Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Prithvilal Meena S/O Shri Badri Prasad … vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (1 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1372/2019
1. Prithvilal Meena S/O Shri Badri Prasad Meena, R/O Medi
P.S. Vajirpura District Sawai Madhopur Presently Residing
at Plot No 29 Bhairav Nagar P.S. Pratap Nagar Jaipur
Presently House of Babulal Meena Shivaji Nagar Nainva
Presently Assistant Engineer Jaipur Discom Nainva District
Bundi Raj. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail At Kota)
2. Hemraj @ Foru S/O Shri Chhotulal, R/O Near Hospital
Nainva District Bundi Raj. (Presently Lodged In Central
Jail At Kota)
----Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni
Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
Date of Conclusion of
Arguments 21.01.2026
Date on which the judgment
was reserved 21.01.2026
Whether the full judgment or
only the operative part is Full Judgment
pronounced
Date of pronouncement
09.03.2026
REPORTABLE
Table of Contents
FACTUAL BACKGROUND.................................................................................................2
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS..............................................................7
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR..............................................8
COURT'S OBSERVATION..................................................................................................10
CONCLUSION:...................................................................................................................31
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (2 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
1. The present appeal has been filed jointly by both the
appellants challenging the common judgment dated 06.07.2019
passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, Kota, in Sessions Case No. 10/2016, whereby the appellant
No. 1, Prithvilal Meena was convicted under Section 120-B of IPC
and Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of
1988"), and appellant No. 2, Hemraj @ Foru was convicted under
Section 120-B of IPC and under Section 8 of "the Act of 1988" and
both were sentenced as under:
Name of the accused Conviction Sentence
Prithvilal Meena Section 7 of the Act of 03 years rigorous imprisonment along
1988 with Rs. 20,000/- fine. In default of
payment of fine, accused to undergo 02
months simple imprisonment.
Section 13(1)(d) read 05 years rigorous imprisonment along
with Section 13(2) of with Rs. 30,000/- fine. In default of
the Act of 1988 payment of fine, accused to undergo 03
months simple imprisonment.
Section 120B IPC 6 months simple imprisonment
Hemraj @ Foru Section 8 of the Act of 04 years rigorous imprisonment along
1988 with Rs. 30,000/- fine. In default of
payment of fine, accused to undergo 03
months simple imprisonment.
Section 120B IPC 06 months simple imprisonment
All the sentences to run concurrently.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The case of the prosecution as culled out from records is that
on 01.02.2016, the complainant Kailash Meena and Ramphool
Meena submitted a written complaint before the Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Bundi, alleging demand of illegal gratification by the
appellant No. 1, Prithvilal Meena, who was working as Assistant
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (3 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board. It was alleged that on
29.01.2016, the appellant No. 1, Prithvilal Meena along with his
staff inspected the electricity meters installed at the complainant's
premises and thereafter verbally imposed a VCR penalty of Rs.
80,000/-. Subsequently, the appellant No. 1 Prithvilal Meena
allegedly demanded illegal gratification for settlement of the
matter.
3. According to the prosecution, on 01.02.2016, the appellant
No. 1 Prithvilal Meena directed the complainants to contact his
driver and associates, who demanded Rs. 20,000/-, out of which
Rs. 14,500/- was paid and remaining Rs. 5500/- was agreed to be
paid. The demand was verified by the ACB and thereafter, on
02.02.2016, a trap was organized. Two independent witnesses
were associated with the trap proceedings. The bribe amount of
Rs. 5,500/- was treated with phenolphthalein powder and handed
over to the complainant- Kailash with necessary instructions. At
about 11:40 AM, both the complainants met the appellant No. 1
Prithvilal Meena in his office. As per the prosecution, upon
communication and approval of the appellant No. 1 Prithvilal
Meena, the bribe amount was passed through Ramhet and
ultimately accepted by appellant No. 2 Hemraj @ Foru, who kept
the tainted money in the pocket of his trouser. Upon receiving the
pre-arranged signal, the trap party immediately entered the office
and conducted a search. The phenolphthalein test of appellant No.
2 Hemraj was found positive and a sum of Rs. 5,500/- was
recovered from his possession. Both the appellants Prithvilal
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (4 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
Meena and Hemraj @ Foru were present together in the same
room when the search party arrived.
4. During search a red diary with some documents, belonging
to the appellant No. 1 Prithvilal Meena was recovered and seized,
containing entries relating to meter checking of complainant's
premises along with VCR numbers and photograph references. The
hand-written slip bearing names of the complainants were also
seized.
5. The appellants during investigation refused to give their
voice samples in writing.
6. After completion of the investigation and upon obtaining the
requisite sanction for prosecution, a charge-sheet was filed
against the appellants Prithvilal Meena, Hemraj @ Foru and co-
accused Ramhet Meena for the offences punishable under Section
120-B IPC and Sections 7, 8 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)
of "the Act of 1988".
7. During trial to substantiate the charges framed against the
appellants, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:
Witness Name Deposition
PW-1 Ms. Hemandra Kumari Witness of keeping 11 currency notes of
(Constable at ACB Chowki, Rs.500/- with the complainant- Kailash ,
Bundi) having phenolphthalein powder;
PW-2 Gopal Krishan Deposed about providing records (Ex.
(AEN at Bundi Discom) P-2) of the electricity department to
ACB.
PW-3 Babulal Meena Witness about meeting of complainants
with appellant Prithvilal Meena at
(Landlord of the appellant-
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (5 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
Prithvilal Meena) rental premises, but turned hostile.
PW-4 Ramprasad s/o Jagdish Witness of meter checking proceedings
but turned hostile.
(Resident of the same village
as complainant)
PW-5 Ramprakash Witness of meter checking proceedings
but turned hostile.
(Resident of the same village
as complainant)
PW-6 Ramprasad S/o Ramchandra Witness of meter checking proceedings
but turned hostile.
(Resident of the same village
as complainant)
PW-7 Ramanand The person who deposited three sealed
bottles of washing to FSL Jaipur on
(HC ACB Bundi)
09.02.2016 with letter Ex. P-7 and
thereafter obtained receipt Ex. P-8.
PW-8 Ramphool Star witness of all proceedings including
trap also, but turned hostile.
(Complainant)
PW-9 Deepak Kumar Rathore Shadow witness of trap proceedings and
recovery of money.
(LDC-II, CMHO Bundi)
PW-10 Yadvendra Joshi Shadow witness of trap proceedings and
recovery of money, but turned hostile.
(UDC BCNI Bundi)
PW-11 Sunil Mehta Granted prosecution sanction to the
appellant no. 1
(Sanctioning Authority)
PW-12 Narendra Kumar About recording of statement of
witnesses, Shri Tarunkant Somani,
(ASP Jhalwar Chowki-I.O.)
Hemendra, Shri Ramphool Meena, Shri
Kailash Meena, Shri Yadvendra Joshi,
Shri Deepak Kumar Rathore, Shri
Neeraj Kumar, Shri Bhupendra Singh,
Shri Jeetendra Singh, Shri Ramanand,
Shri Ramprasad, Shri Ramprakash, Shri
Ramprakash s/o Ramchandra, Shri
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (6 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
Motilal, Shri Babulal and Shri Gopal
Mishra. Presented chargesheet against
the accused under Section 7, 8, 13(1)(d)
and 13(2) of Act of 1988 and under
Section 120B of IPC.
PW-13 Kailash Meena Star witness of whole proceedings and
trap also.
(Complainant)
PW-14 Tarunkant Somani Conducted trap proceedings. Admitted
the fact that complaint was filed by
(ASP ACB Chowki, Bundi)
Ramphool and Kailash on 01.02.2016
and he called both of them on next day
with Rs.5,500/- and showed the
phenolphthalein test, thereafter, asked
complainant-Kailash to give the same to
the accused.
PW-15 Jitendra Singh Witness of the verification and trap
proceedings test.
(Constable ACB Chowki,
Bundi)
PW-16 Bhupendra Singh Witness of the verification and trap
proceedings test.
(Constable ACB Chowki,
Bundi)
PW-17 Neeraj Kumar Witness of trap proceedings and
recovery of Rs. 5,500/- from Hemraj.
(S.I., ACB Chowki, Bundi)
and produced documentary evidence as Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/43,
besides Articles 1 to 29.
8. In defence, the appellants have examined the following
witnesses:
DW 1 Hariram Meena Contractor of Electricity Department in
2016
DW-2 Pushpendra Singh Naruka Technical Assistant in the Electricity
Department in 2016
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (7 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
DW-3 Balram Witness who went to deposit electricity bill
at Nainwa office on 02.02.2016
and produced Ex. D/1 to D/7 documents.
9. After considering the evidence produced by both sides, the
learned trial Court held the appellants guilty of the offences
aforesaid.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
11. Assailing the judgment and order passed by the trial Court,
learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial
Court has convicted the accused-appellants merely on the basis of
conjectures and surmises, which is legally impermissible. He
further contends that the sanctioning authority has not applied its
mind properly while granting sanction for prosecution. It is argued
that both the complainants did not support the case of the
prosecution and were declared hostile; despite this, the trial court
has held the appellants guilty and convicted them.
12. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients of
demand and acceptance, which are sine qua non for constituting
the offence, have not been proved. The findings about voice
recording is unsafe. He submits that the learned trial Court has
failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and has
proceeded beyond the settled principles of law, thereby convicting
the appellants on mere presumptions. According to the learned
counsel, the prosecution case lacks foundational evidence and
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (8 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
does not stand on its own legs, whereas settled law mandates that
conviction cannot be sustained in the absence of cogent and
reliable proof. Lastly, it is submitted that conviction on moral
grounds cannot be substituted for legal conviction and the learned
trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law while
recording the conviction; therefore, the impugned judgment
deserves to be set aside.
13. In support of his contentions, learned counsels for the
appellants have relied upon the following citations:
(1) Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC
637.
(2) S.K.Saini & Anr. Vs. C.B.I., 2015 SCC Online Del
11472
(3) Kumar Sanjay Vs. CBI, 2025 SCC Online Bom
5114
(4) Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2025) 4 SCC
624(2)
(5) Rattaram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Cr.
Appeal No. 1018/2018 decided on 22.05.2025
(6) Vijay Kumar Singhal Vs. State of Raj. & Anr., S.B.
Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 5351/2023 decided on 07.10.2024
(7) Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Raj., S.B. Cr.
Appeal No. 179/2018 decided on 18.05.2022;
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
14. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that although
complainant PW-8 Ramphool has turned hostile and PW-13 Kailash
have not supported the prosecution story in cross-examination but
the prosecution case stands duly corroborated by circumstantial as
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (9 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
well as electronic evidence, including digital voice recordings and
their transcripts. It is further submitted that the tainted amount
was recovered from appellant no.2 Hemraj in the presence of the
appellant no.1-Prithvilal Meena from a room. The digitally
recorded conversation clearly discloses the involvement of the
appellants in the commission of the offence. Hence, according to
the prosecution, the demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification, as well as pendency of the work, stands duly proved.
It is also contended that the sanction accorded for prosecution is
valid and in accordance with law. He again submits that the
complainant PW-13 Kailash shadow witness, PW-9 Deepak Kumar
Rathore, Investigation Officer PW-12 Narendra, leader of trap
team PW-14 Tarunkant, PW-15 Jitendra, PW-16 Bhupendra and
PW-17 Neeraj Kumar consistently deposed and supported the case
of the prosecution in entirety qua demand and acceptance of bribe
amount and recovery of the same. Therefore, the presumption
under Section 20 of “the Act of 1988” must be raised in favour of
the prosecution. He further submitted that once it is proved that
money was recovered from the possession of the appellants, the
burden of rebutting the presumption contemplated under Section
20 of “the Act of 1988” shifts upon the appellants, but they failed
to do the same. Therefore, the learned trial Court has committed
no illegality or irregularity in recording the conviction. In support
of these submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State of NCT of
Delhi reported in AIR 2023 SC 330.
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (10 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
15. I have considered the submissions made by both counsels
and scanned the matter carefully.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
16. At the outset, it would be apposite to point out the
fundamental components of the charged offences under “the Act
of 1988”.
16.1. The essential ingredients of Section 7 of “the Act of 1988”
are:-
i) that the person accepting the gratification should be a public
servant;
ii) that he should accept the gratification for himself and the
gratification should be as a motive or reward for doing or
forebearing to do any official act or for showing or forebearing to
show in the exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to
any person.
16.2. As per provision of Section 8 of “the Act of 1988, there are
three ingredients for establishing an offence under Section 8 of
“the Act of 1988” which include:
(a) firstly, acceptance or obtaining of gratification.
(b) secondly, the accused must have accepted or obtained, or
agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, any gratification and
gratification as a motive or reward. Such gratification must be as a
motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means, or by
exercise of personal influence, a public servant to do or forbear to
do any official act, or show favour or disfavour in the exercise of
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (11 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]official functions, or render or attempt to render any service or
disservice; and
(c) thirdly, intention to influence a public servant. The
gratification must be linked to the intention of influencing a public
servant, even if the accused himself is not a public servant and
even if the public servant is not actually influenced.
16.3. Similarly the necessary requirements for proving the offence
under Section 13(1)(d) of the “Act of 1988” are:-
i. that he should have been public servant;
ii. that he should have used corrupt or illegal means or
otherwise abused his position as such public servant and;
iii. that he should have obtained the valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage for himself or for any other person.
17. Concededly the appellant No. 1, Prithvilal Meena is a public
servant within the ambit of Section 2(c) of “the Act of 1988” and
at the time of the said incident was working as the Assistant
Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited (“JVVNL”), Nainwa,
District Bundi which is evident from his appointment and posting
order Ex.P-26 and Ex.P-27, respectively while the appellant No. 2,
Hemraj alias Foru was a private person who was present in the
office at the time of the said incident.
18. This Court is aware that law is well settled in C.M. Girish
Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779 and in B. Jayraj v. State of
Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55 that while considering the
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (12 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
case under “the Act of 1988”, it has to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money
knowing it to be a bribe, absence of proof of demand for illegal
gratification and mere possession of recovery of currency notes is
not sufficient to constitute such offence and the presumption
under Section 20 of “the Act of 1988” can be drawn only after
demand for acceptance of illegal gratification is proved.
19. It is also well established law that proof of demand of illegal
gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under “the
Act of 1988”. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta (supra) has
authoritatively held that demand can be proved either by
circumstantial or electronic evidence and not necessarily by direct
testimony of the complainant and that conviction can be sustained
even if the complainant turns hostile, provided the demand is
otherwise established.
20. Now coming to the evidence in the present case, to prove
demand and acceptance, complainant PW-13 Kailash narrated the
prosecution story in his examination-in-chief. Though he narrated
adversely in cross-examination but he has admitted his signature
on Supurdagi Memo of currency notes Ex. P-1, Written report Ex.
P-9, Memo Supurdagi digital tape recorder Ex. P-10, Verification
memo of transcript of recorded conversation Ex.P-11, recovery
memo of bribe amount Ex. P12, Seizure Memo Record Ex. P-13,
site plan Ex. P-14, Memo transcription of recorded conversation at
the time of bribe transaction Ex. P-15 and memo dubbing
conversation Ex. P-17, prepared during investigation, which
substantiate the prosecution case.
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (13 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
21. In the similar style, shadow witness PW-9 Deepak Kumar has
narrated positively about trap proceedings and execution of
documents as well as admitted his signature on Supurdagi Memo
of currency notes (Ex. P-1), written report Ex. P-9, Memo
Supurdagi digital tape recorder Ex. P-10, verification memo of
transcript of recorded conversation Ex.P-11, recovery memo of
bribe amount Ex. P12, seizure memo record Ex. P-13, site plan Ex.
P-14, memo transcription of recorded conversation at the time of
bribe transaction Ex. P-15, memo dubbing conversation Ex. P-17
and on arrest memos from Ex.P18 to 20. Moreover, though
shadow witness, PW-10 Yadvendra Joshi did not fully support the
prosecution case, but he has admitted his signatures on Supurdgi
Memo of currency notes (Ex. P-1), written report Ex. P-9, memo
supurdgi digital tape recorder Ex. P-10, verification memo of
transcript of recorded conversation Ex.P-11, recovery memo of
bribe amount Ex. P12, seizure memo record Ex.P-13, site plan
Ex.P-14, memo transcription of recorded conversation at the time
of bribe transaction Ex. P-15, memo dubbing conversation Ex. P-
17, and on arrest memos from Ex.P18 to 20.
22. The leader of trap team PW-14 Tarun Kant has proved the
entire procedure adopted during trap proceedings and preparation
of the transcripts. Nothing material has been shown in his cross-
examination to discredit the recorded conversations.
23. This Court in catena of judgments held that mere fact that
even complainant in a trap case turns hostile would not adversely
affect the case of prosecution and the conviction can be based
even on the evidence of trap laying officer if found reliable and
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (14 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
trustworthy. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to unveil
any material fact by which it can be deduced that the evidence of
trap laying officer PW14-Tarun Kant is not reliable and trustworthy
and he has conducted the case having previous enmity or
malafides.
24. Though witnesses PW-3 Babulal Meena, PW-4 Ramprasad,
PW-5 Ramprakash and PW-6 Ramprasad S/o Ramchandra have
turned hostile, but there are bright aspect of prosecution
witnesses also. PW-1 Ms. Hemendra Kumari who is a woman
constable at ACB, Bundi says about keeping currency of
Rs.5,500/- messed with the phenolphthalein in pocket of
complainant Kailash for the purpose of trap proceedings.
25. PW-2 Gopal Krishan, who is an employee of the RSEB has
deposed about providing record of electricity department to the
ACB. PW-7 Ramanand is the person who deposited the sealed
bottles of washing to FSL with letter Ex.P7 and thereafter obtained
the receipt Ex.P8.
26. PW-15 Jitendra Singh, Constable of ACB is also witness of
the trap proceedings and he has admitted his signatures on
Ex.P10 memo supurdagi digital tape recorder, memo of
transcription of bribe transaction Ex.P15, Ex.P17 memo dubbing
conversation and Ex.P20 arrest memo of appellant Prithvilal.
27. PW-16 Bhupendra Singh at the relevant time was working as
a constable of ACB and he has witnessed the trap proceedings and
admitted signature on Ex. P10 memo supurdagi digital tape
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (15 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
recorder, Ex.P11 verification memo, Ex.P18 and Ex.P19 arrest
memo of Ramhet and Hemraj.
28. Apart from oral evidence, the prosecution has relied upon
electronic evidence, voice recording capturing the conversations
relating to demand and receipt of illegal gratification among
complainant PW-8 Ramphool, PW-13 Kailash, appellant No. 1
Prithvilal Meena and appellant No.2 Hemraj. The recording has
been duly proved in accordance with law and its authenticity was
not successfully impeached during trial. The contents of the
recording, when read as a whole, clearly indicate demand of
gratification by appellant no. 1, Prithvilal Meena and consent and
direction for receipt through a middleman. Therefore, in view of
the law laid down in Neeraj Dutta (supra), the electronic
evidence is sufficient to establish the demand.
29. The mere fact that the complainants turned hostile does not
ipso facto demolish the prosecution case, particularly when
documentary and electronic evidence stand proved. The trap
proceedings have been duly established and demand stands
corroborated through independent and electronic evidence.
30. The voice recording is admissible electronic evidence. The
conditions for admissibility are as follows:
(1) The electronic record must be accompanied by a valid
certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
mentioning the device used and the manner of recording.
(2) The device from which the recording was produced must have
been in lawful control of the person producing it;
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (16 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
(3) The recording must be made in original state and unaltered;
(4) The electronic record must be original or a duly certified copy,
and the voice must be properly identified.
31. The certificate issued under Section 65B(4) of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 is exhibited by the PW-14 Tarunkant Somani
as Ex P-38 containing all ingredients as mentioned above, which
makes the said certificate Ex P-38 admissible in evidence.
To be more precise, if the voice recording is properly proved,
not tampered with, and corroborated by trap proceedings, then
the demand is thereby legally established and the testimony of a
hostile complainant does not demolish the prosecution case if
other reliable evidence survives.
32. On the point of the relevancy and admissibility of the said
electronic evidence in form of voice recording, this Court takes
into consideration the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao
Gorantyal and Ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC 4908 where it has
been observed that the certificate required under Section 65B(4)
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a condition precedent to the
admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, however it
was simultaneously clarified that certificate under section 65B of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not necessary when the original
document (primary evidence) itself is produced.
33. In the present case, appellant No. 1 Prithvilal Meena did not
dispute the voice recording during trial, and no suggestion
challenging its authenticity or correctness was put forward in
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (17 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
cross-examination. Hence, the voice recording cannot be treated
as inadmissible.
34. The transcription of the voice recording Ex. P-11 and Ex. P-
15 dated 01.02.2016 and 02.02.2016 respectively demonstrate
the demands and acceptance, the relevant portions are
reproduced as under: ”
fnukad% 01-02-2016
“……..
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& oks iPphl gtkj #i;s ekax jgs gSaA HkbZ FkksM+s cgqr de
dj nks rksA eSa dg jgk Fkk HkkbZ lkgc gh de dj ldrs gSaA
ifjoknh jkeQwy%& iPphl gh ekax jgs gSA gekjs rks V;wc cSy esa ikuh Hkh
ugha gSA vkids lkeus dh ckr gSA
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& gekjs T;knk tehu Hkh ugha gSA esjs rks ikS/kks ikS/kksa esa gh
ikuh fiykrk gwaA
vkjksih ih-,y-ehuk%& vjs oks rks lgh gS] ij ;kj ,slk FkksM+s gh gksrk gS]
Mk;jsDV pykvks rqe mlls
—–
vkjksih ih-,y-ehuk%& vc rqe D;k gS] rqe fdrus tek djkvksxs ;s ckrkvks\
ifjoknh jkeQwy%& HkbZ vki dgks tSls gh dj ysaxs ge rks
vkjksih ih-,y-ehuk%& ugha ugha crkvks crkvksA
ifjoknh jkeQwy%& fdrus nsaos\
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& HkbZ] ,slk gS gekjs ikl iSls rks nl gtkj :i;s gS vkSj
ckdh ds vki dgksxs rc ns nsaxs vkidksA
ifjoknh jkeQwy%& tc gh ns nsaxsA
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& ,sls rks lqcg gh ;k ‘kke
ifjoknh jkeQwy%& ge Hkh ugha rks gS uk——-
vkjksih ih-,y-ehuk%& ckn esa ysdj vk jgs gksaA
—–
vkjksih ih-,y- ehuk%& fQj rqe ,slk djuk lqcg ogha vk tkuk Bhd gS uk
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& ,slk gS ckcw lkgc] HkbZ ,slk gS gekjs rks Mj gS HkbZ ,d
rks——
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& oh lh vkj Hkj ys] tks bl fglkc ls ge ysV ugha gksA
ifjoknh jkeQwy%& xjhc vkneh gSA
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& vc budks rks ys yks ;s nl] fQj nl ckn esa ns nsaxsA
vkjksih ih-,y- ehuk%& vPNk&vPNk
ifjoknh jkeQwy%& ikap esjs ikl Hkh gSA fQj cps ikap lqcg ns nsaxsA
vkjksih ih-,y- ehuk%& lqcg gh ns tkukA
—–
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& tks fQj fdldks nsaosA lqcg rks vki ckr gh ugha djrs gks
vkSj feyus dk lsfVax gh ugha cSB ikrk gSA
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (18 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
—–
ifjoknh jkeQwy%& D;k lkgcA
vkjksih ih- ,y- ehuk%& vkSj dksbZ tku igpku dk gS D;k rqEgkjk\
—–
ifjoknh jkeQwy%& gekjk rks vkidk MªkbZoj gSA
—–
vkjksih ih-,y- ehuk%& py rqe nksuksa Hkh chl gtkj :i;s ns tkvks
ifjoknh jkeQwy%& bl le; rks iUnzg gh gS
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& bl le; rks iUnzg gh gS ckcw lkgc
ifjoknh jkeQwy%& ikap rks ;s
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& ikap rks blds ikl gS] vkSj nl esjs ikl gq, gSA
vkjksih ih-,y- ehuk%& fQj lqcg nsdj tkus iMsaxs ikap gtkj :i;s
ifjoknh jkeQwy%& vkids MªkbZoj dks ns tk;saxs ;k vki ys ysukA
—–
vkjksih ih-,y- ehuk%& gka ,sls er pykuk dHkhA
—–
vkjksih ih-,y- ehuk%& ,slk gS rsjs dks bldh irk gS ,d yk[k :i;s dh oh
lh vkj gSA tek ugha djok ikvksxs dHkh] dksbZ nwljh ckgj dh QykbZax vk
xbZ u rks ;g /;ku j[kukA
—–
vkjksih ih-,y- ehuk%& b/kj vk tkvks vUnj vk tkvksA
—–
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& ns[k ys rsjs fglkc ls] eSa rks dqN Hkh ugha crkm] rq rks tks
rsjs ikl gS ns nsA
ifjoknh jkeQwy %& yks——————-vLi”V vkoktA
vkjksih ih-,y- ehuk%& ckdh lqcg vk tkuk rqe
—–
ifjoknh jkeQwy%& gka] HkkbZ lkgc mudks ns nsaxs D;k uke gS mudk\
—–
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& gka gka ccyw
ifjoknh jkeQwy%& ccyw dks ns nsaxsA
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& tks ccyw dks ns nsaxs ge rks clA
—–
vkjksih ih-,y- ehuk%& 10&11 cts rd vk tkuk ckdh
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& gka gka 10&11 cts rd vk tk;saxsA
vkjksih ih-,y- ehuk%& ;s pht fdlh ls dg nh u rqeus rks fQj——]
—–
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& nks ikap gtkj rks de dj nks gekjs [kkrhj vkiA
vkjksih ih-,y- ehuk%& Bhd gS] vc ckdh lk<s ikap gtkj :i;s
ccyq dks ns nsukA”
fnukad 02-02-2016
“—-
vkjksih ih- ,y- ehuk%& D;k dj jgk gS] mldks ns nks lk<s ikap
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (19 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& gka Bhd gSA
vkjksih ih- ,y- ehuk%& b/kj ns[k rq lkFk tk] jkegsr
—–
vkjksih jkegsr%& lk<s ikap
—–
ifjoknh%& gka gka lk<s ikap] vkids fy, dgk gS
dSyk’k%& mUgksus lkgc us rks] lkgc us rks vkids fy;s dgk gSA
—–
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& lkgc us vkids fy, dgka gS ge ls rks vki gh ys yks gekjs
ls rksA vkids fy, gh dgk gS lkgc us ge lsA
vkjksih jkegsr%& vjs dksbZ ckr ugha gS rksA eSa dke dj jgk gwW rq bldks ns nsA
—–
vkjksih jkgesr%& rq rks bldks ns nksA
—–
vkjksih jkegsr%& bldks ns ns rks fQjA ns ns bldksA ys ys jsA
—–
gsejkt%& ykvksA fdurs gS \
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& lk<s ikap gtkj :i;s gSA lk<h ikap gtkj gSA lk<s pksng
gtkj rks jkr dks ns fn;s Fks mu ,åbZå,uå lkgc dksA
gsejkt%& Bhd gSA dkSu ls x‚o dh gS rqEgkjhA
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& QVwdMk dhA vki dVok nsuk ckcw lkc gekjk ukeA
gsejkt%& dVok nsaxs] dVok nsaxsA
—–
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& gka ogh rks ckr gS] lk<s pksng rks jkr dks ns fn;s] vkSj
lk<s ikap dh vHkh dg jgk gSA
gsejkt%& fdrus dh Hkjh Fkh tksA
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& Hkjh rks ugha gSA T;knk dh Hkjrk ij vLlh gtkj ¼80]000½
dh ckr Fkh Hkjus dhA
gsejkt%& vPNk vPNk
ifjoknh dSyk’k%& tks geus FkksMs FkksMs nks tuksa us feydj gekjs nl&nl nsdj
fQz gks tkrs ge rksA
gsejkt%& lgh ckr gSA”
The above conversations clearly disclose demand and
consent for illegal gratification and points out to the fact the
appellant No. 1 Prithvilal Meena had indeed demanded bribe from
the complainants accompanied by a threat of imposition of VCR
penalty and on his behalf appellant No. 2 Hemraj @ Foru accepted
the same.
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (20 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
35. In the instant case, not only the tape recorder containing the
demand of bribe, verification memo of transcript of recorded
conversation, memo transcription of recorded conversation at the
time of bribe transaction and dubbed communication have been
exhibited as Ex.P-10, Ex.P-11, Ex.P15 and Ex.P-17 respectively,
but the certificate under Section 65B has also been exhibited as
Ex.P-38, which makes it a major link for establishing the case of
prosecution on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Furthermore,
with regard to the law laid down in the case of Neeraj Dutta
(supra), with respect to the electronic evidence, it is seen that a
bare perusal of the transcription of the voice recording establishes
the demand made by the appellant No. 1 Prithvilal Meena.
36. The evidentiary value of the voice recording is substantially
strengthen when:
1. The trap is laid immediately after the recorded
conversation;
2. The middleman is apprehended in possession of the
tainted money;
3. The amount recovered corresponds exactly to the
amount as discussed in the voice recording;
4. Both accused are found present together at the
relevant time and place;
5. The aforesaid circumstances collectively establish a
complete and unbroken chain of incriminating
evidence.
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (21 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
In the present case, the aforesaid facts stand duly proved by
the prosecution through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence.
Once these foundational facts of demand and acceptance are
established, the presumption under Section 20 of the “Act of
1988” becomes operative, thereby shifting the burden upon the
accused to rebut the statutory presumption by furnishing a cogent
and plausible explanation which in the present case, they have
failed to discharge.
37. The evidence of complainant PW-13 Kailash, PW-9 Deepak
Kumar and PW-10 Yadvendra Joshi proves the digital evidence of
recorded script leading to fact that the complainant Kailash has
approached the appellant No. 1 Prithvilal Meena and the
communications between them were recorded and the said scripts
were reproduced as Ex.P11 and Ex.P15 which reveal that
complainant Kailash PW-13 was requesting to settle the case and
the same was agreed to by the appellant no. 1. The said
communication script shows that it was the accused appellant no.
1, who demanded the said money from the complainant and
accepted the same. PW-14 Tarun Kant who gave positive
statements towards above documents has proved the certificate
issued under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 as Ex.P38
thereby rendering the electronic evidence admissible and the
appellants have failed to rebut the same. To elaborate further, it is
seen that the appellants had refrained from giving their voice
sample for testing the said voice recording despite lawful notice,
therefore, under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
an adverse inference may be drawn for withholding the best
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (22 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
evidence. Otherwise also it may likely create an additional link in
the chain of circumstances as held in the case of Neeraj Dutta
(supra). The relevant of the said judgement is reproduced as
under:
“55. It is trite law that in cases dependent on
circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt
can be made if all the incriminating facts and
circumstances are incompatible with the
innocence of the accused or any other reasonable
hypotheses than that of his guilt, and provide a
cogent and complete chain of events which leave
no reasonable doubt in the judicial mind. When
an incriminating circumstance is put to the
accused and the said accused either offers
no explanation or offers an explanation
which is found to be untrue, then the same
becomes an additional link in the chain of
circumstances to make it complete. If the
combined effect of all the proven facts taken
together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of
the accused, a conviction would be justified even
though any one or more of those facts by itself is
not decisive. (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs.
State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 (“Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda”) as reiterated in Prakash vs.
State of Rajasthan (2013) 4 SCC 668
(“Prakash”)).”
38. The defence has stressed upon the fact that the findings
about voice recording is unsafe as shadow witness did not
overhear the entire conversation. This argument ignores the
practical realities of trap proceedings. It is neither legally
mandated nor practically feasible that a person must overhear
every word; what is required is proof beyond reasonable doubt not
proof through any particular mode. The Court cannot ignore the
practical realities of trap operations as the trap proceedings are
not conducted in artificial laboratory conditions. In real life
situations:-
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (23 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
1. The accused often insists on a private conversation;
2. The meeting may take place inside a chamber or in
a restricted area;
3. Close proximity of a third person may arouse
suspicion and frustrate the trap proceedings.
39. The presence of the shadow witness at the time of
conversation is not always practically possible, as the accused may
get alert and the trap may be failed. In many trap cases, shadow
witness cannot always stand next to the complainant during the
entire conversation because the accused may become suspicious
and close physical proximity may defeat the very purpose of the
trap.
40. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal
(CRL.) No.3247 of 2025 (Devinder Kumar Bansal V. The
State of Punjab) decided on 03.03.2025 has propounded that
acceptance of bribe through an agent or middleman is deemed to
be acceptance by the public servant himself; thus, personal
recovery from the public servant is not indispensable. Therefore,
considering the aforementioned judgments as well as looking into
the evidence presented by the prosecution, both the ingredients,
i.e. the demand and acceptance of the bribe have been
established by the prosecution.
41. The recovery of the red diary of the appellant No. 1 Prithvilal
Meena containing entries relating to meter checking of the
complainants along with VCR numbers and photograph references
lends strong corroboration to the prosecution case. The seizure of
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (24 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
a handwritten slip bearing complainant’s name further supports
prior interaction and official dealings. The conduct of appellant No.
1, Prithvilal Meena in attempting to conceal documents
immediately upon entry of the trap party constitutes incriminating
circumstances which shows the motive of illegal gratification for
pursuing or causing of a public duty improperly.
42. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that though
appellant No. 2 Hemraj is not a public servant, but has conspired
in the offence of taking bribe from the complainant- PW-13 Kailash
Meena pursuant to the directions of appellant no. 1, Prithvilal
Meena. It is thus apposite here to refer Section 120A of IPC which
defines for Criminal Conspiracy,
“120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.– When two or
more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an
agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to
commit an offence shall amount to a criminal
conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is
done by one or more parties to such agreement in
pursuance thereof.
Explanation. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is
the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely
incidental to that object. ”
43. It is not imperative for the accused to have expressly agreed
to commit the offence; What is material is that appellants caused
the act of accepting the bribe to be carried out. In the present
case, appellant No. 2, Hemraj accepted the bribe pursuant to the
directions of appellant No. 1, Prithvilal Meena, which clearly
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (25 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
satisfies the ingredients of criminal conspiracy as contemplated
under Section 120A of the IPC, the punishment for which is
provided under Section 120B of IPC. Consequently, the said
conduct renders them liable to be convicted for the offence of
criminal conspiracy.
44. Moreover, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State v. Nalini and Ors. reported in 1999
CriLJ 3124 that it is not necessary that the agreement amongst
the conspirators can be inferred by an express agreement to do or
cause to be done an illegal act, rather the said agreement may be
proved by necessary implication and that, most of the conspiracies
are to be proved by circumstantial evidence as the existence of
the conspiracy and its objects are usually deducted from the
circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused involved
in the conspiracy.
45. Applying the said principles to the present case, it is seen
from the transcription (Ex.P-15) that after getting instructions
from appellant No. 1, Prithivilal Meena, the complainant- Kailash
Meena had given the bribe amount to the appellant No. 2, Hemraj
and he had accepted the same. The recovery of the bribe amount,
marked as Ex. P-12, from the trouser of appellant No. 2, Hemraj,
stands duly proved through the testimony of P.W.-9, Deepak
Rathore, LDC-II, CMHO Bundi, P.W.-10, Yadvendra Joshi, UDC
BCNI, Bundi and PW-14 Tarunkant Sumani. Their depositions
further corroborate the prosecution case inasmuch as, upon
treating the trouser of appellant No. 2 with sodium carbonate, a
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (26 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
pink coloration became visible which was also deposed by PW-9
Deepak Kumar Rathore, PW-14 Tarunkant Somani, PW-15 Jitendra
Singh, PW-16 Bhupendra Singh and PW-17 Neeraj Kumar, thereby
conclusively establishing that appellant No. 2, Hemraj, had
accepted the bribe amount. Accordingly, the chain of
circumstantial evidence unequivocally establishes the guilt of
appellant No. 2, Hemraj in the commission of the offence of
criminal conspiracy along with appellant no.1, Prithvilal Meena, as
the former acted upon the directions of the latter, thereby
rendering both liable to be punished under Section 120B of the
IPC.
46. The law is crystal clear that acceptance through an agent or
middleman amounts to acceptance by the public servant himself, if
the prosecution establishes the following facts:
1.The middleman acted on behalf of the principal accused;
2.Both accused were acting in concert;
3.The money was meant for an official favour; and
4.Recovery of the tainted money from the middleman is duly
proved.
In such circumstances, recovery from the middleman is sufficient
to attribute constructive acceptance to the public servant.
47. The evidence on record clearly establishes that appellant
No.2- Hemraj @ Foru acted as a middleman, facilitating the
receipt illegal gratification on behalf of appellant No.1-Prithvilal
Meena. His role was not casual or incidental but integral to the
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (27 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
transaction and it proves as an intermediary facilitating the
transaction of illegal gratification.
48. The tainted money of Rs.5500/- was recovered from the
conscious possession of the appellant No. 2 Hemraj immediately
pursuant to the demand. The phenolphthalein test of his hands
and pocket yielded positive results which is corroborated by Ex. P-
23 (FSL Report), the recovery was effected in close proximity of
time and the appellant No. 1 Prithvilal Meena was also present in
the same room at the relevant time and failed to offer any
plausible explanation for the incriminating circumstances. The
acceptance by appellant No. 2, Hemraj @ Foru was not for any
personal purpose. He has knowingly received tainted money. His
conduct is not of a passive carrier but of conscious facilitator. The
evidence shows clear nexus between appellant No. 1 Prithvilal
Meena and appellant No.2 Hemraj Foru including joint presence,
prior interaction and routing of money as per directions. The chain
of events clearly establishes that the appellant No. 2 Hemraj @
Foru acted as a conduit for the appellant No. 1 Prithvilal Meena.
49. A private person who accepts or obtains illegal gratification
as a conduit for a public servant is squarely covered under Section
8 of the “Act of 1988”. The concerted action of both the appellants
establishes criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of IPC.
The tainted money was recovered from appellant No.2-Hemraj
@ Foru who acted as conduit. The evidence establishes:
(a) Prior meeting and conversations
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (28 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
(b) Direction by appellant No.1-Prithvilal Meena
(c) Immediate acceptance by middlemen, appellant
No.2-Hemraj and the said bribe money was recovered
from the conscious possession of appellant No.2-Hemraj,
in presence of both the appellants at the spot, for which
no plausible explanation was provided.
50. His silence and conduct provide additional corroboration to
the prosecution case.
51. In the instant case, the appellant No. 2 Hemraj @ Foru
accepted the gratification on the direction and on behalf of
appellant No. 1 Prithvilal Meena with the motive to obtain illegal
gratification amounting to Rs. 5,500/-. In view of the above,
Section 8 of “the Act of 1988” stands duly proved against
accused-appellant No. 2 Hemraj @ Foru.
52. The learned counsels for the appellants have failed to show
that the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind while granting
sanction. PW-11 Sunil Mehta, the sanctioning authority, has
specifically deposed that he perused the entire investigation
record before according sanction. His cross-examination further
clarifies that all relevant documents were considered. Thus, the
sanction order reflects due application of mind and cannot be said
to be invalid.
53. The defence evidence adduced by the accused through DW-1
Hari Ram Meena, who is a contractor in JVVNL, is general in
nature. He has admitted the detention of appellant No. 2 Hemraj,
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (29 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
and questioning from the appellant no. 1, Prithvilal Meena about
bribe demand. His testimony does not probabilise the defence plea
and appears to be an afterthought. DW-2 Pushpendra Singh
Naruka was examined to establish that he had conducted meter
checking at the residence of the complainant; however, his cross-
examination also shows that he has no knowledge of the trap
proceedings. He has categorically stated that he was not present
in the office at the time of the trap proceedings. His testimony
does not advance the defence case. DW-3 Balram has merely
stated that Gopal Singh handed over the electricity bill and the
amount to appellant no.2-Hemraj @ Foru for depositing the same
in the office. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he has no
knowledge why accused No. 2 Hemraj was arrested.
54. Significantly, none of the defence witnesses, neither DW-1
Hariram Meena, DW-2 Pushpendra Singh Naruka and DW-3
Balram have been able to dislodge the cogent and consistent
testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding the demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification, which stands further
corroborated by the recovery of tainted currency notes and the
positive phenolphthalein test. Thus, the defence evidence is
insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 20 of
the “Act of 1988”, and fails to create any reasonable doubt in the
prosecution case.
55. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon
certain judgments laying down that mere recovery of tainted
money, divorced from proof of demand, is insufficient to sustain a
conviction under the “Act of 1988”. There can be no quarrel with
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (30 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
the said proposition; however, the said authorities are clearly
distinguishable on facts.
56. In the matter of Madan Lal (supra), the contention of both
accused was that the money was thrust upon them and in the
scuffle ensuing some currency notes were scattered on the floor
which the police team directed the accused to pick up. Hence, no
demand or acceptance emerged from the evidence led.
This Court finds that in Ratta Ram’s (supra) case the
demand and the voice recording were not proved.
With regard to Vijay Kumar Singal (supra), both the
demand and the pendency of work were not proved. Similarly, in
the cases of S.K. Saini (supra), Kumar Sanjay (supra), and
Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra), no certificate under Section 65-B
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was produced, and voice
recording was not as per norms. In Shrawan Singh (supra), the
Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the approver’s evidence has to
pass the “double test.”
57. In the matter at hand, the demand has not been established
merely from the recovery; rather it stands independently proved
through admissible electronic evidence, duly certified under
Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, coupled with
corroborative circumstances, including recovery pursuant to the
recorded conversations. The ratio of the cited judgments,
therefore, does not advance the case of the appellants.
58. Upon careful scrutiny of the arguments advanced and the
precedents relied upon, this Court is of the view that the
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (31 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are
wholly misconceived and devoid of merit. The judgments cited are
clearly distinguishable on facts and do not lay down any principle
that advances the case of the appellants in the present factual
matrix. Consequently, the arguments canvassed by the learned
counsel for the appellants that:-
(i) complainant has turned hostile
(ii) demand and acceptance not proved
(iii) findings about voice recording is unsafe
(iv) conviction on moral grounds cannot be substituted for
legal conviction.
lack legal substance and deserves outright rejection.
CONCLUSION:
59. Therefore, in the instant case, even though the complainant
PW-8 Ramphool Meena has turned hostile and PW-13 Kailash
Meena has resiled in his cross-examination, the prosecution case
stands fairly established on the basis of cogent and reliable
circumstantial and electronic evidence and the same are sufficient
to sustain conviction in the light of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta (supra).
Moreover, the chain of circumstantial evidence including the
electronic evidence, namely the memo of supurdagi digital tape
recorder Ex.P10, verification memo of transcript of recorded
conversation Ex.P11, memo transcription of recorded conversation
at the time of bribe transaction Ex.P15 and the dubbed
communication (Ex.P17) along with the certificate (Ex.P38) under
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (32 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the failure of
the appellants to rebut the same by declining to furnish their voice
sample provides an additional and vital link in the chain of
circumstances.
60. Further, the recovery of bribe amount from the middle man,
appellant No. 2 Hemraj, who accepted the same, at the instance
and on behalf of the appellant No. 1 Prithvilal Meena, while both
were present in the same room at the time of arrival of the trap
party assumes great evidentiary significance.
61. The said circumstances are duly corroborated by the
incriminating statements of PW-11 Sunil Mehta and PW-14
Tarunkant Somani; the signatures of PW-9 Deepak Kumar Rathore
and PW-10 Yadvendra Joshi on memo of Supurdagi currency notes
Ex.P1, memo showing recovery of bribe money Ex.P12, seizure
memo record Ex.P13, site plan Ex.P14, verification memo of
transcript of recorded conversation Ex.P11, memo transcription of
recorded conversation at the time of bribe transaction Ex.P15, and
arrest memos Ex.P18 to P20 which collectively establish each
circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.
62. All the above mentioned circumstances tick all the boxes of
the Panchsheel test to establish circumstantial evidence as
propounded in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116.
63. The chain of evidence is complete and consistent only with
the theorem of guilt of the appellants and excludes every possible
hypothesis of innocence.
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4272] (33 of 33) [CRLAS-1372/2019]
64. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the learned trial
court warrants affirmation.
65. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of
conviction and order of the sentence of both the appellants as
recorded by the learned trial Court in Sessions Case 10/2016 on
06.07.2019 is affirmed. The appellants shall surrender forthwith to
serve the remaining sentence.
(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J
BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77
(Uploaded on 09/03/2026 at 01:13:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/03/2026 at 08:25:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)