Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Amrardas Bansidas on 6 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2070 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO:Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
AMRARDAS BANSIDAS
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MURALI N DEVNANI(1863) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 06/03/2026
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.
93/1999 on 31.05.2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court
has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable
under Sections 7, 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act”
Page 1 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
for short).
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as “the
accused” as he stood 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 was working as a Helper (Class III) in the
GEB Amreli Rural Sub-Division at Lunidhar and was a
public servant. The complainant – Babubhai Lakshmanbhai
@ Lakubhai Hirpara was residing at Jithudi Village, Taluka
Kukava, District Amreli and the father of the complainant
had a house in Jithudi Village and they wanted to make a
construction of the second floor on the existing house. The
complainant had given an application in the name of his
father to the Deputy Engineer, GEB Amreli on 18.04.1999
regarding the electric wire that was passing over their
house. About eight days prior to 11.05.1999, the accused
came to the house of the complainant and told him that he
had received the application and he demanded an amount
of Rs. 4000/- as illegal gratification for shifting of the wire.
Page 2 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
After bargaining, the amount was settled at Rs. 3000/-. On
10.05.1999, the complainant had gone to the market at
Amreli and around 09.00 am the accused met the
complainant and told him that he would come to his house
on the next day at around 11.00 am and demanded the
amount of Rs. 3000/- and told him that he would do the
work only if the amount was given. The complainant did not
want to pay the amount of illegal gratification and went to
the ACB Office at Amreli and the complaint of the
complainant was recorded.
2.2 The Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and
the complainant gave four currency notes of the
denomination of Rs. 500/- each and ten currency notes of
the denomination of Rs. 100/- each. Head Constable – J. P.
Parmar, under the instructions of the Trap Laying Officer,
conducted the demonstration of anthracene powder and
ultraviolet lamp and explained the characteristics of
anthracene powder and the ultraviolet lamp to the
complainant and the panch witnesses. All the currency
notes were smeared with anthracene powder and folded and
Page 3 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
placed in the left shirt pocket of the complainant. The
necessary instructions to all concerned were given and the
Panchnama Part-I was drawn and the signatures of all the
concerned persons were taken. As decided, the complainant,
panch witnesses and the members of the raiding party went
in government jeep no. GJ-1-G-2377 from Amreli to Jithudi
village via Vennivadar and Randhia and the complainant
and panch no. 1 alighted from the jeep and walked to the
house of the complainant. The panch no. 2 and other
members of the raiding party followed them and the
complainant and the panch no. 1 sat in the living room and
the members of the raiding party and the panch no. 2 sat in
the room next to the living room. The accused came to the
house of the complainant and the complainant welcomed
him and he sat on the cot and had a conversation with the
complainant. The accused told the complainant that he had
received the application and the survey was conducted and
he was going to the office to give the application and it
would take 7 to 8 days for the pole to be shifted and
demanded the amount so that the work would be done. The
Page 4 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
complainant gave the tainted currency notes with his right
hand from his left shirt pocket and the accused accepted
the amount with his right hand and placed it in his left shirt
pocket. The complainant gave the predetermined signal and
the members of the raiding party came and the accused was
caught red-handed and the necessary procedure was done
and the Panchnama Part-II was drawn. The offence was
registered at Amreli ACB Police Station, C.R. No. 9 of 1999
under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act.
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. 93/1999.
2.4 The accused was duly served with the summons and
the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it
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. 5 was framed and the
statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 6 wherein,
Page 5 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire
evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.5 The prosecution examined 6 witnesses and produced
15 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
was 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 him. 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 the charges levelled
against him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment
and order of acquittal, the appellant State has filed the
present appeal mainly stating that the judgment and order
of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and
the learned Trial Court has erred in holding that the
Page 6 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable
doubts. The prosecution has examined a number of
witnesses in support of their case and has also produced
various documentary evidence, however, without
appreciating the documentary evidence as well as the oral
evidence in proper perspective, the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal has been passed. The learned Trial Court
has failed to appreciate that the complainant has supported
the case of the prosecution and the Trap Laying Officer has
also supported the entire case of the prosecution. The
tainted currency notes were recovered from the conscious
possession of the respondent but the evidence of the
important witnesses has been disregarded by the learned
Trial Court without proper justification. The learned Trial
Court has given undue importance to minor omissions and
contradictions and has disbelieved the evidence of the said
witnesses and has committed a grave error on record of the
case. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that
the tainted currency notes were given by the complainant
and accepted by the respondent and the same is clearly
Page 7 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
mentioned in the panchnama which is proved by the
evidence of the panch witnesses. The learned Trial Court
has not appreciated that the complainant and members of
the raiding party did not have any enmity with the
respondent and there was no reason to falsely involve the
accused and the impugned judgment and order is contrary
to law and evidence on record and is required to be quashed
and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant
State and learned advocate Ms. Vishwa Shah for learned
advocate Mr. Murali N. Devnani for the respondent. 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
submitted that the prosecution has proved all the
ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery and the
prosecution has proved that the respondent had demanded
Page 8 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
the amount of illegal gratification for shifting of the wire and
the electric pole and the respondent was a helper and it was
within his jurisdiction to do the work. The amount of illegal
gratification was demanded and accepted and the tainted
currency notes were recovered from the possession of the
respondent and the prosecution has proved that the amount
of illegal gratification was recovered from the possession of
the respondent but the learned Trial Court has not
appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and has
passed the impugned judgment in order of equitable and the
same is required to be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned advocate Ms. Vishwa Shah for the respondent
has submitted that the prosecution has not proved the
prior demand and the demand at the spot and the panch
witness has clearly admitted that no demand of any illegal
gratification was made by the respondent at the spot. The
amount was for the expenditure to be incurred towards the
shifting of the pole and the wire and even in the
application, the complainant had stated that the electric
pole and the wire was to be shifted at his own cost. The
Page 9 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
amount of Rs.3000/-was towards the expenditure for the
same and as the demand has not been proved, the
provisions of Section 20 would not come in play. Moreover,
if the panchnama is perused the Trap Laying Officer has
not verified from the complainant and the panch witness
about the events that had transpired at the time of the trap.
If the same was done by the Trap Laying Officer it would
have come on record that the amount was only towards the
expenditure that was to be deposited in the GEB Office
along with the application and the survey report which was
towards the cost of shifting of the pole. The learned Trial
Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper
perspective and no interference is required in the impugned
judgment and order and the appeal of the appellant must
be rejected.
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
regard to the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing
Page 10 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
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
language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court
to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of thePage 11 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
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
judgements of this Court has more firmly entrenched this
position, including, inter alia, Mallappa & Ors. vs. State of
Page 12 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
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
SCC (Cri) 325] , SCC p. 432, para 42)
42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the
Page 13 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
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.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of
the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturbPage 14 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
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:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent
perversity;
Page 15 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
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
innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused,
Page 16 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
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
gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of
fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by directPage 17 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
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
gratification without anything more would not make it an
offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1) (d), (i) and (ii)
Page 18 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
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.
(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
Page 19 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
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 six witnesses. PW1 – Babubhai Laxmanbhai
Hirpara examined at Exh. 11 is the complainant who has
stated the facts as per the complaint which is produced at
Exh. 14 and the procedure that was undertaken by the
Trap Laying Officer at the time of the trap till the trap was
successful. In the cross examination by the learned
advocate for the accused the witness has admitted that he
had given an application to the GEB on 18.04.1999 for
shifting of the wire that was above his house and the
application was in the name of his father but he had signed
Page 20 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
the application in the name of his father as his father had
gone for a pilgrimage on 20.03.1999 for two months. The
application is produced at Exh. 18. In the application it was
mentioned that the wires were required to be immediately
shifted and the applicant was ready to bear the expenditure
for the shifting of the wire. The witness has also admitted
that a letter was received from the Deputy Engineer GEB,
Subdivision Amreli addressed to his father and an
estimated cost of Rs. 2940/- was to be incurred for shifting
of the wire. The letter is produced at Exh. 19 and the
complainant has admitted that he has not paid the amount
till today and the wires have not been shifted as he has not
paid the amount. The complainant has also admitted that
the wires would be shifted at the expenses incurred by the
landlord and it came to his knowledge that the expenditure
would be about Rs. 3000/-as the GEB Officers had come to
the spot for a survey. The accused had also stated that the
expenditure would be Rs. 3000/- for shifting of the wires.
The complainant has also admitted that he did not have
any conversation about Rs. 7000/- with the accused and
Page 21 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
the accused was working in the GEB and the people in the
village would give the accused the amount of electricity bills
to deposit with the GEB and any work of the GEB was done
by the accused. After paying the bills in the GEB, the
receipts were given by the accused to the persons who had
given the amount to pay the bills and the accused was
always helpful to everyone in the village for any work with
the GEB. The accused had demanded for the expenditure
for shifting of the wires and he had given the tainted
currency notes to the accused which were accepted by him
and placed in his shirt pocket.
10.1 PW2 – Karshanbhai Malabhai Chudasama examined
at Exh. 22 is the panch witness who has narrated the
contents of the Panchnama which is produced at Exh. 24.
In the cross examination the witness has stated that when
he went to the ACB Office the Panchnama Part-I was
dictated by Police Inspector Dave and it was written by his
writer and as they were asked to sign the panchnama, he
had affixed his signatures. The writing work was done by
the officer and his writer and at that time he was sitting far
Page 22 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
away. When the accused came to the house of the
complainant, the complainant asked him about the
application that was given to shift the wire at his own
expenditure and the accused had told him that the survey
was conducted and the wire would be shifted later on and
the accused had told him that he would have to deposit Rs.
3000/- and the complainant took the amount of Rs. 3000/-
and gave it to the accused who accepted it and placed it in
his pocket. The accused thereafter told the complainant
that he would deposit the money in the GEB and would
thereafter shift the wires. The witness has also admitted
that he had affixed his signature on the Panchnama as per
the say of the Trap Laying Officer.
10.2 PW3 – Mahendrarai Jayashankar Dave examined at
Exh. 29 is the Trap Laying Officer who has narrated the
entire procedure that was undertaken by him on
11.05.1999 when the complainant came to the ACB Office
and the procedure undertaken by him for arranging the
trap until the trap was successful. In the cross examination
by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has
Page 23 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
stated that in the document produced at Exh. 25, there is a
signature which is In-charge Police Inspector ACB, Amreli
but it is not his signature and he does not know whose
signature it is. The seizure memo at Exh. 30 was produced
as per his instructions. The application dated 18.04.1999
was seized from the accused and the application was made
by Lakhubhai Valabhai Hirpara – the father of the
complainant. In the application it was mentioned that the
wires were to be shifted at their own cost and he did not
inquire whether the father of the complainant had in fact
gone out of station. The witness has also admitted that he
did not ask the complainant to bring his father to be the
complainant, as the application was made by his father.
The accused was arrested at Jithudi village but the arrest
memo shows that the accused was arrested at Amreli and
the arrest memo and the intimation given to the relatives of
the accused is produced at Exh. 31 and Exh. 32
respectively. The witness has admitted that the Panchnama
produced at Exh. 24 was written by his writer and dictated
by him.
Page 24 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
10.3 PW4 – Shantilal Chimanlal Shah examined at Exh. 34
is the Competent Authority who has given the order of
sanction for prosecution which is produced at Exh. 35. In
the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that in the
order of sanction for prosecution produced at Exh. 35, the
place of offence or the village is not mentioned and the date,
time and place of prior demand or the amount of prior
demand is not mentioned. He had only received a report
from the ACB Office for the sanction and did not receive the
letter dated 18.04.1999 addressed by Lakhubhai Valabhai
to GEB for shifting of the line. The witness has admitted
that he did not see the letter of Junior Engineer, Amreli
(Rural) dated 12.05.1999 at the time of giving the order of
sanction for prosecution.
10.4 PW5 – Bhikubha Balubha Jadeja examined at Exh. 36
is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure
undertaken by him during investigation and has stated that
after he had taken over the investigation and had recorded
the statements of some connected witnesses, he was
transferred to ACB, Jamnagar and had handed over the
Page 25 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
investigation to Police Inspector – G.D. Trivedi. In the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that the Junior Engineer had given an
explanation dated 12.05.1999 which is produced at Exh.
37.
10.5 PW6 – Gunvantrai Devram Trivedi examined at Exh.
38 is the Investigating Officer who had taken over the
investigation from Police Inspector – Bhikubha Balubha
Jadeja and had thereafter, filed the charge sheet after the
order of sanction for prosecution was received. In the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has admitted that he had written a letter to the
Talati Cum Mantri seeking information about the house on
01.07.1999 and the information was given by a letter dated
06.07.1999 by the Talati Cum Mantri and both the letters
are produced and recorded at Exh. 41 and Exh. 42
respectively. The witness has also admitted that at the time
of the trap there was no Police Inspector named J.P. Parmar
at Amreli.
11. On a careful appreciation of the entire evidence on
Page 26 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
record, it emerges from the complaint and the deposition of
the complainant that an allegation was made that the
accused had initially demanded an amount of Rs. 4000/-
for shifting the electric wire passing above the house of the
complainant and after negotiation, the amount was
allegedly settled at Rs. 3000/-. However, a close scrutiny of
the evidence does not reveal any cogent or reliable material
to establish that such a demand was in fact made by the
accused at any point of time. The record further indicates
that an application dated 18.04.1999, produced at Exh.18
was submitted for shifting of the electric wires. The said
application was made in the name of the complainant’s
father – Lakhubhai Valabhai Hirpara. The complainant has
admitted in his evidence that as his father had gone on a
pilgrimage, he himself signed the application on behalf of
his father. The application clearly records that the shifting
of the wires could be undertaken at the cost and expenses
of Lakhubhai Valabhai Hirpara. Significantly, the said
Lakhubhai Valabhai has not been examined before the Trial
Court and the complainant has candidly admitted that he
Page 27 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
had affixed his father’s signature on the application. It has
also come on record that the estimated expenditure for
shifting the electric wire was Rs. 2940/-. The document
produced at Exh. 19 shows that the Deputy Engineer of the
GEB (Rural) Sub-Division had intimated Lakhubhai
Valabhai regarding the said estimated expenditure. The
evidence further discloses that a survey had been
conducted by the officers of the GEB and the approximate
cost of shifting the wire was assessed at around Rs. 3000/-.
In his cross-examination, the complainant has admitted
that the accused had asked him to deposit the amount of
approximately Rs. 3000/- towards the expenditure required
for shifting the wire in the office of the GEB and that upon
submission of the application and deposit of the requisite
amount, the process for shifting the wire would be
undertaken. Thus, the evidence on record indicates that the
amount referred to was towards official expenditure and not
by way of illegal gratification. The communication of the
GEB produced at Exh. 19 clearly reflects that the estimated
expenditure for shifting the wire was Rs. 2940/-. The
Page 28 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
complainant has also admitted that the Panchnama was
not dictated by him but was dictated by the Trap Laying
Officer and written by his writers and that he had merely
signed the Panchnama as instructed by the officer. In such
circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish the
alleged demand at the time of the trap beyond reasonable
doubt. The Trap Laying Officer has also not verified what
exactly had transpired between the complainant and the
accused at the time of the trap and there is no satisfactory
explanation regarding certain recitals appearing in the
Panchnama produced at Exh. 24. With regard to sanction,
PW4 – Shantilal Chimanlal Shah, who granted the sanction
for prosecution has admitted that the sanction order
produced at Exh. 35 was issued on the basis of a report
forwarded by the ACB Office and that he had not perused
the relevant documents before according sanction. The
sanction order itself does not specify the date, time or place
of the alleged demand nor does it mention the amount
allegedly demanded by the accused. The witness has also
admitted that he had not considered the letter of the Junior
Page 29 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
Engineer, Amreli (Rural) Sub-Division dated 12.09.1999
prior to granting sanction.
12. In view of the aforesaid infirmities and the settled
position of law, the prosecution has failed to establish the
essential ingredient of demand of illegal gratification beyond
reasonable doubt, and this Court is of the considered
opinion that the learned Trial Court has duly appreciated
the entire evidence in its proper perspective; finding no
perversity, illegality, or infirmity in the appreciation of
evidence, this Court is in complete agreement with the
findings, ultimate conclusion, and the resultant order of
acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. As the
findings are absolutely just and proper and the present
appeal is found to be devoid of merits, no interference is
warranted in the impugned judgment and order;
resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
13. The judgment and order passed by the learned Special
Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Amreli in Special Case No.
93/1999 on 31.05.2008, is hereby confirmed.
Page 30 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2070/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
14. 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 31 of 31
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:53:51 IST 2026
