset, learned counsel for the the present appellant has raised the question about the absence of motive on the part of present appellant for demanding illegal gratification from complainant. Devi Singh (PW-3) has stated that in a matter relating to NI Act, the court had issued an arrest warrant against him and even after obtaining the bail, Rupesh Patel and Vivek Sahu have threatened him to rearrest and handcuff. In this regard, complaints dated 03.07.2015 (Ex.P/4) and thereafter (Ex.P/8) have been submitted by him. He categorically stated in his statement that these two documents, which were read aloud to him, bear his signatures and he accepted the same to be true. The fact that the present appellant was harassing or threatening the complainant under the garb of arrest warrant issued against him, is also supported by the statements of Khemraj (PW-4) and Suraj Narayan (PW-6), who are the Panch witnesses in this case and who have read aloud the complaints (Ex.P/4 & Ex.P/8) to the complainant. These two witnesses have stated categorically that the complainant has admitted truthfulness of the complaints. Rajeev Gupta (PW-7) who led the trap party, has also supported this fact.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 13 CRA-9915-2018
20. Ashok Kumar (PW-5) who at the relevant time was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Shahpura, deposed that when the summons/warrants issued from the court are received at the Police Station, the Beat In-charge is directed by the SHO to get those summons/warrants executed/served in the event of cancellation of warrant, the entry of cancellation order is made by the Helper in the concerned Register and the original warrant is returned to the court. Though this witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution but he denied the suggestion given by it that the present appellant under the garb of arrest warrant issued against complainant has demanded Rs.2000/- from him as illegal gratification. This witness in his cross-examination has deposed that Ex.P/30 is the warrant register wherein it is mentioned that the warrant issued against the complainant was handed over to Head Constable 1901 for its service/execution but he categorically admitted that for the service/execution of warrants the assistance or help of the posted Constables is also taken.
21. The complainant Devi Singh (PW-3) in his cross-examination has admitted that a warrant was issued from the Court of Shri Nisar Ahmad and in pursuance of that warrant he was sent to jail by the present appellant. Two cases were registered against him in Police Station Shahpura. The statement of complainant also shows earlier warrant against him was executed/served by the present appellant Vivek Sahu and, therefore, the fact revealed from the statement of Ashok Kumar (PW-5) that the assistance/help of Constables is also taken while service/execution of warrants, is found to Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 14 CRA-9915-2018 be believable.
22. Though, it is submitted on behalf of the present appellant that as per the prosecution story a warrant was issued from the Court of Shri Santosh Kumar Kol and threat was given under the garb of it but no such warrant was issued from the court of Shri Santosh Kumar Kol. Ex.P/30 is the warrant register which contains an entry that in Criminal Case No.11317/07 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a warrant has been issued against complainant Devi Singh from the Court of Shri Nisar Ahmad and that has been assigned to Head Constable 1901 for its service and that has been served on 25.03.2015. This register did not contain any entry of any warrant issued from the Court of Shri Santosh Kumar Kol, therefore no question of execution of such warrant issued from the court of Shri Santosh Kumar Kol arises.
23. Considering the aforesaid submissions, a scrupulous scrutiny of the record shows that Ex.P/30 contains an entry of warrant issued from the court of Shri Nisar Ahmad but at column No.13 it is also mentioned that the cancellation of warrant has been received on 03.07.2015 and such entry has been signed by the concerned Police Officer. Moreover, the complainant himself has submitted the cancellation letter (ExP/32) of that warrant with the initial complaint (Ex.P/4), which transpires that a letter has been issued from the court of Shri Santosh Kumar Kol to recall arrest warrant issued against the complainant unserved. This letter has been issued to Police Station Incharge Shahpura on 30.06.2015. The criminal case number Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 15 CRA-9915-2018 mentioned in this cancellation letter is similar to that of criminal case number which is mentioned in Ex.P/30. These two documents go to show that earlier the warrant was issued in this case from the court of Shri Nisar Ahmad and that had been served on 25.03.2015. Thereafter, again a warrant would have been issued from the concerned court in the same criminal case and at the time of issuing cancellation of that warrant, the Presiding Officer might have been changed and Shri Santosh Kumar Kol would have taken over the charge of that Court or the criminal case would have been transferred to the court of Shri Santosh Kumar Kol. From the perusal of the evidence, though a lapse on the part of prosecution is revealed to the extent that the original warrant in respect of which the cancellation has been issued as Ex.P/32, has not been adduced in evidence before the Court, but keeping in view the evidence in this regard as well as the letter of cancellation (Ex.P/32), such lapse on the part of the prosecution does not dent to the prosecution case and it cannot per se belies the story of prosecution.
24. Rajeev Gupta (PW-7) in para 28 has admitted that Ex.P/30 does not contain any entry of warrant issued from the court of Shri Santosh Kumar Kol but he clarifies that a warrant had been issued twice against complainant Devi Singh and both the times he had obtained bail from the court concerned. The second warrant was issued from the court of Shri Santosh Kol. He further deposes that for the service of warrant, a Rojnamcha entry is made and Ex.P/30 does not contain any entry to the extent that the warrant issued against the complainant was given to the present appellant for its execution/service. In this regard the statement of defence witness is also Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 16 CRA-9915-2018 relevant. Anari Dehariya (DW-1) was posted at the relevant time as Head Constable in Police Station Shahpura. He stated in his deposition that whenever a police officer or employee is assigned any duty, the entry thereof is made in the Rojnamcha Sanha. As per Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.D/2) he along with the present appellant had taken the accused to Patan Court and thereafter to Patan Jail. Similarly the proceedings have been shown in Rojnamcha (Ex.D/3). It is also stated by this witness in para 3 that while admitting in jail, the complainant Devi Singh told that he would see them as they are admitting him in jail on the occasion of festival. However such alleged threat given by the complainant does not find place in Ex.D/4 and D/5. Had there been any such threat given by the complainant, as per the statement of this witness, the entry to that effect ought to have been mentioned in Ex.D/4 & D/5.
25. This witness Anari Dehariya (DW-1) has also admitted in his cross-examination that usually when a warrant is received in the Police Station, every officer/employee of the Police Station extends his help in its execution/service. The admission made by this witness in his ross- examination also fortifies the fact revealed from the statements of prosecution witnesses that help of every officer/employee/Constable is sought for execution of warrant received at Police Station. The present accused/appellant has also submitted a document dated 07.05.2016 (Ex.D/5) whereby the information has been given by Police Station Shahpura, Jabalpur in response to the application filed under RTI Act and it has been informed by this letter that no warrant has been received from the court of Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 17 CRA-9915-2018 Shri Santosh Kumar Kol in Case No.11317/07 and that for the service/execution of warrant issued from the court of Shri Nisar Ahmad, duty of Constable 372 has not been fixed. However, this document is also of no help to the accused asinmuch as discussed earlier that in Criminal Case No.11317/07 a perpetual warrant of arrest was issued from the court of Shri Nisar Ahmad, which was served on 25.03.2015 but since there is a cancellation received on 03.07.2015, which was issued from the court of Shri Santosh Kumar Kol on 30.06.2015 in the same criminal case against the complainant, therefore, a warrant must have been issued against the complainant after the service of earlier warrant in the same criminal case. Had there been no arrest warrant issued against complainant Devi Singh subsequently, no cancellation of warrant could have been issued as per Ex.P/32.
26. The act of present appellant as revealed from the statement of complainant and other witnesses of the prosecution that the complainant was threatened and harassed by the appellant under the garb of arrest warrant issued against him is squarely covered under the provisions of Section 7 (b) and explanation Section (d) of Section 7 of the Act. Thus, the motive in this case has been established by the prosecution.
27. It is trite that under Section 7 and 13 of the Act the prosecution is obliged to prove the demand made by the accused as well as acceptance by him of illegal gratification.
28. In the case of Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 4 SCC Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 18 CRA-9915-2018 450, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that mere recovery of money from the accused itself is not enough in absence of substantive evidence of demand and acceptance. In absence of support from complainant (PW-2), the the case based on the statement of hearsay evidence is not found to be proved asinmuch as in that respect except the complainant's statement, no other witness has been adduced by the prosecution. Para 19 and 20 of the said decision being referable are reproduced as under :-
"19. The above findings recorded by the High Court show that the Court relied upon the statements of PW 10 and PW 11. It is further noticed that recovery of currency notes, Exts. P-1 to P-4 from the shirt pocket of the accused, examined in light of Exts. PC and PD, there was sufficient evidence to record the finding of guilt against the accused. The Court remained uninfluenced by the fact that the shadow witness had turned hostile, as it was the opinion of the Court that recovery witnesses fully satisfied the requisite ingredients. We must notice that the High Court has fallen in error insofar as it has drawn the inference of the demand and receipt of the illegal gratification from the fact that the money was recovered from the accused.
20. It is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that the conviction of an accused cannot be founded on the basis of inference. The offence should be proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or even by circumstantial evidence if each link of the chain of events is established pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has to lead cogent evidence in that regard so far as it satisfies the essentials of a complete chain duly supported by appropriate evidence. Applying these tests to the facts of the present case, PW 10 and PW 11 were neither the eyewitnesses to the demand nor to the acceptance of money by the accused from Smt Sat Pal Kaur (PW 2)."
29. In the case of M.R. Purushotham Vs. State of Karnataka, (2015) 3 SCC 247, it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the accused had not demanded anything from the complainant and he did not know what was written in the complaint then the judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court is maintainable. It is held that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand do not constitute the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of the Act. Paragraphs 6, 7 & 8 of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 19 CRA-9915-2018 said judgment are relevant, which read as under :
"6. PW 1 Ramesh, the complainant did not support the prosecution case. He disowned making the complaint in Ext. P-1 and stated in his examination-in- chief that the accused had not demanded anything from him and he did not know what is written in Ext. P-1 and the police have not recorded his statement in respect to this case. He was, therefore, declared hostile. However, PW 3 Kumaraswamy, panch witness has testified that after being summoned by PW 4 Inspector Santosh Kumar on 18-2-2000, the contents of Ext. P-1 were explained to him in the presence of the complainant and he accompanied the complainant to the house of the accused, wherein, the complainant gave the sum of Rs 500 to the accused as illegal gratification. It is on the aforesaid basis that the liability of the appellant-accused for commission of the offences alleged was held to be proved, notwithstanding the fact that in his evidence the complainant PW 1 Ramesh had not supported the prosecution case.
7. In such type of cases the prosecution has to prove that there was a demand and there was acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. As already seen the complainant PW 1 Ramesh did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. No other evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove the demand made by the accused with the complainant. In this context the recent decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. [(2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] is relevant and it is held as follows : (SCC p. 58, para 8).
"8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext. P-11) before LW 9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW 1 and the contents of Ext. P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208
20 CRA-9915-2018 Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established."
8. The above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. When PW 1 Ramesh himself had disowned what he has stated in his initial complaint in Ext. P-1 before PW 4 Inspector Santosh Kumar and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW 3 Kumaraswamy and the contents of Ext. P-1 complaint cannot be relied upon to conclude that the said material furnishes proof of demand allegedly made by the accused. The High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are liable to be set aside."
30. In the case of B. Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55, the Hon'ble Apex Court also in para 7, 8 & 9 has held as under :-
"7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. [(2010) 15 SCC 1 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 89] and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI [(2009) 3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] .
8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext. P-11) before LW 9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW 1 and the contents of Ext. P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 21 CRA-9915-2018 concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established.
9. Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent."
31. In the case of N. Sunkanna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2016) 1 SCC 713 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises when proof of demand of illegal gratification is proved. Primary facts on the basis of which legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn ought to be established. Paragraphs 5 & 6 of the said judgment are relevant, which read as under :
"5. The prosecution examined the other fair price shop dealers in Kurnool as PWs 3, 4 and 6 to prove that the accused was receiving monthly mamools from them. PWs 4 and 6 did not state so and they were declared hostile. PW 3 though in the examination-in- chief stated so, in the cross-examination turned round and stated that the accused never asked for any monthly mamool and he did not pay Rs 50 at any time. The prosecution has not examined any other witness present at the time when the money was demanded by the accused and also when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant. The complainant himself had disowned his complaint and has turned hostile and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand. In short there is no proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. The possession is also admitted by the accused. It is settled law that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7, since demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Section 13(1)(d) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 22 CRA-9915-2018 position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. It is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Unless there is proof of demand of illegal gratification proof of acceptance will not follow. Reference may be made to the two decisions of the three-Judge Bench of this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. [(2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] and P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. [(2015) 10 SCC 152 :
(2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 11 : (2015) 9 Scale 724].
6. In the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent. The judgments of the courts below are, therefore, liable to be set aside. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed and the conviction of the appellant under Section 7 and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and the sentences imposed are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. The bail bond, if any, furnished by the appellant be released."
32. In the case of C.M. Sharma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 15 SCC 1, the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in para 18, 19, 23 and 24 are reproduced as below:-
"18. Further, corroboration of evidence of a witness is required when his evidence is not wholly reliable. On appreciation of evidence, witnesses can be broadly categorised in three categories viz. unreliable, partly reliable and wholly reliable. In case of a partly reliable witness, the court seeks corroboration in material particulars from other evidence. However in a case in which a witness is wholly reliable, no corroboration is necessary. Seeking corroboration in all circumstance of the evidence of a witness forced to give bribe may lead to absurd result. Bribe is not taken in public view and, therefore, there may not be any person who could see the giving and taking of bribe. As in the present case, a shadow witness did accompany the contractor but the appellant did not allow him to be present in the chamber. Acceptance of this submission in abstract will encourage the bribe-taker to receive illegal gratification in privacy and then insist for corroboration in case of prosecution. Law cannot countenance such a situation.
19. In our opinion it is not necessary that the evidence of a reliable witness is necessarily to be corroborated by another witness. Not only this corroboration of the evidence of a witness can be found from the other materials on record. Here in the present case there does not seem any reason to reject the evidence of the contractor PW 1, M. Venka Reddy. His evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of the shadow witness PW 2, G.T. Kumar. The shadow witness has stated in his evidence that when he entered into the chamber, the appellant was asked by the Inspector as to whether he had received any amount Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 23 CRA-9915-2018 from the contractor, he denied and then removed the currency notes from his trouser pocket and threw the same. He had further stated that sodium carbonate test was conducted in which the solution turned pink when the appellant's fingers and the right side trouser pocket were rinsed. From the aforesaid one can safely infer that the evidence of the contractor is corroborated in material particulars by the shadow witness.
23. We do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad submission of Mr Rai that demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to constitute the offence under the Act. Further mere recovery of currency notes itself does not constitute the offence under the Act, unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. In the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that both the ingredients to bring the Act within the mischief of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Act are satisfied.
24. From the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution it is evident that the appellant demanded the money from the contractor as he had passed his bills. There is further evidence that when the contractor went along with the shadow witness on the date told by the appellant for payment of the bribe, the appellant asked the shadow witness to leave the chamber and thereafter the demand for payment of illegal gratification was made and paid. The positive sodium carbonate test vis-à-vis the fingers and right trouser pocket of the appellant go to show that he voluntarily accepted the bribe. Thus there is evidence of demand of illegal gratification and the voluntary acceptance thereof."
33. In the case of C.M. Sharma (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the corroboration is required when the evidence is not wholly reliable. In other words, if partly reliable.
34. Similarly, in the case of C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, (2009) 3 SCC 779 in para 16 to 18 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :
"16. The crucial question would be whether the appellant had demanded any amount as gratification to show any official favour and whether the said amount was paid by PW 10 and received by the appellant as consideration for showing such official favour.
17. The only evidence available in this regard is that of PW 10 who did not support the case of the prosecution. The appellant at the earliest point of time explained that it was not the bribe amount received by him but the same was given to him by PW 10, saying that it was towards repayment of loan taken by his Manager, PW 2 from Accused 1. This is evident from the suggestion put to Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 24 CRA-9915-2018 PW 2 even before PW 10 was examined. Similar suggestion was put to the investigating officer that he had not recorded the version given by the appellant correctly in the post-trap mahazar, Exhibit P-9 and no proper opportunity was given to explain the sequence of events.
18. In Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 4 SCC 725 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 159] this Court took the view that (at SCC p. 727, para 2) mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe."
35. In the case of N. Vijayakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 3 SCC 687 the Hon'ble Apex Court in 26 and 27 has held as under :
"26. It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI [C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779 :
(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] and in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] In the aforesaid judgments of this Court while considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court.
27. The relevant paras 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment in B. Jayaraj [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] read as under : (SCC pp. 58-59) "7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 25 CRA-9915-2018 bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration, reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. [C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P., (2010) 15 SCC 1 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 89] and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI [C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] .
8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext. P-11) before LW 9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW 1 and the contents of Ext. P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7.
The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 26 CRA-9915-2018 servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established.
9. Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand.
As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent."
The abovesaid view taken by this Court fully supports the case of the appellant. In view of the contradictions noticed by us above in the depositions of key witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, we are of the view that the demand for and acceptance of bribe amount and cellphone by the appellant, is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Having regard to such evidence on record the acquittal recorded by the trial court is a "possible view" as such the judgment [State of T.N. v. N. Vijayakumar, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 7098] of the High Court is fit to be set aside. Before recording conviction under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the courts have to take utmost care in scanning the evidence. Once conviction is recorded under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it casts a social stigma on the person in the society apart from serious consequences on the service rendered. At the same time it is also to be noted that whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view or not, there cannot be any definite proposition and each case has to be judged on its own merits, having regard to evidence on record."
36. The landmark judgment in this regard is of Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 in which the following question of law was referred to the larger Bench:-
"3. Noting the divergence in the treatment of the evidentiary Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 27 CRA-9915-2018 requirement for proving the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Court referred the following question of a law for determination by a larger Bench:
'The question whether in the absence of evidence of complainant/direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, is it not permissible to draw inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.:
37. The aforesaid question of law was dealt with elaborately by the Apex Court and the Apex Court answered the reference as under:-
"88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
88.1.(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.
88.2.(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.
88.3.(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.
88.4.(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.Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 28 CRA-9915-2018
(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 in turn 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.
88.5.(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.
88.6.(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.
88.7.(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.
88.8.(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."
89. In view of the aforesaid discussion and conclusions, we find that there is no conflict in the three-Judge Bench decisions of this Court in B. Jayaraj [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 :
(2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] and P. Satyanarayana Murthy [P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152 :Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 29 CRA-9915-2018 (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 11] with the three-Judge Bench decision in M. Narsinga Rao [M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 258] , with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for the offences under Sections 7 or 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, when the direct evidence of the complainant or "primary evidence" of the complainant is unavailable owing to his death or any other reason.
The position of law when a complainant or prosecution witness turns "hostile" is also discussed and the observations made above would accordingly apply in light of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that there is no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three cases.
90. Accordingly, the question referred for consideration of this Constitution Bench is answered as under:
In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution."
38. The Apex Court in paragraph 88.1 has held that p roof 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. The Apex Court further held that the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and subsequent acceptance thereof, which can be proved either by direct or oral or documentary evidence. The proof of demand can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in absence of oral or documentary evidence. The Apex Court in Para 88.4(d)(i) further discussed the eventuality that 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 of 1988. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 30 CRA-9915-2018 3 9 . In the light of the aforesaid legal position, the question posed before this Court is whether the demand has been proved by the prosecution in this case or not ?
40. In this regard, complainant Devi Singh (PW-3) is an important witness who stated categorically in his chief examination that the initial demand was made by Rupesh Patel. It is also stated by him that the present appellant also came along with Rupesh Patel. He later on in para 3 has stated that no conversation took place between him and the present appellant Vivek Sahu, which is again reiterated by him in his cross-examination but he admitted categorically that the first complaint (Ex.P/4) and thereafter the second complaint (Ex.P/8) have been submitted by him before the Lokayukta Police bearing his signatures and the same were read aloud to him by panch witnesses and he accepted the same to be true. He has written in Ex.P/4 that the present appellant by giving threat of arrest and handcuffing has demanded Rs.5000/-, out of which Rs.3000/- he had already taken and demanded Rs.2000/- more. He also stated in the complaint that he did not want to give this money to the present appellant. Such statement in the complaint has been written by him at place 'B' to 'B'. Similar is the admission of this witness with regard to second complaint (Ex.P/8). The statement of this witness in that regard is also corroborated in toto by the statements of Khemraj (PW-4) and Suraj Narayan (PW-6) panch witnesses, who have read aloud the complaints (Ex.P/4 & P/8) to this witness on submission of these complaints by the complainant. They stated categorically that when these complaints have been read aloud to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 31 CRA-9915-2018 complainant, he admitted the same to be true and thereafter they put their signatures on it and this fact further fortified by the statement of Rajeev Gupta (PW-7). In this respect all these witnesses have been cross-examined in detail by the present appellant but no fact has been revealed from the cross-examination to disbelieve the statements of these witnesses in this regard, therefore the present case is distinguishable.
41. Though in this case a voice recorder has also been given to the complainant to record the conversation between him and present appellant and a transcript of that recording has also been prepared as Ex.P/7 and the C.D. is Article A. The conversation in voice recorder as well as transcript has not been found believable by the learned Trial Court vide para 34 to 39 and 44 and the learned Trial Court also did not find the certificate of Section 65B(4)of the Evidence Act believable in respect of electronic records (Ex.P/37 and Ex.P/44). Thus,, the transcript and evidence with regard to conversation in voice recorder is not found credible. However, this cannot be a ground to discard the evidence on record in respect of the demand made by the present appellant to the complainant.
42. Khemraj (PW-4) has admitted in cross-examination that Ex.P/4 and P/8 have not been prepared in his presence but Suraj Narayan (PW-6) in para 16 has stated that Ex.P/8 has been prepared in his presence by the complainant. They categorically stated that they read aloud it to the complainant who accepted it to be true. In this respect the statements of these witnesses as well as of Rajeev Gupta (PW-7) remained unrebutted in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 32 CRA-9915-2018 cross-examination. Hence, in the light of the law laid down as aforesaid, the demand on behalf of the present appellant from the complainant of Rs.2000/- under the garb of threat or harassment given by him to arrest and handcuffing the complainant stands proved in this case with the cogent and reliable evidence.
43. Rajeev Gupta (PW-7) has stated that after the second complaint (Ex.P/8), he had registered a case against the present appellant as (FIR Ex.P/34). Thereafter, the complainant himself has presented total 04 currency notes having denomination of Rs.500/- each. The numbers depicted on the currency notes have been noted down by panch witness Suraj Narayan Pandey (PW-6) on a paper and Constable Vinod Singh Chauhan has applied Phenolphthalein powder on these currency notes. It has been directed to the complainant to put it in the front pocket of the paint and also directed to not to come in touch with these notes unless demanded by the present appellant. The complainant was also directed to give signal by patting hand on his head after the demand is made by accused and not to shake hands with the appellant. He further states that he has directed to Constable Jahar Singh to prepare solution of Sodium Carbonate. In that solution, the hands of the witnesses and the members of the trap party have been washed but the colour of the solution remained unchanged. The vial Article A2, envelop Article A/3 and envelop of phenolphthalein power Article A/4 and the seizure of such solution and powder has been prepared as Ex.P/15.
44. Rajeev Gupta (PW-7) further states that a voice recorder was again issued to the complainant to record the conversation in respect of Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 33 CRA-9915-2018 demand of the present appellant, in respect of which a memo Ex.P/9 was prepared and again a solution of sodium carbonate has been got prepared and the hands of panch witnesses and members of the trap party were washed in that solution and it was found that there was no phenolphthalein powder in their hands. Thereafter, he prepared initial panchnama (Ex.P/10).
45. This witness Rajeev Gupta (PW-7) also states that from the Lokayukta office they proceeded on two government vehicles for Police Station Shahpura. Panch witnesses, complainant and police constable Jahar Singh were standing near the road where the market was being run and crowd was present there at. He along with members of trap party was standing in front of barber shop near Ambe Pan Bhandar. After half an hour, the present appellant came out of the police station and reached at Ambe Paan Bhandar and he called complainant by giving signal. Thereafter, present appellant took money from the complainant and put it in the left pocket of his uniform paint and moved towards the police station. The complainant at that time gave signal to the trap party and the trap party when surrounded the present appellant, the present appellant started running towards police station. Then panch witness Sujraj Narayan, Constables Bihari Lal and Jahar Singh caught the present appellant. Since there was heavy traffic and crowd, therefore they took the present appellant in the premises of police station Shahpura and the proceedings were initiated there. The present appellant has informed that the amount received from the complainant has been kept by him in his left pocket. Then a solution of sodium carbonate was prepared. The hands of the panch witnesses and the members of the trap party were washed in that Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 34 CRA-9915-2018 solution but the colour of the solution remained unchanged. However, when the hands of the present appellant were washed in the solution, it turned to pink. Thereafter, panch witness Suraj Narayan Pandey (PW-6) on his direction took out the amount of Rs.2000/- having four currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- each and the numbers printed on the currency notes have been matched with the numbers which were noted down on a paper by Suraj Narayan Pandey (PW-6) and the numbers on the currency notes were found to be the same while matching. This witness further states that the solution of Sodium Carbonate was again prepared and when the corners of seized notes were dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate, then the colour of that solution turned pink. This witness in detail has stated the entire proceeding of the trap. The statement of this witness Rajeev Gupta (PW-7) is fully corroborated by the statements of members of trap party Manoj Gupta (PW-8) as well as panch witnesses Khemraj (PW-4) and Suraj Narayan Pandey (PW-6).
46. Though complainant Devi Singh (PW-3) has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of prosecution completely but he admitted in his statement that he has given four notes each having denomination of Rs.500/- to Lokayukta police and these currency notes after applying phenolphthalein powder over it were kept in his pocket and directions were given to him to give signal by patting on the head. Though this complainant stated that when he called Rupesh, he stated that he is sending one Vivek Sahu (present appellant). Thereafter, Vivek Sahu came there and told him that he has been sent by Rupesh and demanded money. Then he gave the Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 35 CRA-9915-2018 said money of Rs.2000/- to accused and also gave signal to the trap party. He also stated in para 6 that on seeing the trap party, the appellant threw the notes after taking out the same from his pocket. In para 10 he stated that when he has given money to present appellant, he started running towards police station and then trap party surrounded and caught him. In para 12 he has stated that the numbers of the seized currency while matching were found to be correct and he stated that the amount has been picked up from the ground. Accordingly, the complainant Devi Singh (PW-3) has not supported the incident on some points in this behalf but as far as the statements of Rajeev Gupta (PW-7) and Suraj Narayan Pandey (PW-6) and Khemraj (PW-4) and Manoj (PW-8) are concerned, they remained unturned in this regard on their statements in their cross-examination. The number of seized notes have been matched by Khemraj (PW-4) who had noted down the numbers on separate paper before trap. He has further stated that numbers on the seized notes were found to be matched.
47. Khemraj (PW-4) in para 22 has denied the suggestion given by the appellant that the complainant has attempted to give money to the present appellant, who, in turn, has thrown it on the ground. He also denied the suggestion that the crowd gathered there at the time when they caught the appellant. The mob opposed such arrest on the ground that the appellant has been implicated falsely.
48. Suraj Narayan (PW-6) has stated that when the appellant started running, he caught him along with the members of the trap party. He in para Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 36 CRA-9915-2018 21 has stated that when the appellant started running, both the constables present there have caught hands of the present appellant. He has not caught him but variation in this regard is not material. He denied the suggestion given by the defence that the appellant has informed at that time that he has not received money given by the complainant or that appellant has intimated that the complainant has put the money in his pocket forcibly, which has been thrown by him on the ground. He also denied the suggestion that he has picked up the notes from the ground near the boundary of police station.
49. Rajeev Gupta (PW-7) has stated in para 47 that though he has not heard the conversation between complainant and present appellant when they were standing at Ambe Paan Shop but when the present appellant started running on seeing the trap party, they caught him at the place which was 30-40 steps away from the Paan Shop and which is situated in front of police station. He denied the suggestion given by the defence that he had attempted to keep the money in the pocket of appellant and falsely implicated him rather he explained that the police station was situated at 30- 40 steps away from the place where the appellant was caught by them. Since there was heavy traffic and crowd there, they took the appellant to the police station and where rest of the proceedings took place. He denied that the currency notes were thrown by the appellant and picked up from the ground.
50. Manoj Gupta (PW-8) has stated categorically that the entire trap proceeding has been seen by him. He was sitting at the bench which was 5 ft away from the place where the money was accepted by the appellant. Nilesh Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 37 CRA-9915-2018 Dohare (PW-9) is the Investigating Officer.
51. The appellant in his defence has produced Manish Kumar Kewat (DW-2), who stated in his statement that at around three years ago when he was sitting in his Pan Shop, where complainant Devi Singh ate paan (betel leave) and accused was also present there for taking paan (betel leave). At that time, complainant Devi Singh has attempted to put something in the pocket of the appellant, which the appellant took out from his pocket and threw it but he has not seen what that thing was. This witness has not stated that his Pan Shop was of which name. Moreover, this witness has not submitted any document to show hat he was the owner or occupier of Ambe Pan Shop where the incident took place. He in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that he did not remember on what date, month or year the incident took place. He also admitted that there was crowd in his pan shop and he was busy in dealing with the customers. He has not seen the entire incident. What conversation took place between appellant and complainant and what deal took place between them, he has not seen. Keeping in view the fact revealed from the cross-examination of this witness, he does seem to be a reliable witness. It is not proved that he was the owner or occupier of Ambe Paan Shop where the incident took place, therefore his statement is of no help to the appellant.
52. It is a well settled principle of law that even if the complainant turns hostile, still the accused can be held guilty on the basis of surrounding circumstances. In this regard the case of Hazari Lal Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 38 CRA-9915-2018 reported in (1980) 2 SCC 390 of Hon'ble Apex Court is referable. The evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examine him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. [Vide Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana : (AIR 1976 SC 202): Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa : (AIR 1977 SC 170); Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka :
(AIR 1979 SC 1848) and Khujji v. State of M.P. : (AIR 1991 SC 1853].
53. In the case of State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra , (AIR 1996 SC 2766), it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. A similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2002 SC 3137); Gagan Kanojia v. State of Punjab : (AIROnline 2006 SC
574); Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. :(AIR 2006 SC 951), Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh : (AIR 2008 SC 320) and Subbu Singh v.
State : (2009 AIR SCW 3937) . Hence the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, rather relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence.
54. It is also trite that some exaggeration in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses may happen. However, it is the duty of the court to Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 39 CRA-9915-2018 unravel the truth under all circumstances. A reference in this regard may be had to the case of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Harijan vs. State of u.p., reported in (2012) 5 SCC 777.
55. In the case of Sukhdev Yadav v. State of Bihar, (AIR 2001 SC 3678) it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 3 as under:
"3. It is indeed necessary, however, to note that there would hardly be a witness whose evidence does not contain some amount of exaggeration or embellishment --sometimes there would be a deliberate attempt to offer the same and sometimes the witnesses in their over anxiety to do better from the witness box detail out an exaggerated account."
56. Here in this case also, the complainant Devi Singh (PW-3) though turned hostile yet he is reliable to some extent on the given points as stated above. His evidence cannot be thrown on the ground that he has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Some variations in his statement are not liable to be discarded it as a whole rather the story of prosecution is fully corroborated by the panch witnesses and Rajeev Gupta (PW-7) and Manoj Gupta (PW-8) and partially the prosecution story is also corroborated by the statement of complainant Devi Singh (PW-3). The tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of present appellant and their colour turned pink, which also establishes the guilt against the present appellant.
57. On the anvil of the foregoing discussion, it is found that the acceptance of illegal gratification by the present appellant from the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- has also been proved by the prosecution by cogent and reliance evidence and, therefore, the presumption of Section 20 of the Act arises against the present appellant which was not got rebutted Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69208 40 CRA-9915-2018 by the present appellant in turn.
58. On careful scanning of aforesaid evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality and perversity in recording the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. So far as sentence is concerned, the trial Court has awarded appropriate jail sentence to the appellant keeping in view the relevant provisions and attending facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, no interference is called for in the same.
59. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court is hereby affirmed. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled. The appellant be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve the remaining sentence.
60. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately along with the copy of this judgment for information and necessary action.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE DV Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 18-12-2025 18:17:38