Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Hiteshkumar Hasmukhray Maniyar on 13 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1632 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO: Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
HITESHKUMAR HASMUKHRAY MANIYAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 13/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Amreli (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case no. 28/1999 on 04.03.2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred Page 1 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined to as "the PC Act" for short).
1.1 The respondents are hereinafter 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 brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 The accused no. 1 was doing the business of drinking water with his water cart at the Amreli Bus Stand and the accused nos. 2 and 3 were Unarmed Police Constables and were public servants. The complainant - Vashrambhai @ Vasantbhai Polabhai Bagda was the owner of a goods rickshaw no. GJ-14-T-6084 and was ferrying passengers and goods between Amreli and Matirada village. On 04.12.1998, the complainant had come from Matirada village to Amreli with about five passengers and had come to the bus stand and was to return to Matirada village and went to take passengers inside the bus stand. It was around
03.30 p.m. and at that time the accused no. 2 and two other policemen were standing there and they came to him and told him that he could not collect passengers from that Page 2 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined place and if he wanted to collect passengers, he would have to give them an entry of Rs. 50/- every month. The complainant told them that he did not have that much amount and the person who was the other policeman told him to come on Monday i.e. 07.12.1998 as their duty was from between 08.00 am to 02.00 pm and to come after 11 am and give them the entry fee for Rs. 50/- or his rickshaw would be detained. He took two to four passengers and went to his village and he came to know that the police were demanding the amount of illegal gratification in the name of entry from him and he went to the ACB Police Station at Amreli and the complaint of the complainant was recorded on 07.12.1998.
2.2 The Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and the complainant gave four currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10/- each and two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 5/- each. Under the instructions of the Trap Laying Officer, Head Constable - Dalubhai Bawadiya conducted the demonstration of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp and explained the Page 3 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined characteristics to them and all the currency notes were smeared with anthracene powder and placed by Head Constable - Dalubhai Bawadiya in the left shirt pocket of the complainant. The necessary instructions were given and the Panchnama Part-I was drawn and the signatures of all the concerned were taken. As decided the complainant panch no. 1 and Head Constable - J.B. Parmar sat in the rickshaw of the complainant and the panch no. 2 and the members of the raiding party sat in the government jeep and followed them. They came to the ST Depot at around 12.15 hours and the complainant and the panch no. 1 alighted from the rickshaw and walked into the bus stand. The other members of the raiding party and the panch no. 2 stood scattered around. At platform no. 9 there was a policeman and the complainant identified the person as the accused no. 2. Another policeman came there and the complainant spoke to both of them and told them that he had brought the amount of Rs. 50/- as decided and the other policeman told the complainant to give the amount to the person who was at the water cart and the complainant Page 4 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined went on platform no. 8 where the water cart was standing and gave the amount to the accused no. 1. The accused no. 1 accepted the same with his right hand and the complainant gave the predetermined signal and members of the raiding party came and all the accused were caught. They were taken to the APS Office and the Reservation Clerk
- Rajubhai Manjibhai Kalavadiya was explained that the test were to be conducted and he went out of the room and the test was conducted in the room. The amount was recovered from the accused no. 1. The panchnama Part-II was drawn and the offence was registered under Section 7, 10, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC at ACB Amreli Police Station, C.R. No. 14 of 1998.
2.3 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed before the Sessions Court, Amreli and the case was registered as Special Case No. 28/1999. 2.4 The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it Page 5 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 9 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 10, 11 and 12 wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.5 The prosecution examined 5 witnesses and produced 11 documentary evidences on record in support of their case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence and refused to step into the witness box or lead evidence but stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit the accused from all the charges levelled against them.
Page 6 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the learned trial Judge has committed a grave error in not properly appreciating the evidence of the complainant, Vashrambhai Polabhai Bagda (Exh.16), and the panch witness No.2, Lalitbhai Pramanandbhai Solanki (Exh.35), in their true and correct perspective. It is contended that the complainant has fully supported the prosecution case by clearly deposing about the initial demand of illegal gratification by the accused, the subsequent arrangement of trap by the ACB, Amreli, and the actual payment of the bribe amount of Rs.50/- to the accused in presence of the panch witness, pursuant to which the accused were caught red-handed. It is further submitted that the entire trap procedure, including preparation of preliminary panchnama, application of anthracene powder, demonstration, and recovery of tainted currency notes, has been duly proved through cogent evidence, and the numbers of the recovered currency notes were also tallied. The presence of anthracene powder marks Page 7 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined under ultraviolet light further corroborates the prosecution case. It is also contended that the panch witness has fully supported the prosecution case, including the giving of signal, the raid, and recovery, and there is no reason to disbelieve his testimony as there exists no enmity between the witnesses and the accused. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Judge has erred in discarding reliable and trustworthy evidence and the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya for the respondents. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah has taken this court through the entire evidence of the prosecution and has stated that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and the evidence on record, in as much as, the learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate Page 8 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined both the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution. It is contended that the prosecution has examined several witnesses, including panch witnesses, and has produced cogent documentary evidence, which clearly establish the demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification by the accused; however, the learned Judge has erred in discarding such reliable evidence by giving undue importance to minor omissions and contradictions. It is further submitted that the panchnama duly proves the passing of currency notes from the complainant to the accused and the same is corroborated by the evidence of the panch witnesses and other members of the raiding party, including the ultraviolet test, which supports the prosecution case. According to the learned APP, the demand, though not made earlier, was clearly established at the time of the raid, and the acceptance and recovery of tainted money from the accused sufficiently prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is also contended that there was no enmity between the complainant and the accused so as to falsely implicate them. The learned APP has therefore Page 9 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined argued that the learned Judge has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused by misappreciating the evidence and by incorrectly applying the settled principles relating to ACB cases, and hence, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the present appeal and submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has not committed any error in passing the order of acquittal. It is contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are sine qua non for constituting an offence under the provisions of the PC Act. It is further submitted that the evidence of the complainant is not reliable inasmuch as there are material contradictions and improvements in his deposition vis-à-vis the complaint, particularly with regard to the person who allegedly made the demand. It is also contended that the complainant himself has admitted that accused no.2 had earlier filed an Page 10 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined NC complaint against him, which indicates a motive for false implication. Learned advocate has further submitted that the panch witness does not inspire confidence and his testimony suffers from material discrepancies, more particularly with regard to the manner of trap and recovery. It is also pointed out that the alleged recovery was not effected at the spot and the panchnama does not reflect the true sequence of events, thereby creating serious doubt about the prosecution case. It is therefore submitted that in absence of cogent and reliable evidence to prove demand and conscious acceptance, mere recovery of currency notes would not be sufficient to convict the accused. It is, therefore, urged that the view taken by the learned Trial Court being a plausible view based on appreciation of evidence, this Court may not interfere with the well- reasoned order of acquittal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in para 11 and 12 with Page 11 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined regard to the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with acquittal appeals in the case of P. Somaraju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1423:
11. Before proceeding, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the well-settled principles governing interference with an order of acquittal by an Appellate Court, which were also discussed by the High Court in the impugned judgment. At the outset, we rely upon the seminal case of Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka 2007 (4) SCC 415 wherein this Court had laid down the five-point canonical test as follows:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of Page 12 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined 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." 4 (2007) 4 SCC 415.
12. To summarize, an Appellate Court undoubtedly has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 and 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, due to the reinforced or 'double' presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be limited. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the record, the acquittal should not be disturbed. Judicial intervention is only warranted where the Trial Court's view is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in manifest miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the Appellate Court must address the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal before reversing it and assigning its own. A catena of the recent Page 13 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined judgements of this Court has more firmly entrenched this position, including, inter alia, Mallappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 104, Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258, Babu Sahebagauda Rudragaudar and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 320 and Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 114.
7.1 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 Page 14 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined SCC (Cri) 325] , SCC p. 432, para 42)
42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.Page 15 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581: (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows : (SCC p. 584, para 8) "8. ... 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: Page 16 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 17 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined 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) (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 Page 18 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined 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 Page 19 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1) (d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and inturn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a Court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, 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.
Page 20 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the Court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the Court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature."
10. In view of the settled principles of law in acquittal appeals, the evidence is reappreciated and to prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution has in all examined four witnesses. PW1 - Vashrambhai Polabhai Bagda examined at Exh. 16 is the complainant who has stated that he was the owner of Chakda rickshaw no. GJ- 14-T-6084 and his rickshaw was halted by the police at Paras Hotel as he had gone into the ST Depot to take passengers. There were three policemen and he has identified the accused nos. 2 and 3 and the third policeman had told him that he could not collect passengers from that Page 21 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined place and would have to pay an amount of Rs. 50/- as monthly installment. He told him that he did not have the money and was informed by the third policeman that his duty was on 07.12.1998 from 08.00 am to 02.00 pm and he took his rickshaw and went to Matirada village and gave the complaint which is produced at Exh. 17. The witness has stated that the Trap Laying Officer did the necessary procedure and as far as the trap is concerned, the witness has stated that he along with the panch witness and policeman Jayantibhai had gone to the ST Depot and he had told Pravinbhai - the accused no. 2 that he had brought the Rs. 50/- and he was told to give it to the accused no. 1. He had given the amount to the accused no. 1 and gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused. In the cross-examination the witness has admitted that his rickshaw was a goods rickshaw and it was illegal to fill passengers in the rickshaw. He had earlier gone to the ST Depot twice to collect passengers and in the ST Depot, the ST employees as well as the police halt private vehicles. The Page 22 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined witness has admitted that when he reached platform no. 9, he met the accused no. 2 and told the accused no. 2 that he had brought the amount of Rs. 50/- and whether he should give it but the accused no. 2 refused to take it. The accused no. 1 was standing nearby and he gave the accused no. 1 the amount of Rs. 50/- and the accused no. 1 asked him what was the amount for and at that time the members of the raiding party came and caught the accused no. 1. They went to the office of the APS at the ST stand but the experiment could not be conducted and hence they went to the ACB Office and he was at the ACB Office for some time and was asked to go and hence, he left and went to Mathirada village. The accused no. 2 had earlier halted his rickshaw and filed an NC offence on 07.12.1996 against him and a summons was issued for the offence that had taken place at Rupam Talkies. The NC is produced at Exh. 28 and he had paid an amount of Rs. 150/- before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate after two years as a warrant was also issued against him. When they went to the ACB Office and the test were being conducted, he was Page 23 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined sitting outside and he does not know anything about the test that was conducted. He does not know the identity of the other two police who were accompanying the accused no. 2 and the unknown policeman had told him that he could not take passengers from there and demanded the amount of Rs. 150/- from him. He did not ever meet that unknown policeman and he came to know the name of the accused no. 1 only after the police had caught him. The Panchnama was being dictated by the Trap Laying Officer and it was being written by the writer.
10.1 PW2 - Lalitbhai Parmanandbhai Solanki examined at Exh. 35 is the panch witness who has narrated the procedure that was undertaken at the ACB Office and thereafter when he and the panch witness - Harshadrai Manharlal Katrodia went to the ACB Office until the trap was successful. In the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that no marks were made on the currency notes and their signatures were not taken on the currency notes and the notes were placed in a blank paper but the paper too did Page 24 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined not bear their signatures or any marks. The Panchnama was written by the writer and the Trap Laying Officer was sitting in the next room. He knew that he had to affix a signature on each page of the Panchnama and as he was a government servant he had to depose as per the Panchnama or he would have to face a departmental inquiry. He had signed the Panchnama on the 7 th and thereafter, the remaining procedure was conducted on the 9th. The accused no. 1 was searched at the APS Office in the ST Stand and he does not remember what was found from the pockets of the accused no. 1. The seizure memo was made at the ATS Office at the ST stand and at the time of the incident there was a crowd at the ST stand and about 50 to 60 persons were present there. The complainant had a conversation with the policeman and thereafter, he gave the accused no. 1 the amount of Rs. 50/- which was still in the right hand of the accused no. 1 when the predetermined signal was given and immediately the members of the raiding party came. The platform no. 1 was about 20 feet away from the APS Office and they were at the Page 25 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined APS Office for about half an hour.
10.2 PW3 - Vijaykumar Tuljaram Navle examined at Exh. 43 is the Trap Laying Officer who has narrated the entire procedure that was undertaken by him on 07.12.1998 when the complainant came to the ACB Police Station and till the trap was successful. In the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that in the complaint at Exh. 17, the complainant has stated that Pravinbhai and two other police had demanded the amount of illegal gratification from him and in all, the complaint was against Pravinbhai and two other policemen but during the entire trap, the identity of the third policeman could not be made out and he did not inquire about the third policeman. The seizure memo has to be prepared at the spot and there are no marks of identification on the currency notes. The Panchnama also has to be prepared at the spot and at the bus stand there was another room available. The currency notes were seized from the accused no. 1 at around 01.00 pm but in the seizure memo it is shown that the currency notes were Page 26 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined seized at 03.30 pm at the ACB Office where the seizure memo was prepared at the ACB Office. Panchnama Part-II commenced at the APS Office and they left at about 13.10 hours and reached the ACB Office at 13.30 hours where the Panchnama Part-II was concluded. They returned back to the ST Depot to confirm the directions and the remaining part of the Panchnama was written at the ST stand but the fact that they had gone from the ST Stand to the ACB Office and had returned once again to the ST Stand, is not mentioned in the Panchnama. He did not prepare an arrest memo regarding the arrest of the accused and the Panchnama produced at Exh. 36 does not mention that the accused has been arrested. The hands of the accused no. 2 and 3 were not checked in the ultraviolet lamp. 10.3 PW4 - Gunvantray Harkhabhai Algotra examined at Exh. 45 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that no arrest Panchnama about the arrest of the accused has been drawn and he was not given any arrest memo along with the Page 27 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined papers. He had investigated the offence and thereafter as he was transferred, the investigation was handed over to Police Inspector R.O Belim who has filed the chargesheet. The statement of the accused no. 2 was recorded by the Trap Laying Officer wherein he has stated that he had filed an NC Case against the complainant and a warrant was issued against the complainant but no efforts to get a copy of the NC Case was made by him. He recorded the statement of the ST employee Chandubhai Manjibbhai Kalavadia but he has not been shown as a witness in the charge sheet. 10.4 PW5 - Vijayraysing Jaymutising Gautam examined at Exh. 51 is the Competent Authority who has given the order of sanction for prosecution which is produced at Exh. 52. In the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that the complaint was against three Police Constables but he had given the order of sanction for prosecution for two Police Constables only. He did not inquire about the third policeman and the papers for the order of sanction for prosecution were received on 07.12.1998 and he had given the order of sanction for Page 28 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined prosecution on 23.02.1999. A proforma of the order of sanction for prosecution was sent by the ACB Office and they filled up the details in the proforma.
11. Upon a comprehensive appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational facts necessary for bringing home the charge under the provisions of the PC Act. At the outset, the complaint produced at Exh.17 indicates that the complainant had alleged that Pravinbhai and two other policemen had demanded an amount of Rs. 50/- from him as illegal gratification. However, in his deposition before the learned Trial Court, the complainant has materially altered the version and stated that the third policeman had demanded the amount of Rs. 50/-. This inconsistency between the version narrated in the complaint and the testimony before the Court creates a serious doubt regarding the prosecution case as to who had actually made the demand. So far as the alleged prior demand dated 04.12.1998 is concerned, the complainant has stated that he had gone to the Amreli bus stand along Page 29 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined with five passengers and at that time all the three policemen had demanded illegal gratification from him. However, none of the passengers who were allegedly present at the time of the prior demand have been examined as witnesses before the Trial Court. The prosecution has thus failed to bring on record any independent corroboration with regard to the alleged prior demand. Coming to the demand at the time of the trap, the evidence of the complainant itself does not support the prosecution case. The complainant has categorically stated that he had told accused no.2 that he had brought the amount of Rs. 50/- and inquired whether he should hand over the same. According to the complainant, accused no.2 refused to accept the amount and since accused no.1 was standing at Platform no.9, he went and handed over the amount to accused no.1. The complainant has further stated that accused no.1 was in fact asking him as to what the amount was for, when the members of the raiding party apprehended him. On the other hand, the panch witness has deposed that accused no.3 had instructed the Page 30 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined complainant to give the amount to accused no.1. This version materially contradicts the testimony of the complainant and creates a serious inconsistency regarding the alleged demand at the spot. Furthermore, the evidence on record indicates that no recovery of tainted currency notes was made at the place of the alleged trap. Instead, it appears that the accused were taken to the APS office at the ST Stand, where Rajubhai Manjibhai Kalavadiya, the Reservation Clerk, was asked to leave the office, and thereafter the members of the raiding party entered the office and the amount was allegedly recovered from accused no.1. The prosecution has not examined the said Reservation Clerk who would have been an independent witness to the alleged recovery. It is also brought on record that thereafter the entire raiding party, including the Trap Laying Officer, panch witnesses and the accused persons proceeded to the ACB Police Station. According to the testimony of the Trap Laying Officer, they subsequently returned to the spot to verify the directions; however, the panchnama produced at Exh.36 does not narrate these Page 31 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined material facts, thereby creating doubt regarding the sequence of events during the trap proceedings. The seizure memo was prepared at the ACB office at about 03.30 pm which further raises questions regarding the exact place and manner of recovery. Another important circumstance emerging from the record is that accused no.2 had earlier filed an NC complaint against the complainant which is produced at Exh.28, alleging that the complainant was driving rickshaw bearing no. GJ-14-T-6084 without a valid driving licence. The said complaint was filed before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and process had been issued against the complainant. It has also come on record that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.150/- in that proceeding. Thus, the material on record indicates that the complainant had a subsisting grievance against accused no.2 which cannot be ignored while appreciating the prosecution case. In light of these circumstances, there is no reliable evidence regarding the prior demand nor is there cogent evidence to establish that accused nos.2 and 3 had directed accused no.1 to accept Page 32 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined the amount on their behalf. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that the complainant himself handed over the tainted currency notes to accused no.1 who was holding the notes in his hand and was inquiring about the purpose of the amount when he was apprehended by the raiding party. The legal position in this regard has been authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta (supra), wherein it has been held that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for establishing offences under the PC Act and that mere recovery of tainted currency notes, in the absence of proof of demand, would not be sufficient to sustain a conviction. Similarly, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the prosecution must establish the demand of illegal gratification as a foundational fact and only thereafter can the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act be invoked. In the absence of such proof, recovery of currency notes alone cannot lead to a finding of guilt. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to Page 33 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined establish a clear and consistent case of demand or conscious acceptance of illegal gratification. Consequently, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not arise.
12. The learned Trial Court has meticulously appreciated the entire evidence on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based on a proper evaluation of the evidence and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or misappreciation of material on record. In an appeal against acquittal, unless the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are shown to be manifestly erroneous or perverse, the appellate Court would be slow to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. In the present case, no such circumstance is made out. Accordingly, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court does not warrant any interference and the appeal preferred by the State is liable to be dismissed. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the Page 34 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1632/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026 undefined learned Special Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Amreli in Special Case no. 28/1999 on 04.03.2008, is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 35 of 35 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:39:11 IST 2026