Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ranchhodbhai Himmatsinh Jadav on 27 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1303 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RANCHHODBHAI HIMMATSINH JADAV
========================================================
Appearance:
MS CM SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. GOPAL G. DAVE(19033) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 27/03/2026
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 Special Judge & Presiding Officer, 1 st Fast Track Court,
Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in
Special Case (ACB) No.47 of 1999 on 13.05.2010, whereby, the
learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent – original
Page 1 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
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 a Deputy Auditor in the
office of the Assistant Examiner, Amreli, in January, 1999 and
was a Public Servant. The complainant, Nasharinben, daughter
of Ibrahimbhai Salim Ahmed Dalla, was a Press Reporter and
her cousin sister Mehrunnisha Shakurbhai Palwala was working
as a Teacher in the Primary School at Jaisangpara had retired on
superannuation on 31.05.1998. Her pension papers had to be
processed and the complainant had gone to inquire from the
accused about the pension papers of her cousin sister on a
number of occasions, and at that time, the accused had
demanded an amount of Rs.1000/- as illegal gratification for
Page 2 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
processing the pension papers of Mehrunnisha Shakurbhai
Palwala. After bargaining, the amount was settled at Rs.500/-
and the accused told the complainant to come after 03.07.1999
and he would complete the pension case. On 05.01.1999, the
complainant met the accused and the accused called her to the
office after 3:00p.m. and told her that he would keep the pension
papers and the order ready and once again demanded the
amount of Rs.500/-. She telephoned her cousin Mehrunnisha
Shakurbhai Panwala and called her and as the complainant did
not want to give the amount of illegal gratification, she went to
the ACB Police Station at Amreli and the complaint of the
complainant was recorded.
2.2. The Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses
and the complainant gave 10 currency notes of the
denomination of Rs.50/- each. Head Constable J.P.Parmar under
instructions of the Trap Laying Officer conducted the
demonstration of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp and
explained the characteristics of the same to the complainant and
the panch witnesses. All the currency notes were smeared with
Page 3 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
anthracene powder and the complainant had a plastic bag in her
hand, in which, she had a black purse consisting of some papers
and some loose currency notes and one portion of the purse was
empty. Head Constable J.P.Parmar placed the currency notes
smeared with anthracene powder in the empty portion of the
purse after folding the currency notes and the purse was closed
by the complainant and necessary instructions to all concerned
was given and the Panchdama Part-1 was drawn. As decided,
the complainant, panch witnesses and members of the raiding
party left the ACB Office at about 16:20 hours and went to the
Office of the Assistant Examiner, Amreli and the complainant
and the panch witness met the accused. The complainant told
the accused that they had received the pension order, but she
did not understand how the pension should be taken and asked
him to explain the same to her and the accused explained the
procedure to be undertaken in detail to the complainant. The
complainant and the panch witness left the office and while they
were leaving the Office, the accused came behind them and
called them in a vacant room in the front and the complainant,
panch witness and Mehrunnisha went into the room where the
Page 4 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
accused demanded the amount of illegal gratification. The
complainant took the tainted currency notes from her purse with
her right hand and gave it to the accused, who accepted the
same and placed it in his right shirt pocket and went into his
room. The complainant gave the predetermined signal and the
members of the raiding party came and caught the accused. The
necessary procedure was done and the offence was registered
at ACB Police Station, Amreli I-C.R.No.1 of 1996 under Sections
7, 13(1)(d) and 13(ii) 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.5 and the statement of the accused was recorded
at Exh.6, wherein, the accused denied the allegations made in
the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken
on record. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses and produced
7 documentary evidences to prove the charge against the
accused. The learned APP filed a closing pursis at Exh.57 and
Page 5 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
the further statement 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.
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 and is based on
inferences not warranted by fact of the case and also on
presumptions not permitted by law. 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 appreciate
that the ingredients of the offence i.e. demand, acceptance and
Page 6 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
recovery have been clearly proved beyond reasonable doubts;
however, the learned Trial Court has discarded the important
aspects and has committed a grave error, which has resulted
into miscarriage of justice. The reasons assigned by the learned
Trial Court, while 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.
Gopal G. Dave 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 and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Trial Court is ex-facie illegal, perverse, and wholly
Page 7 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
unsustainable in law, being in stark disregard of the cogent,
reliable, and unimpeachable evidence available on record. It is
contended that the learned Trial Court has miserably failed to
appreciate the entire chain of circumstances, which unerringly
points towards the guilt of the respondent-accused and is
wholly inconsistent with his innocence. The prosecution has
conclusively established the demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification through consistent and corroborative testimony of
the panch witnesses, Trap Laying Officer, and other prosecution
witnesses, duly fortified by documentary evidence and the
successful trap, wherein tainted currency notes smeared with
anthracene powder were recovered from the possession of the
respondent-accused. The learned Trial Court has gravely erred
in discarding such sterling evidence on trivial and
inconsequential discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the
matter, and has thus adopted a hyper-technical and pedantic
approach. It is further submitted that once the acceptance of
bribe is proved, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of
the P.C.Act squarely operates against the respondent-accused,
who has utterly failed to rebut the same by any cogent or
Page 8 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
plausible explanation, particularly regarding the presence of
anthracene powder on his person. The valid sanction for
prosecution has also been completely overlooked. The findings
recorded by the learned Judge are, therefore, not only contrary
to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence but also suffer
from manifest illegality and gross misappreciation of evidence.
In such circumstances, the impugned judgment, having resulted
in a grave miscarriage of justice, deserves to be quashed and
set aside, and the respondent-accused is liable to be convicted
in accordance with law.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Gopal Dave 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
Page 9 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
Surendra Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in
2025 INSC 114.
“11. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and
others v. State of Karnataka6, a Bench of this Court to which
one of us was a Member (B.R.Gavai, J.) had an occasion to
consider the legal position with regard to the scope of
interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed
thus:
“38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid
down by this Court governing the scope of interference
by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for
challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the
trial court.
39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh
Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2
SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering
the field after considering various earlier judgments
and held as below : (SCC pp. 482-83, para 29)
29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court
culled out the following general principles regarding
the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal in the following
words : (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of
Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] ,
SCC p. 432, para 42)
42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the
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
Page 10 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”,
“very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”,
“glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail
extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal
against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the
nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the
reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with
acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to
review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in
favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person
shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the
accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption
of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the appellate court should
not 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
Page 11 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
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.”
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
Page 12 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
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
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 thePage 13 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
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 offer
and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case
of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such
a case, there need not be a prior demand by the
public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a
demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand
and tenders the demanded gratification which in
turn is received by the public servant, it is a case
of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the
prior demand for illegal gratification emanates
from the public servant. This is an offence under
Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by
the bribe giver and the demand by the public
servant respectively have to be proved by the
prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words,
mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal
gratification without anything more would not
make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13
(1) (d), (i) and (ii) 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
Page 14 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by
the public servant when accepted by the bribe
giver and inturn there is a payment made which
is received by the public servant, would be an
offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d)
and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and
acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may
be made by a Court of law by way of an inference only
when the foundational facts have been proved by
relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the
absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record,
the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of
fact while considering whether the fact of demand has
been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a
presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the
accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption
stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has died
or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial,
demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting
in the evidence of any other witness who can again let
in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence
or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial
evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in
an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the
proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the
Court to raise a 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 Nashrin Ibrahimbhai
Page 15 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
Dalla examined at Exh.15 is the complainant who has narrated
the facts as stated in the complaint which is produced at Exh.16.
The complainant has stated that she had gone to file the
complaint and the currency notes given by her were smeared
with anthracene powder and given to her to be placed in the
purse and when they went to the office of the accused, her
cousin sister Mehrunnisha was with her. She and her sister
Mehrunnisha had spoken to the accused about the pension
order and both of them thanked him and left and the accused
followed them and she had given the amount to the accused.
The witness has stated that one year thereafter, the currency
notes were given to her and she has refused to identify the shirt
as the one that belonged to the accused. Moreover, she has
stated that at that time, there were a number of persons and a
crowd in the office and she and her sister Mehrunnisha were
standing in a corner and they do not know what had transpired
after the Trap Laying Officer came into the office. The witness
has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been
declared hostile and cross-examined at length by the learned
APP. In the cross-examination by the learned APP, the witness
Page 16 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
has stated that she and her sister Mehrunnisha had left the place
at around 6:00pm and till they were present, no writing work
had taken place. She and her sister would meet the accused
and the other Superior Officers with regard to her pension case
and the pension order of her sister Mehrunnisha was dated
14.12.1998. She was aware that her sister Mehrunnisha had got
the PPO book for her pension and the pension process had
started two months after her sister had retired on
superannuation. Prior to the incident, she did not have any
cause to file any complaint in oral or written against the
accused. Whenever she had gone to the office on some
occasions, her sister Mehrunnisha was with her and she was
aware on 05.01.1999 that the pension order of Mehrunnisha was
passed on 14.12.1998. She had informed the Officer at the ACB
Office, Amreli that the pension order of her sister has already
been passed and that she had already seen the pension file.
The witness has stated that she is also a practicing advocate in
the District Courts in Amreli and was also working as a press
reporter and on 14-12-1998 when the pension order of her
sister was passed the office of the accused did not have the
Page 17 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
stock of the PPO books and for that reason the PPO book was
not given by the office and this was mentioned by the accused
to them. She does not know who was writing the complaint at
the ACB Office and after her complaint was taken after about 30
minutes, she had left the ACB Office.
10.1. PW-2 Shantaben Laxmanbhai Padhiyar examined at
Exh.21 is the panch witness who has narrated the procedure
that was undertaken in her presence on 05.01.1999 when she
and the other panch witness Ramniklal Keshavbhai Sojitra had
gone to the ACB Office at Amreli until the trap was successful.
The witness was instructed to be the shadow witness and she
has stated that she along with the complainant Nashrin and
Mehrunnisha had gone to meet the accused and the
complainant had told the accused that the pension order of
Mehrunnisha was received but they did not understand the
same, and hence, requested him to explain the same to them
and he had explained the procedure to them. Thereafter, they
left and the accused followed them and took them into a vacant
room and demanded for the amount of illegal gratification,
Page 18 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
which was given by the complainant and the accused accepted
the same with his right hand and placed it in his right shirt
pocket. The accused went back to his office and sat at his table,
and thereafter, the complainant gave the predetermined signal
and the members of the raiding party came and caught the
accused. The witness has stated that in the panchnama, it is
mentioned that the pension papers of Mehrunnisha were found
on the table. In the cross-examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, the witness has stated that she does not know
the procedure that is undertaken for pension and she does not
know what procedure was undertaken for the pension of
Mehrunnisha. Mehrunnisha or Nashrin did not explain to her
about the procedure and she did not see any papers regarding
the pension case of Mehrunnisha. In her presence Nashrin did
not have any discussion with Mehrunnisha and she does not
know how Mehrunnisha had come to the office of the accused.
When they came out from the vacant room and came back to
the office of the accused, she saw the pension papers of
Mehrunnisha with Nashrin but she did not see them at the ACB
Office. She did not read the papers and it was only on the say of
Page 19 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
Nashrin, she was informed that the papers were of the pension
case. The complainant Nashrin did not tell her the date when
the papers were received. At the time of the trap, there were
other employees working in the same office and Mehrunnisha
had come to the office of the accused. The witness has admitted
that she would face departmental proceedings if she did not
depose as per the panchnama.
10.2. PW-3 Vijaykumar Tuljaram Navale examined at
Exh.41 is the Trap Laying Officer who has narrated the entire
procedure undertaken by him for the trap right from the time
that the complainant came to the ACB Office until the trap was
successful. In the cross-examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, the witness has stated that the complainant did
not have any cause for filing the complaint and the complaint
was with regard to the pension papers of her cousin
Mehrunnisha. The complainant has stated that the accused was
not preparing the pension papers, and in fact, the pension
papers of Mehrunnisha were already prepared and the pension
was sanctioned and the accused had shown the papers of the
Page 20 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
pension that was already sanctioned at the time of the trap. The
witness has admitted that the complainant had the pension
papers with the order already passed at the time of filing of the
complaint but she had filed the complaint on the pretext that the
accused was not granting the order of pension and she had
hidden facts from him. He had inquired as to why Mehrunnisha
was not filing the complaint but the complainant had stated that
she was mentally unwell and when they had gone for the raid,
Mehrunnisha was present at the office and she stayed till the
proceedings had concluded. He did not arrest the accused on
the day of the trap but, immediately, thereafter, has stated that
he had arrested the accused at the same time. The complainant
did not mention the date when the prior demand was made and
the pension papers were not seized by him even though they
were available. The complainant was a Press Reporter and, at
the time of the trap, other employees namely Kariabhai,
Parmarbhai, Kantibhai, Bagdabhai and Jasanibhai were also
present on their tables but he did not record the statements of
any of the employees. He did not record the statement of
Mehrunnisha, even though, she was present at the time of the
Page 21 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
trap and the panchnama was written in the same room where
the accused was seated. The witness has produced the seizure
memo at Exh.42 and the pension order of Mehrunnisha
Shakurbhai at Exh.47.
10.3. PW-4 Jagatsinh Dolatsinh Chauhan examined at
Exh.50 is the Investigating Officer who has recorded the
statements of the panch witnesses, the complainant Nashrin and
Mehrunnisha and other members of the Raiding Party; and
thereafter as he had gone on sick leave the investigation was
handed over to Police Inspector Algotar. In the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that the complainant was not Mehrunnisha,
even though she was present at the time of the trap and the
problem was with regard to the pension was of Mehrunnisha
but in the papers received by him, it was found that the pension
papers were already ready and the pension papers were
received by Mehrunnisha before filing of the complaint.
10.4. PW-5 Hasmukhbhai Bhailalbhai Thakkar examined
at Exh.52 is the Sanction Officer who has produced the order of
Page 22 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
sanction for prosecution at Exh.53. In the cross examination, the
witness has admitted that the sanction order does not mention
the date when the prior demand was made and the complainant
in the sanction order is Nashrin who was not personally affected
in the matter. The ACB Officer had sent him a draft proforma of
the order of sanction for prosecution.
10.5. PW-6 Rakesh Baldevkrishna Sharma examined at
Exh.56 is the Investigating Officer who had taken over the
investigation and had filed the charge sheet before the
concerned court. In the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that he did
not record the statements of the employees who were working
with the accused at the time of the raid as their statements were
already recorded and as they did not support the case of the
prosecution, their names have not been showed as witnesses in
the charge sheet.
11. Upon a fresh and independent re-appreciation of the
entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution
has failed to establish the foundational facts of demand and
Page 23 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
acceptance of illegal gratification, as mandatorily required
under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case of the
prosecution rests on the allegation that the accused demanded
Rs.1,000/-, later settled at Rs.500/-, for processing the pension
papers of one Mehrunnisha Shakurbhai Palwala, a retired
primary school teacher. However, it is an admitted position that
the said Mehrunnisha Shakurbhai Palwala was not the
complainant, and the complaint came to be lodged by her
cousin, PW1 – Nashrin Ibrahimbhai, who was neither the direct
beneficiary nor the person aggrieved. Significantly, the
complainant has not supported the prosecution case and has
been declared hostile. She has categorically admitted that the
pension order had already been issued on 14.12.1998 and that
she was in possession of the same even prior to lodging the
complaint on 05.01.1999, thereby rendering the very
substratum of the prosecution case–that illegal gratification
was demanded for issuance of pension order–wholly
implausible.
11.1 Further, the complainant has refused to identify the
Page 24 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
tainted currency notes and has deposed that the said amount
was returned to her nearly a year after the incident. The
evidence of PW3 – the Trap Laying Officer, Vijaykumar
Tuljaram Navle, also discloses that material facts were
suppressed by the complainant at the inception. The
prosecution evidence itself reveals that at the time of the trap,
the complainant had shown the already-issued pension order to
the accused and had merely sought guidance regarding
procedural aspects, which the accused explained. In such
circumstances, the essential element of demand is
conspicuously absent.
11.2. A further serious infirmity arises from the non-
examination of the most material witness, namely Mehrunnisha
Shakurbhai Palwala herself, who was the actual beneficiary of
the pension and was admittedly present on several occasions,
including on the day of the trap. The explanation offered by the
complainant that Mehrunnisha Shakurbhai was not in a proper
mental condition is unsupported by any evidence and is belied
by the admitted fact that she had served as a teacher and
Page 25 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
retired in due course. The withholding of this crucial witness
invites an adverse inference against the prosecution.
11.3. The evidence also suffers from vagueness, as no
specific date or occasion of prior demand has been stated by
the complainant. The sanction for prosecution further appears
to have been accorded mechanically, as the sanctioning
authority has admitted that a draft sanction order was
forwarded by the ACB, thereby casting doubt on due
application of mind. In light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Supra), it is well
settled that proof of demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua
non for conviction under the P.C.Act, and in the absence of such
proof, the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C.Act does not
arise. In the present case, there no reliable evidence of
demand, but the prosecution version itself stands contradicted
by its principal witness. Further, applying the principles
enunciated in Chandrappa V. State of Karnataka (Supra), this
Court is mindful that in an appeal against acquittal, unless the
findings of the learned Trial Court are perverse or wholly
Page 26 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1303/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
unreasonable, interference is unwarranted. The view taken by
the learned Trial Court is a plausible and well-reasoned one
based on proper appreciation of evidence, and no perversity or
illegality is demonstrated. In the totality of the circumstances,
this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the
impugned judgment of acquittal does not call for interference.
Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
12. The impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned Special Judge & Presiding Officer, 1st Fast Track Court,
Junagadh in Special Case (ACB) No.47 of 1999 on 13.05.2010 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 27 of 27
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 24 22:21:17 IST 2026