Madhya Pradesh High Court
Special Police Establishment vs Niranjan Singh Kaurav on 23 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22465
1 MCRC-11239-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11239 of 2015
SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT
Versus
NIRANJAN SINGH KAURAV
Appearance:
Shri Abhinav Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Gautam Singh Kaurav - Advocate for respondent no.1.
ORDER
The present application for grant of leave under section 378(3) read with Appeal under section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed challenging judgment of acquittal dated 12/03/2015 passed in Special Case No.04/2011 by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act 1988), Raisen, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondent from charges punishable under Section 7 and 13 (1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The facts of the case, in narrow compass, are that PW-2 Harisingh, who is the complainant, visited the Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bareli, for renewal of the Kisan Credit Card of his father and also for preparation of his own Kisan Credit Card. The respondent was posted as a Field Officer in the bank. On 15/09/2015, Harisingh approached the office of the applicant and submitted an application to the Superintendent against the respondent on the ground Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:01:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22465 2 MCRC-11239-2015 that the respondent had demanded Rs. 5,000/- as a bribe for preparation of the Kisan Credit Card. The complainant wanted the respondent to be caught red-handed. Upon receipt of the complaint, the applicant department came into action and a trap was planned. Accordingly, the date of the trap was finalized, and the complainant was provided with a voice recorder and currency notes coated with phenolphthalein powder. All other formalities were completed and the trap was arranged. On the day the complaint was acted upon, the trap party stationed themselves at a safe distance to observe the proceedings. When the respondent demanded the bribe and obtained it from the complainant, and kept it in the pocket of his shirt, upon the signal of the complainant, the trap party came into action and the respondent was caught red-handed. After the trap was executed, other paperwork was completed, and a charge-sheet was prepared and filed before the competent Court.
3. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondent vide judgment dated 12/03/2015 on the ground that the demand of bribe was not proved. It was also found that transcript voice was not proved. The motive of bribe was also not proved. Lastly, it was found that the prosecution has failed to prove demand of bribe.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently criticized the order impugned and submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. It was also argued that Ex.P/3 is the application of the complainant which was duly admitted by the complainant. The attention of the Court was drawn towards the evidence of PW-3 R.K. Shrivastava, PW-5 Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:01:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22465 3 MCRC-11239-2015 Arun Mishra and PW-6 V.V. Subbarao by submitting that all these witnesses have supported the prosecution case to the fullest. It was also submitted that these witnesses have proved the demand and seizure and after their evidence, the trial Court should have convicted the respondent.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that the presumption under Section 20 of P.C. Act will come to play in the present case. It was also argued that the transcript of voice and CD were not considered by the trial Court whereas these are the best piece of evidence to prove the respondent guilty. Lastly, it has been argued that complainant has proved the case by his evidence and thus, the present appeal is required to be allowed and the respondent be convicted under the provisions of P.C. Act.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent has supported the order impugned. It is submitted that the complainant has not supported the prosecution story. The demand has not been proved. It was also argued that from a plain reading of the evidence of the complainant it is abundantly clear that the respondent has not demanded the bribe from the complainant. It is also proved that the complainant himself put the bribe money in the pocket of the respondent and the respondent had thrown away the money out of his pocket. It is also argued that the transcription is between the complainant and Mr. Patel, and not between the complainant and the respondent. It was forcefully argued that the complainant himself has admitted that the respondent has, at no point of time, demanded any amount from the complainant. Mr. Patel has asked for Rs.5,000/- as bribe, but he has not been arrayed as accused in the case.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:01:07NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22465 4 MCRC-11239-2015
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. A plain reading of the testimony of PW- 2 Harisingh, complainant reveals that on the date of incident the file of the complainant was not with the respondent and the same was with Mr. Patel and his signature is required. Meaning thereby, the respondent has completed his work on the file. Till then the respondent has not received any amount and without getting any amount he has completed his work. It shows that he has not demanded any amount from the complainant. If the respondent is expecting bribe from the complainant then he should have not completed the file and kept the file with him only. Mr. Patel was the final authority of issuance of the KCC. PW-6 Subbarao has admitted that Mr. Patel was the final authority for issuance of KCC. The evidence of complainant and Subbarao (IO) makes is clear that the file is with Mr. Patel. It is also clear that there was no reason for respondent to ask for bribe as he has already completed his work on the file and forwarded the same to Mr. Patel for final signature. The complainant also has not specifically stated that the respondent has demanded any amount from the complainant.
9. Perusal of the record of the case reveal that the prosecution has not recorded evidence of any independent witness. During the investigation, statements of around 15 witnesses were recorded and all of them are witnesses of the department. During trial also as many as 6 witnesses have been examined by the trial Court, but no independent witness has been examined. PW- 2 Harisingh in para 15 of the statement has admitted that at the time of trap, in the bank, around 3 agriculturists were setting but these Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:01:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22465 5 MCRC-11239-2015 eye witnesses were exonerated from recording statements. PW 5 Arun Mishra in para 20 has also admitted that 5-6 persons were present in the bank but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, their statements were not recorded. The prosecution has not relied upon any independent witness and no explanation has been provided by the Investigation Officer for not recording statements of independent witnesses.
10. The record also reveals that complainant Harisingh in para 6 has specifically admitted that Mr. Patel has asked for Rs.5,000/- from the complainant and not the respondent. He has also submitted the voice record of his conversation with Mr. Patel. But the prosecution has conveniently exonerated Mr. Patel and has not made him accused. The trial Court has also found that the transcript (Ex.P/19) is not believable. The I.O himself in para 27 of his deposition has admitted that the complainant has failed to start the voice recorder at the time of incident to record the conversation. Thus, the trial Court has rightly passed the order.
11. The principle of law expounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Govt. of NCR of Delhi) CRA 1669 of 2009 dated 15/12/2022 that even if a complainant turns hostile or even in the absence of the evidence of the complainant or in other words even if evidence of the complainant is not available for one reason or the other, it is permissible for the Court to draw an inferential deduction of culpability of a public servant on the basis of other evidence led by the prosecution. However, it is also mentioned that mere demand of bribe by itself is not sufficient to constitute an offence under the P.C. Act and there must be clinching and trustworthy Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:01:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22465 6 MCRC-11239-2015 evidence regarding the acceptance of tainted money on behalf of the accused. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta (Supra) has clarified in Clause (d) of the summarization that in order to prove the fact in issue regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant, the prosecution is obliged to keep two aspects in mind; (i) If there is offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the said public servant accepts the offer and receives the bribe, it is a case of acceptance under the PC Act and in such a case there need not be a prior demand by the public servant and (ii) If there is demand of bribe by a public servant and the bribe giver accepts the demand, tenders the demanded gratification, which is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment and in such a case the bribe demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. The Supreme Court has made it clear that in both the cases the prosecution is obliged to prove the offer by the bribe giver as also the demand by the public servant respectively as a fact in issue. Mere acceptance or receipt of illegal gratification without anything else is not sufficient to constitute an offence under the PC Act. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution, as such, has first to prove the demand of illegal gratification by the accused and second, the acceptance of gratification by him as a fact in issue by way of oral or documentary evidence.
12. On the touchstone of the observations of the Apex Court, the prosecution has failed to prove the demand for gratification by the respondent and, further, the acceptance of gratification by him, because the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:01:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22465 7 MCRC-11239-2015 complainant himself has deposed that he put the amount in the pocket of the respondent and not that the respondent took the money from him and pocketed it.
13. In State of Karnataka v. K. Gopalkrishna, (2005) 9 SCC 291 , while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the Court observed:
"In such an appeal the Appellate Court does not lightly disturb the findings of fact recorded by the Court below. If on the basis of the same evidence, two views are reasonably possible, and the view favouring the accused is accepted by the Court below, that is sufficient for upholding the order of acquittal. However, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of the Court below are wholly unreasonable or perverse and not based on the evidence on record, or suffers from serious illegality including ignorance or misreading of evidence on record, the Appellate Court will be justified in setting aside such an order of acquittal."
14. In The State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755 , this Court relied on the judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180 and observed as under:
"15. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by 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, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. ... The principle to be followed by appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference."
Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:01:07NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22465 8 MCRC-11239-2015 The Court further held as follows:
"16. it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the court below."
15. In Chandrappa & Others v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 , this Court held:
"(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:01:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22465 9 MCRC-11239-2015 evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
16. This Court is of the clear view that the respondent/accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial Court. The trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial Court's decision. This is especially true when a witness's credibility is at issue. The prosecution, in spite of availability of independent witnesses has relied upon in-house witnesses. Not a single independent witness has been examined specially when the place of incident is a Bank, where number of persons remain present at a time. It is not enough for the appellate Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that trial Court was wrong. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial Court. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the appellate Courts must rule in favour of the accused.
17. I have considered the entire evidence and documents on record and the reasoning given by the trial Court for acquitting the accused and also review the testimony of witnesses. In my considered opinion, the trial Court carefully scrutinized the entire evidence and documents on record and arrived at the correct conclusion. As such, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgment dated passed in Special Case No.04/2011 by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act 1988), Raisen, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondent from charges punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:01:07NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22465 10 MCRC-11239-2015
18. In view of aforesaid, the present leave to appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI) JUDGE rv Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:01:07