Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mafatbhai Tribhovandas Parekh on 8 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1627 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MAFATBHAI TRIBHOVANDAS PAREKH
========================================================
Appearance:
MS.C.M.SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VINOD M GAMARA(5910) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 08/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State
under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
against the judgment and the order of acquittal passed by the
learned Presiding Officer, 11 th Fast Track Court, Kheda at
Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in
Special (ACB) Case No.11 of 2004 on 14.03.2006, whereby, the
Page 1 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent – original
accused from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)
and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the P.C.Act’).
1.1. The respondent hereinafter is referred to as ‘the
accused’ as he stood in the original case, for the sake of
convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present
appeal are as under:
2.1. The accused was working as the Talati-cum-Mantri of
Kansari Gram panchayat and was a Public Servant. Chunilal
Haribhai Patel, the father of the complainant, owned 36 guntas of
land of Survey No. 146, Paiki, which was new tenure land and
the land was converted to old tenure land on 18-07-2002.
Chunilal Haribhai Patel had executed a sale deed in the name of
the complainant – Chetankumar Chunilal Patel, his mother
Kamalaben and his sister Vimalaben. On the basis of the sale
deed and the index, the complainant had given an application
for mutating their names in the revenue record to the Talati-
Page 2 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
cum-Mantri of Kansari and the accused had given the notice
under Section 135-D of the Land Revenue Code. The outstanding
dues of the land was paid on 24.06.2003. On inquiring from the
accused, the complainant was told that the entry would be
certified, but on 19.02.2004, when the complainant went to the
Gram Panchayat Office and met the accused, he was told that
the entry was rejected by Macwan Saheb, the Circle Officer,
and demanded an amount of illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- for
himself and for Circle Officer, Macwan Saheb. The accused told
the complainant to give an amount of Rs.2,000/- in the first
instance and the remaining amount of Rs.2,000/- after the entry
was certified and demanded the amount of Rs.2,000/- on
23.02.2004. The complainant did not want to give the amount of
illegal gratification and on 23.02.2004, went to the ACB Police
Station, Nadiad and the complaint of the complainant was
recorded between 5.00 to 5.30 hours.
2.2. The Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses
and the demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and solution
of Sodium Carbonate was carried out in the presence of the
Page 3 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
complainant and the panch witnesses and the characteristics of
phenolphthalein powder and solution of Sodium Carbonate
were explained to the panch witnesses and the complainant.
The complainant gave twenty currency notes of the
denomination of Rs.100/- each and all the currency notes were
smeared with phenolphthalein powder and placed in the left
shirt pocket of the complainant and the trap was arranged. The
complainant, the panch witnesses and the members of the
raiding party started in Government Jeep No.GJ-1-G-3365 from
Nadiad to village Kansari, and thereafter, the complainant and
the panch witness no. 1 reached the office of Gram Panchayat,
Kansari and at about 14:00 hours and met the accused. The
complainant inquired from the accused about the cancellation of
entry to be mutated in the revenue record of land bearing
Survey No.146, the accused told the complainant that he was
overburdened withwork and he would do the same, and
demanded the amount of illegal gratification, and accordingly,
the complainant gave the tainted currency notes of Rs.2,000/-
for sanctioning the entry that was cancelled. The accused
accepted the same and put the currency notes in his shirt
Page 4 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
pocket. The predetermined signal was given and the members
of the raiding party came and caught the accused red handed.
The offence was registered at Nadiad ACB Police Station
C.R.No.2 of 2004 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the
P.C.Act.
2.3. The accused was duly served with the summons and
the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and after
the due procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was completed, a charge was framed against the
accused at Exh.6 and the statement of the accused was
recorded, wherein, the accused denied the allegations made in
the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken
on record. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses and produced
18 documentary evidences to prove the charge against the
accused. The learned APP filed a closing pursis at Exh.36 and
the further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein, the
accused denied all the evidence against him and stated that a
false case has been filed against him.
Page 5 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
2.4. After the arguments of the learned APP and learned
advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court
acquitted the accused from all the offences by the impugned
judgement and the order.
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 is contrary to
law evidence on record and principles of justice. The learned
Trial Court has not appreciated the oral and documentary
evidence, and particularly, the evidence of the complainant,
who has clearly deposed that the accused had demanded an
amount of illegal gratification. The learned Trial Court has failed
to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial
Court has failed to appreciate that the ingredients of the offence
i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery have been clearly
proved beyond reasonable doubts; however, the learned Trial
Court has discarded the important aspects and has committed
grave error, which has resulted into the miscarriage of justice.
The reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court, while
Page 6 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
acquitting the respondent, are improper, perverse and bad in
law and the impugned judgment is illegal, improper and
perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr.
Vinod Gamara for the respondent – original accused. Perused
the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal and have re-
appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of
the case.
5. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant – State
has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the
prosecution on record and has vehemently argued that the
impugned judgment of acquittal is illegal, perverse and
contrary to the evidence on record, inasmuch as the learned
Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is cogent, direct as
well as circumstantial evidence connecting the respondent with
the alleged offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the
P.C.Act. The prosecution proved all the ingredients of demand,
acceptance and recovery and the involvement of the
Page 7 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
respondents in the offence, hence, the appeal must be allowed
and the respondent held guilty for the said offence.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Vinod Gamara for the
respondent has submitted that the learned Trial Court has
properly appreciated all the oral and documentary evidence
and there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned and
judgment and order and the appeal may be rejected.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the
present case, it would be appropriate to produce the
observations in Para.11 of 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) 2Page 8 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
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
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 9 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
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. … XXX XXX XXX
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;
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.”
Page 10 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
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, 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
Page 11 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
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 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 offerPage 12 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
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) 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,
Page 13 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
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 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 light of the settled principles of law, the evidence
on record is re-appreciated and PW-1 Chetankumar Chunilal
Patel, the complainant, has been examined at Exh.10 and the
witness has narrated the contents of the complaint, which was
produced at Exh.12. The complainant has narrated the entire
procedure undertaken by the Trap Laying Officer for arranging
the trap and in the cross-examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, the witness has stated that he went to the ACB
office on 19.02.2004 at 5.00pm. He had told the Trap Laying
Officer that the accused was demanding the amount of illegal
Page 14 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
gratification and had also told him that the amount was for the
accused and for the Circle Officer, Macwan Saheb. The entry
was rejected by the Circle Officer, Macwan Saheb and the Trap
Laying Officer was also in the office on the night of 22.02.2022.
He had stayed for the night at the ACB Office and he was
awoken at 5.00am by the Trap Laying Officer, and at that time
the panch witnesses were present. While his complaint was
being written, both the panch witnesses, the Trap Laying
Officer and the writer were also present and the complaint was
taken down in the handwriting of the writer. He had informed
the contents of the complaint to the Trap Laying Officer and as
he was narrating the details of his complaint, the complaint was
being written by the writer which was dictated by the Trap
Laying Officer. He had given an amount of Rs.2000/- to the Trap
Laying Officer, but the Trap Laying Officer did not inquire from
him whether there was any outstanding dues to be paid at the
Kansari Gram Panchayat. He had written a cheque for
Rs.11,775/- on 12.08.1987, which was to be paid as conversion
tax amount at the Kansari Gram Panchayat which was returned
due to “insufficient funds” and a receipt is issued for any
Page 15 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
amount that is paid in the Government Office. He does not have
any evidence to show that he had paid the entire amount of
conversion tax and he had to pay the amount of tax for the year
2000 to the Trap Laying Officer and had to take the receipt for
the same from him. On 19.02.2004, when he met the accused,
he was informed that the entry was rejected by the Circle
Officer, Macwan Saheb. He was fully aware as to who was the
person who could certify the entry and knew that Circle Officer
Macwan Saheb was the person to certify the entry. He did not
give any amount to the accused before 23.02.2004 and he felt
that his entry was rejected because of the mistake of the
accused. The place where the accused was seated had other
employees working and the room was about 10 feet X 14 feet.
He had initiated the conversation with the accused and had
asked the accused what procedure was undertaken for the
entry that was rejected. The accused had told him that he was
overburdened with work today and his work would be done at
a later date and at that time, he had told the accused that he had
brought the amount of Rs.2000/- with him. The accused told him
that there was an auction of the acacia trees at the roadside and
Page 16 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
he was going to that place and had called the complainant to
that place. The accused immediately left for that place on his
scooter and he and the panch witness followed the accused. He
had a conversation with the accused about certifying the entry
and the shirt of the accused was changed at the Panchayat
Office but he does not know who had brought the alternative
shirt. The witness has produced the copy of the Village Form
No.6 Mutation Entry No.2689 dated 19.06.2003 at Exh.11 and on
perusal the entry was rejected by the Circle Officer,
S.I.Macwan, Deputy Mamalatdar, Khambhat. The witness has
also produced the complaint at Exh.12, the notice under Section
135-D of the Land Revenue Code at Exh.13 and a copy of the
index at Exh.14.
10.1. PW-2 Sanjaybhai Pranashankar Joshi examined at
Exh.15 as the panch witness who has narrated all the events that
had unfolded on 23.02.2004 when he and the other panch
witness Kanubhai Lalabhai Solanki went to the ACB office at
Nadiyad at 5:45am and the procedure undertaken by the Trap
Laying Officer for the laying of the trap until the trap was
Page 17 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
successful. As far as the trap is concerned, the witness has
stated that he and the complainant along with the other panch
witness and the Trap Laying Officer and other members of the
raiding party reached Kansari village at about 9:45am in a
vehicle and halted the vehicle outside of Kansari village. He
and the complainant had gone into the panchayat office and the
panch no.2 and other members of the raiding party stood
scattered around. The complainant met the accused and they
sat in the Gram Panchayat Office till about 2:00pm. The accused
was overburdened work and at around 2:00pm, the
complainant asked the accused what procedure was
undertaken for the entry that was rejected and the accused told
him that as he was overburdened work, his work would be
done and asked whether he had brought the amount. The
complainant told him that he had brought Rs.2,000/- and the
accused told him that he was going to the roadside where the
auction of acacia trees was going on near the pond and had
called him to that place. The accused took his scooter and left
for that place. The complainant and the witness also followed
him and when they reached near the pond, the accused told the
Page 18 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
complainant that he would complete the work and the
complainant informed the accused that he had brought the
amount of Rs.2,000/- and took the currency notes from his left
pocket with his right hand and gave it to the accused with his
left hand. The accused accepted the amount with his right hand
and counted the amount and placed it in his left shirt pocket.
The complainant gave the pre-determined signal and the
members of the raidng party came and caught the accused and
they brought the accused to the Rest House at Kambhat as the
‘Pulse Polio Program’ was going on and the place where the
trap had taken place was a public road. The procedure
thereafter was done at the Rest House at Kambhat. The
Panchdama Part-II was drawn which was produced at Exh.18
and the seizure memo is at Exh.17. In the cross-examination by
the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated
that he did not know whether any government dues were
outstanding from the complainant and when they reached the
office of the Talati till 2:00pm, there was no conversation
between the complainant and the accused. In the room where
the Talati was seated other employees were also seated and the
Page 19 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
complainant started the conversation with the accused at
around 2:00p.m. The accused took his scooter and went to the
pond where the auction of the acacia trees was going on and
the complainant and the panch witness followed the accused to
that place. After the trap, the accused was taken to the Rest
House and the Panchayat Office was on the way to the Rest
House from the pond but they did not go to the Panchayat
Office. The Trap Laying Officer had decided to conduct the test
at the Rest House and not at the place of the trap and he does
not know who had brought the alternative shirt for the accused.
The bottles containing the solution of sodium carbonate were
sealed with the lac seal of Police Inspector, ACB, Nadiad and
the panchnama was signed at the Panchayat Office. He does not
know which part of the panchnama was written at the rest house
and the signatures were affixed at the Panchayat Office. He
cannot say which part of the panchnama was dictated by him
and which part was dictated by the Panch No.2.
10.2. PW-3 Shaileshbhai Laherchand Shah examined at
Exh.19 is the Competent Authority who has given the order of
Page 20 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
sanction for prosecution which is produced at Exh.20. In the
cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that he did not see the notice under Section
135-D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code in the papers that
were sent by the ACB but he had seen the Mutation Entry
No.2689. He had also read the reasons for rejection of the entry
but he cannot say whether the necessary documents for
rejection of the entry were placed in the papers or not. A draft
sanction order was also sent by the ACB along with the papers
and the sanction order as also the draft sanction order are
verbatim same and the witness has stated that he had merely
filled up the blanks in the draft sanction order.
10.3. PW-4 Manoj Khimjibhai Limbachiya examined at
Exh.23 is the Trap Laying Officer who has narrated the entire
procedure that was undertaken by him on 23.02.2004 when the
complainant came to the ACB office and the procedure
undertaken by him for the trap as also the till the trap was
successful. In the cross-examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, the witness has stated that he had met the
Page 21 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
complainant for the first time on 23.02.2004 at 4:45am and the
panch witnesses had come at around 5:30am. He had instructed
the panch witnesses to come at 5:30am and they came after the
complaint of the complainant was recorded. He inquired from
the complainant as to whether any Government dues were to be
paid at the Kansari Gram Panchayat but he did not verify
whether the reply given by the complainant was true or not. On
the day of the incident, the work of Pulse Polio Programme was
going on but he did not record any statements of any
employees. There were other residential houses near the Gram
Panchayat Office and he waited outside of the Gram Panchayat
Office from 10:00am to 2:00pm but he did not verify as to why
the complainant and the panch witnesses were at the Panchayat
Office from 10:00am to 2:00pm. The place at the pond was a
public road and he may have had some conversation with the
panch no.1 at the pond which may be about the acceptance of
the bribe amount. He did not record the statement of any
person at the rest house and did not take any certificate about
the allotment of the room at the rest house. The shirt of the
accused was changed at the rest house and the trap money that
Page 22 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
was seized was placed in a sealed cover. He could not say what
procedure he had undertaken for sealing the solution of sodium
carbonate and he had not placed any panch slip with the
signatures of the panch witnesses on the mouth of the bottle
while tying the bottle with the thread.
10.4. PW-5 Abubakar Mohammedbhai Mansuri examined
at Exh.25 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation. In the
cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that he did not investigate as to whether any
government dues were outstanding from the complainant and
the document at Exh.34 shows that the accused was at
Khambhat on 19.02.2004. He does not know whether the
muddamal bottles were lying at the ACB Office from 27.02.2004
to 04.03.2004 and he had handed and he had taken over the
investigation on 27.02.2004. He did not record the statement of
the person who had taken the muddamal for analysis to the FSL
and as per his say, Police Constable Kiranbhai Chawda had
taken the muddamal to hand it over to the FSL for analysis, but
Page 23 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
he could not say on which date the muddamal had reached the
FSL. As per the record, the muddamal had reached the FSL on
04.03.2004 and during investigation, it was found that the entry
was rejected by Circle Officer Macwan Saheb. He recorded the
statement of Circle Officer Macwan Saheb and had verified the
reason for the rejection of the entry. It was also found during
investigation that the power of allowing or rejecting the entry,
the mutation entry was with the Circle Officer Macwan Saheb
and the complainant did not make any allegations against
Circle Officer Macwan Saheb.
11. On a fresh and independent re-appreciation of the
entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record, this
Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the
foundational facts of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification beyond reasonable doubt and the view taken by
the learned Trial Court in recording acquittal is a possible and
reasonable view warranting no interference in an appeal
against acquittal. As per the complaint produced at Exh.12, the
Mutation Entry for entering the names of the complainant, his
Page 24 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
sister and his mother came to be rejected by the Circle Officer
S.I.Macwan and it is the case of the complainant that when he
visited Kansari Gram Panchayat on 19.02.2004, he came to
know from the accused that such entry had been rejected.
According to the complainant, on the very same day, the first
demand of illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- was allegedly made
by the accused for himself as well as for Circle Officer Macwan.
However, the prosecution evidence itself creates serious doubt
regarding the very presence of the accused at Kansari Gram
Panchayat on 19.02.2004. The daily diary of the accused is
produced at Exh.34, on perusal, clearly indicates that on
19.02.2004, the accused was at Khambhat and even the
Investigating Officer has admitted the said documentary
position. This materially contradicts the version of the
complainant that he had met the accused at Kansari Gram
Panchayat on that date, thereby creating a substantial doubt
regarding the very genesis of the alleged first demand. Further,
the Investigating Officer has failed to investigate an important
defence raised by the accused regarding outstanding
government dues payable by the complainant. In the cross-
Page 25 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
examination of the complainant, it has come on record that he
had issued a cheque of Rs.11,775/- dated 12.08.1997 towards
conversion tax, which was dishonoured with the endorsement
“Insufficient Funds”, and there is no evidence produced by the
complainant to show that such amount had been cleared till
February, 2004. The defence of the accused that the
complainant was making payment of conversion tax in
installments and that the amount allegedly accepted by him was
towards such outstanding dues, therefore, emerges as a
plausible and probable defence. In a prosecution under the
P.C.Act, once such a reasonable explanation arises from the
record itself, the burden upon the prosecution to prove illegal
demand and conscious acceptance becomes heavier, which
burden has not been discharged in the present case. Even the
trap proceedings do not inspire confidence. As per the
prosecution, the tainted amount was accepted near the pond,
and immediately thereafter, the accused was taken to the
Government Rest House at Khambhat, instead of conducting the
necessary verification and recovery proceedings at or near the
spot itself, though the Gram Panchayat Office at Kansari was on
Page 26 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
the way and other suitable places were available nearby. PW-2
Sanjaybhai Pranayshankar Joshi, the shadow panch, has
specifically stated that it was only at the Government Rest
House that the Trap Laying Officer inquired from him regarding
the details of the transaction. Even the Trap Laying Officer has
not categorically stated that any immediate inquiry was made at
the place of trap from either the complainant or the panch
witness regarding the transaction. Thus, the recovery of tainted
currency notes and the panchnama procedure were not
undertaken at the spot but subsequently at the Government
Rest House, which renders the prosecution version doubtful and
affects the sanctity of the trap proceedings. There are also
material contradictions regarding the lodging of the complaint
itself. The complainant states that he had reached the ACB
Office, Nadiad on 22.02.2004 at about 5:00p.m., stayed there
overnight and that the complaint was recorded in the presence
of the panch witnesses. In contrast, the Trap Laying Officer has
categorically deposed that he met the complainant for the first
time only on 23.02.2004 at about 4:45am, and that the panch
witnesses arrived at about 5:30am, i.e., after the complaint had
Page 27 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
already been recorded. This contradiction goes to the root of
the prosecution case and affects the credibility of the entire
pre-trap procedure. There is also no cogent evidence
regarding seizure of the shirt of the accused. There is no
evidence as to who arranged the alternate shirt for the accused
or who brought it, though the shirt allegedly worn by the
accused was seized during the trap proceedings. The
Investigating Officer has also not recorded the statements of the
father, mother or sister of the complainant, though they were
material witnesses in the background of the dispute. It has
further come on record that one independent person was
present at the place of trap, yet such independent witness has
not been examined before the learned Trial Court, thereby
depriving the prosecution case of valuable corroboration. As
regards the muddamal and F.S.L. procedure, serious
inconsistencies are also noticed. Though the trap was
conducted on 23.02.2004 and PW-5 Abubaker Mohammadbhai
Mansuri states that he took over investigation only on
27.02.2004, the record shows that the muddamal had reached
the F.S.L. only on 04.03.2004. There is absolutely no evidence
Page 28 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
regarding safe custody of the bottles containing hand-wash
samples of the accused marked as Article “A” and “B” during
the intervening period from 23.02.2004 till their dispatch.
Though the Investigating Officer states that Police Constable
Kiranbhai Chawda had carried the muddamal to F.S.L.,
Ahmedabad, the said constable has not been examined before
the learned Trial Court. Thus, the chain of custody of the
muddamal remains unproved, creating serious doubt
regarding the integrity of the scientific evidence. Even the
sanction for prosecution produced at Exh.20 does not inspire
confidence. PW-3 Shaileshbhai Laherchand Shah, the
Sanctioning Authority, has categorically admitted that the draft
sanction order had been sent by the ACB Office and that he had
merely filled in the blanks therein. This clearly indicates
absence of independent application of mind by the Sanctioning
Authority, thereby affecting the validity of sanction itself. In
view of the aforesaid serious infirmities, contradictions and
omissions, the prosecution has failed to prove the essential
ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal
gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court
Page 29 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1627/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
has, therefore, rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the
accused and recorded an order of acquittal. This Court finds no
perversity, illegality or misappreciation of evidence in the
impugned judgment so as to warrant interference in an appeal
against acquittal. The findings recorded by the learned Trial
Court being based on proper appreciation of evidence and
being a plausible view, the judgment and order of acquittal
deserve to be confirmed.
12. The impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned Presiding Officer, 11 th Fast Track Court, Kheda at
Nadiad in Special (ACB) Case No.11 of 2004 on 14.03.2006 is
hereby confirmed. Bail bonds stand cancelled.
13. Record and proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S.KAZI…..
Page 30 of 30
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 00:33:04 IST 2026
