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
18:01:07
NEUTRAL 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
18:01:07
NEUTRAL 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
18:01:07
NEUTRAL 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
