Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.B. Parikh for the appellant and learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the respondent State. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.

5. Learned advocate Mr. M. B. Parikh for the appellant has taken this court through the entire evidence of the prosecution and has submitted that as per the complaint, the amount was demanded for the names of the son and cousin of the complainant to be mutated in the revenue NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined record as the complainant had purchased plots in the name of his son Sureshbhai and his cousin brother Madhabhai. The complaint has been filed on 27.05.1997 but the document produced at Exh. 13 which is the Form No. 6 Mutation Entry No. 1219 dated 22.03.1994 proves that the entry regarding the house of the complainant was mutated in the revenue record and was certified on 13.05.1994. The document produced at Exh. 14 which is the Form No. 6 Mutation Entry Nos. 1333 and 1334 both dated 20.05.1997 show that the entries regarding the plots were mutated on 20.05.1997. It is the case of the appellant that an amount of Rs. 410/- was due towards the tax and the water tax and the demand notice issued to the complainant was attempted to be produced on record but the learned Trial Court refused to take the notice issued by the appellant to the complainant on record. The demand was for the outstanding tax and there are major contradictions in the deposition of the complainant and the panch witness. The appellant has also successfully brought on record that the complainant had encroached some government land and the NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined appellant had initiated the procedure for removal of the encroachment which was disliked by the complainant. The complainant has admitted that he had a grudge from the year 1992 till the case was filed against the appellant. Moreover, if the deposition of the complainant is perused, the complainant has stated that after they reached village Galkotdi, he went home and was at home for five to seven minutes where he had water and thereafter, he left with the panch witness for the Galkotdi Gram Panchayat Office but the panch witness or the panchnama does not show any such act taking place. Moreover, the complainant has stated that when he went to the ACB Office, Maganbhai Virjibhai Vachadiya had accompanied him and was also with him in the jeep while they left for the trap but the said Maganbhai Virjibhai Vachadiya has not been examined as a witness before the learned Trial Court. The panch witness, the panchnama or the Trap Laying Officer does not state anything about the presence of Maganbhai Virjibhai Vachadiya at the time of filing of the complaint or thereafter, and these are major contradictions which strike to the root NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined of the case and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. The impugned judgment and order of conviction is perverse and illegal and bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside and learned advocate for the appellant has urged this court to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant from all the offences.

11. In light of the above settled principles of law the evidence on record is minutely dissected and the prosecution has examined PW1 - Devrajbhai Gordhanbhai

- the complainant - at Exh. 9 and the witness has proved his written complaint at Exh. 10. He has further stated that after the members of the raiding party proceeded to village Galkotdi, he first went to his residence and thereafter to the office of the Gram Panchayat where the accused was present. According to him, the accused initially demanded Rs. 400/-; he paid Rs. 200/-, upon which the accused demanded a further sum, and he allegedly paid an additional Rs. 100/-. In cross-examination, material infirmities emerge. The witness was unable to state basic particulars of the office premises such as the number of doors, windows, tables, or chairs in the room where the alleged payment was made. He admitted that at the time of NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined the alleged payment, the mutation entry had not been effected, but subsequently learnt that the entry in the name of his son had already been mutated in the revenue record. He expressed ignorance as to whether the relevant mutation entry of his house had been certified earlier and denied that Rs. 410/- was demanded towards tax. Significantly, the complainant admitted that he had encroached upon the communal pasture land of the village and that proceedings in respect of such encroachment were pending against him. He further conceded that his brother and uncle had similarly encroached upon the communal pasture land. He acknowledged that he had requested the accused to regularize or allot the land in his favour, which was not acceded to and admitted harbouring a grievance against the accused since the year 1992 on that account. The complainant further stated that the alleged demand of Rs. 400/- was made three days prior to lodging the complaint and again one day prior thereto, though he did not meet the accused when allegedly called to the office. He deposed that he travelled to the ACB Office from Galkotdi to NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined Amreli on a motorcycle along with Maganbhai and asserted that the accused had also demanded money and illegal gratification from Maganbhai, who allegedly agreed to locate the office. During the trap, Maganbhai accompanied him but remained seated outside the office. The complainant stated that after returning to the village in the vehicle of the Trap Laying Officer, he went home with the panch witness to drink water, and thereafter, upon being called by the peon, proceeded to the Gram Panchayat Office where he allegedly handed over the tainted currency notes to the accused in the presence of the Trap Laying Officer, who, according to him, remained standing near the table of the accused. He was unable to state whether the office was closed or darkened after the trap proceedings.

His testimony, while corroborative of the procedural aspects of the trap, also discloses certain limitations in recollection and raises issues regarding the segregation and accounting of the recovered currency.

11.2 PW3 - Jayantilal Khimabhai Thesiya examined at Exh. 20 is the Competent Authority who accorded sanction for prosecution which is produced at Exh. 21. He has deposed to having granted sanction upon perusal of the materials placed before him. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he had not inquire into the quantum of tax, if any, outstanding against the complainant at the relevant time. He further conceded that the matter pertained to mutation of an entry on the basis of a registered sale deed and that, upon receipt of a copy of the sale deed along with a requisite application, it was incumbent upon the accused to effect the mutation entry in the prescribed record. He clarified that certification of such entry was within the competence of the appropriate authority. The witness also stated that a notice under Section 135D of the Land NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined Revenue Code is required to be issued after the mutation entry is recorded and that a decision thereon is to be taken upon expiry of the statutory period of thirty days from service of notice. He further admitted that issuance of notice under Section 135D is obligatory even where the mutation is based upon a registered sale deed.

12. Upon an independent and comprehensive re- appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence and the documentary record, the substratum of the prosecution case does not withstand judicial scrutiny. The gravamen of the allegation is that the accused demanded illegal gratification for effecting mutation entries in the revenue record. The complaint is produced at Exh. 10. The prosecution has also relied upon copies of the registered sale deeds at Exhs. 11 and 12 and Village Form No. 6 entries at Exhs. 13 and 14. Exh. 13 Mutation Entry No. 1219 unequivocally demonstrates that the name of Manjulaben Devarajbhai - guardian of Sureshbhai Devarajbhai, in respect of Survey No. 93 paiki, had already been mutated in the revenue record and duly certified several years prior to the lodging of the complaint. Exh. 14 further reflects that Mutation Entry Nos. 1333 and 1334, concerning Survey No. 25 and Plot No. 17 respectively, had been entered in the revenue record before the complaint was instituted. Thus, on the date of the complaint, the relevant NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined mutation entries stood already effected. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused specifically asserted that an amount of Rs. 410/- was outstanding towards panchayat tax for the relevant assessment years, and copies of the notices were produced in support thereof. The documentary material placed on record lends prima facie corroboration to this defence. The prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions. The complainant has deposed that upon reaching the village for the trap, he and the panch alighted from the vehicle, proceeded to his residence to drink water, and were thereafter summoned by the peon to the Gram Panchayat Office. This circumstance finds no mention either in the panchnama at Exh. 17 or in the testimony of PW2, the panch witness. The omission is not trivial; it strikes at the continuity and credibility of the trap narrative. Equally significant is the inconsistency regarding the presence of Maganbhai Virjibhai Vachadiya. The complainant asserted that Maganbhai Virjibhai Vachadiya accompanied him to the ACB Office and later travelled with the raiding party. In NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined contradistinction, the Trap Laying Officer and the panch witness categorically denied his presence. The said Maganbhai Virjibhai Vachadiya has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. The non-examination of this material witness, coupled with conflicting versions, casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story. Most crucially, the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational ingredient of demand. It is trite that proof of demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the PC Act. In the present case, the alleged prior demand is not substantiated by reliable, independent evidence. The demand at the time of trap is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the Trap Laying Officer himself admitted that he did not hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused. The surrounding circumstances probabilise the defence version. The mutation entries had already been made. Notices regarding outstanding panchayat tax had been issued. It was part of the official duty of the accused to recover such dues. The evidence discloses that immediately upon NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1727/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined payment of the amount, the complainant proceeded outside and gave the predetermined signal without waiting for issuance of any receipt. This conduct is consistent with the defence plea that the amount represented tax dues rather than illegal gratification. Additionally, the complainant admitted to having encroached upon the communal pasture land and to harbouring a longstanding grievance against the accused on account of refusal to regularise such encroachment. This admitted animus furnishes a motive for false implication. The learned Trial Court failed to evaluate these material contradictions and surrounding circumstances in their proper perspective. The prosecution having failed to prove demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction cannot be sustained. The impugned judgment and order of conviction, being contrary to the evidence on record and the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, are unsustainable in law and deserve to be set aside.