Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shankarbhai Kidiyabhai Damor on 23 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2001 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHANKARBHAI KIDIYABHAI DAMOR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR YM THAKKAR(902) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 23/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against
the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned
Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, 4 th Fast Track
Court, Godhra (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial
Court”) in Special Case no. 9/2001 (ACB) on 25.04.2008,
whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the
respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 7,
13(1)(d)(1)(2)(3) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Page 1 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act” for short).
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as “the
accused” as he stood in the original case for the sake of
convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case
are as under:
2.1 In the year 2001, the accused was working as a Head
Clerk in the RTO Office at Godhra, Panchmahal District and
was a public servant. The complainant – Laxmansinh
Parbatsinh Solanki – Police Inspector, ACB (Field),
Ahmedabad had received a secret information that the
employees of the RTO Office at Godhra in District
Panchmahal were taking illegal gratification of the amounts
ranging from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 70/- for getting the vehicles
transferred to the names of the purchasers and to verify the
same, decided to arrange for a decoy trap. One Abdulmajid
Ismail Khalpa, a resident of Singalfalia, Amirpur Road,
Godhra was called and his cooperation was sought in the
matter and he agreed to cooperate in the decoy trap.
2.2 Two panch witnesses were called and the complainant,
Page 2 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
members of the raiding party, panch witnesses and the
decoy left in a government vehicle no. GJ-1-G-2942 and
Maruti Van registration no. GJ-1-G-3566 and went from
Ahmedabad to Dakor, Sevaliya and reached Godhra near
the office of the RTO, Godhra. The decoy had to get auto
rickshaw registration no. GJ-17-U-1154 and motorcycle no.
GJ-17-H-9121 transferred to the names of the purchasers
and he took the documents and gave the papers to the
accused who made an endorsement and affixed the seal and
also affixed his signature in both the registration books and
returned the registration books to the decoy Abdulmajid
Ismail Khalpa. The decoy asked the accused how much he
had to give for two transfers and the accused asked him
whether it was the transfer of two vehicles and on getting an
affirmative reply from the decoy, the accused told him that
he had to pay an amount of Rs.120/- for the two transfers.
The complainant had earlier given currency notes of the
denomination of Rs.150/- of various denominations
smeared with anthracene powder and had placed them in
the left shirt pocket of the decoy and the decoy gave the
Page 3 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
amount of Rs.120/- from those tainted currency notes and
the accused accepted it with his hands and placed it on the
Register on his table and placed a stamp pad on top of the
amount at around 12.50 pm on 05.09.2001. The
predetermined signal was given and the members of the
raiding party came and caught the accused and the amount
was recovered from the table of the accused. The offence
under Section 7, 13(1)(d)(1)(2)(3) and 13(2) of the PC Act was
registered at the Godhra ACB Police Station on 25.10.2001
at I – C.R. No. 7 of 2001.
2.3 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of
the connected witnesses and seized the necessary
documents and after receipt of the order of sanction for
prosecution and completion of investigation, a charge-sheet
came to be filed before the Sessions Court, Godhra and the
case was registered as Special Case no. 9/2001 (ACB).
2.4 The accused was duly served with the summons and
the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it
was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were
provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207
Page 4 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
of the Code. A charge at Exh. 15 was framed against the
accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at
Exh. 16 wherein, the accused denied the contents of the
charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken
on record.
2.5 The prosecution examined 5 witnesses and produced
18 documentary evidences on record in support of their
case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed
the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence,
refused to step into the witness box or lead evidence and
stated that a false case has been filed against him. After the
arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and
the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the
learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order
was pleased to acquit the accused from the charges levelled
against him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment
and order of acquittal, the appellant State has filed the
Page 5 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment
and order is contrary to law and evidence on record and the
learned Trial Court has erred in holding that the
prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable
doubts. The prosecution has examined a number of
witnesses and have also produced various documentary
evidences but without appreciating the documentary
evidence as well as oral evidence on record in proper
perspective, the impugned judgment and order has been
passed. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that
the complainant – Police Inspector ACB (Field) L.P. Solanki
had received secret information about the malpractices
being committed by the employees of the RTO Godhra and
that they were demanding amounts of Rs. 50/- to Rs. 70/-
for each vehicle for transfer of the same and the trap was
arranged. The decoy as also the panch witness and the Trap
Laying Officer have fully supported the case of the
prosecution but the learned Trial Court has failed to
appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The
panchnama also proves that the currency notes were given
Page 6 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
by the decoy and accepted by the accused and there were
marks of anthracene powder on the currency notes that
were accepted by the accused. The amount was recovered
and coupled with other circumstances, the entire evidence
leads to the conclusion that the amount of illegal
gratification was accepted from the decoy. The learned Trial
Court ought to have appreciated that the respondent was a
public servant and had demanded for gratification other
than legal remuneration and there was sufficient material
on record of the case to prove the offence against the
respondent but without resorting to the presumption under
Section 20 of the PC Act, the learned Trial Court has
acquitted the respondent and hence, the impugned order
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant
State and learned advocate Mr. Y.M. Thakkar for the
respondent. Perused the impugned judgement and order of
acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the
prosecution on record of the case.
Page 7 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
5. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah has taken this court
through the entire evidence of the prosecution and has
stated that the evidence of the decoy as also the panch
witness, proves that the amount of Rs. 120/- was
demanded for the two vehicles and the panchnama also
states that the demand was made and the amount was
given by the decoy and accepted by the respondent. There
was no reason for the Trap Laying Officer, panch witness or
decoy to falsely implicate the respondent and even though
the prosecution has fully proved the case against the
respondent, the impugned judgment and order has been
passed, which is perverse and illegal and is required to be
quashed and set aside.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Y.M. Thakkar for the respondent
has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated
the evidence and passed the impugned judgement and
order and there is no perversity or illegality and hence, no
interference is required and the appeal may be rejected.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the
present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the
Page 8 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
observations of the Apex Court in para 11 and 12 with
regard to the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing
with acquittal appeals in the case of P. Somaraju Vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1423:
11. Before proceeding, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the
well-settled principles governing interference with an order of
acquittal by an Appellate Court, which were also discussed by
the High Court in the impugned judgment. At the outset, we rely
upon the seminal case of Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of
Karnataka 2007 (4) SCC 415 wherein this Court had laid down
the five-point canonical test as follows:
“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the
following general principles regarding powers of the
appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an
order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate
and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of
acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an
appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and
compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very
strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring
mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers
of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. SuchPage 9 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
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.” 4 (2007)
4 SCC 415.
12. To summarize, an Appellate Court undoubtedly has full
power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against
acquittal under Section 378 and 386 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. However, due to the reinforced or ‘double’
presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be
limited. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the
record, the acquittal should not be disturbed. Judicial intervention
is only warranted where the Trial Court’s view is perverse, based
on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in
manifest miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the Appellate Court
must address the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal
Page 10 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
before reversing it and assigning its own. A catena of the recent
judgements of this Court has more firmly entrenched this
position, including, inter alia, Mallappa & Ors. vs. State of
Karnataka, 2024 INSC 104, Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund & Anr.
vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258, Babu
Sahebagauda Rudragaudar and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka
2024 INSC 320 and Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. vs.
State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 114.
7.1 The Apex Court, in the case of Surendra Singh and
Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2025 INSC 114,
has observed in Para No. 11 as under:
11. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and
others v. State of Karnataka6, a Bench of this Court to which one of us
was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal
position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against
acquittal. It was observed thus:
“38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down
by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court
in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the
accused recorded by the trial court.
39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v.
State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31]
encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering
various earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC pp. 482-83,
para 29)
“29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled
out the following general principles regarding the powers of the
appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of
acquittal in the following words : (Chandrappa casePage 11 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
[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, reaffirmedPage 12 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
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. … 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
Page 13 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
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 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
Page 14 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
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 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
Page 15 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
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
Page 16 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
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, 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.
Page 17 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
(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 view of the settled principles of law in acquittal
appeals, the evidence is reappreciated and to prove the
offence against the accused, the prosecution has in all
examined five witnesses. PW1 – Abdulmajid Ismail Khalpa
examined at Exh. 33 is the decoy who has narrated the
entire events that had unfolded on the day of the trap when
he was called to the ACB Police Station and was explained
about the procedure and the decoy trap. The witness has
stated that he had consented for the trap and in the
presence of the panch witnesses, the Trap Laying Officer
gave currency notes of various denominations amounting to
Page 18 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
Rs. 150/- and those currency notes were placed in his left
shirt pocket after being smeared with anthracene powder.
The procedure of smearing the notes with anthracene
powder and the ultraviolet lamp and the demonstration was
done in their presence and Bhavanji Nathuji Gaur had
conducted the entire procedure under the instructions of
the Trap Laying Officer. They had all gone in the two
vehicles, Tata Sumo and Maruti Van to the ACB Office
Godhra and when they reached the RTO Office, he and the
panch witness went into Room No. 14 and he himself had
taken the Register of the auto rickshaw and went to Jadhav
Saheb. Jadhav Saheb had made the necessary entry for the
transfer and after the entry was made, he took the Register
to the accused and got the signature of the accused affixed
in the Register and left his papers there and went to Room
No. 4. He took the Register of the motorcycle from Room No.
4 and came to Room No. 14 and Patel Saheb had made the
entry of the transfer of both the vehicles and had thereafter
taken the signature of the accused in that Register. He
asked the accused whether he had to take the transaction
Page 19 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
and the accused told him that Rs. 120/- was for the
transfer of two vehicles. He inquired from the accused
whether the amount could be reduced, but the accused
refused and he took Rs. 120/- from the tainted currency
notes from his left shirt pocket, with his right hand and
with his left hand took two currency notes of the
denomination of Rs. 50/- and one currency note of the
denomination of Rs. 20/- and gave it in the right hand of
the accused. The accused counted the amount with both
the hands and kept it on the Register and placed a stamp
pad on the currency notes. The decoy came out and gave
the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding
party came and the accused was caught red-handed and
the currency notes were checked in the ultraviolet lamp and
traces of anthracene powder were found on them. Traces of
anthracene powder were also found on both the hands of
the accused, on the Register and on the currency notes and
the necessary procedure was done. In the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that he does not have any license for
Page 20 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
transfer of vehicles in the RTO and the RTO is a
government office. No private person can enter into the
government office and is not permitted to take any Register.
Room No. 4 and Room No. 14 are situated far away from
each other and he did not keep a note of how many times
he had gone in Room No. 4 and how many times he had
gone in Room No. 14. The vehicles for which he had sought
to be transferred were not of his ownership and he did not
take any fees from the person whose vehicles had to be
transferred. He was working in this manner in the RTO
Office for the past three years and once the transfer fee is
paid, the vehicles were transferred. He does not remember
in these three years how many vehicles had he got
transferred. He had met the Trap Laying Officer as a Police
Inspector, ACB in Ahmedabad and he had given his
consent on the say of the Trap Laying Officer and
thereafter, he had got the papers of the two persons whose
vehicles had to be transferred. When he went to the ACB
Office at Ahmedabad, the Trap Laying Officer had told him
that they had to make a successful trap and any employee
Page 21 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
of the RTO was to be caught in the trap. The Trap Laying
Officer had told him that he was his friend and he would do
as per his say and he had promised that the accused would
anyhow be caught under any circumstances and he would
not allow him to go scot free. He had also assured the Trap
Laying Officer that giving of the amount of illegal
gratification was a game of his left hand. They had gone to
Godhra with the determination that the trap had to be
successful and he had decided that he had to give a
complaint against the accused only. The transfer fee for
both the vehicles were paid before he had gone to the ACB
Office at Ahmedabad and the receipts were also received
and the order of the transfer of both the vehicles were
already done on 03.09.2001. The RTO Officer had also
made an endorsement of transfer and had signed and
sealed the book and the RC books were in his possession
on the 5th. When he had gone for the first time, no amount
of illegal gratification was demanded from him and he did
not make an effort to give any amount of illegal gratification
and even at the second time Shri Jadhav or the accused did
Page 22 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
not demand any amount of illegal gratification. On the
second time also, after the signature was affixed, he had
placed the Register on the table of Room No. 14. The
amount of illegal gratification was not found from the
person of the accused or from the drawer of his table.
10.1 PW2 – Maheshbhai Dhanraj Dalvani examined at Exh.
46 is the panch witness, who has narrated the entire
procedure undertaken by the Trap Laying Officer in his
presence when he and the other panch witness –
Rajnikanth Parshottambhai Parmar had gone to the ACB
Office and thereafter they left for the RTO Office from
Ahmedabad until the trap was successful. As far as the
trap is concerned, the accused has stated that the decoy
had gone into the Room No. 14 and brought the Register
and had got the signature of the accused affixed on them
and then had gone to the other room and had done the
same and after the entries were made, he came once again
to the accused and asked him how much he had to give
and the accused told him that he had to give Rs. 120/-. The
decoy took the amount from his left shirt pocket with his
Page 23 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
right hand and gave it to the accused who accepted it with
his right hand and folded the same and placed it on the
Register which was on the left side of the table and placed
the stamp pad on top. The members of the raiding party
came after the predetermined signal was given by the
decoy. In the cross examination by the learned advocate for
the accused, the witness has admitted that he had spoken
to the Trap Laying Officer, on the telephone before his
deposition and the Trap Laying Officer had called him on
his telephone at his residence and the conversation was
about the case. The witness has admitted that if he did not
depose as per the documents, he would have to face a
departmental inquiry and would have problems in his
service and hence, he had carefully given his deposition.
There was no endorsement made in any diary of the secret
information received by the Trap Laying Officer and the
arrangement of the trap and there was no complaint filed,
when they had gone to the ACB Police Station. At the time
of the raid, there were many persons in Room No. 14 and
hence, they left Room No. 14 and came outside. He does
Page 24 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
not know in whose handwriting was the panchnama written
and does not know which Police Inspector had dictated the
panchnama . He does not know whether Prabhudas Gadvi
had written the panchnama but has admitted that he had
affixed his signatures on the say of the Trap Laying Officer.
His signature was taken in Room No. 14 but he does not
know the time when he had affixed his signature and after
they left Room No. 14, he does not know the procedure that
was undertaken by the Trap Laying Officer and the
members of the raiding party. The Register was open when
it was lying on the table and the situation was such that
any person could have put anything on the Register. After
the procedure was completed by Mr. Jadhav, the accused
had made the necessary entry in the Register and
registration book and had affixed his signature. One or two
persons were standing at the table of the accused at that
time and once the registration book was received by the
decoy, there was no other work pending for him at the table
of the accused.
10.2 PW3 – Bhavanji Nathuji Gaur examined at Exh. 56 is
Page 25 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
the Lamp Operator and member of the raiding party who
has supported the case of the prosecution. In the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has admitted that the amount was not recovered
from the person of the accused or from the drawer of the
table of the accused or from his hands. He does not know
whether the Trap Laying Officer had recorded the
statements of any members of the public who were present
there.
10.3 PW4 – Laxmansinh Parvatsinh Solanki examined at
Exh. 61 is the Trap Laying Officer who had filed the
complaint and had received the secret information and
accordingly, has narrated all the procedures undertaken by
him until the trap was successful and thereafter he had
filed the complaint at ACB Police Station, Godhra under
Section 7, 13(1)(d)(1)(2)(3) and 13(2) of the PC Act which was
registered at C.R. No. 7 of 2001. In the cross-examination
by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has
stated that he did not make a note or endorsement of the
secret information received by him and if the decoy had
Page 26 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
complained that the accused was demanding any amount of
illegal gratification, he would have recorded his complaint
but the decoy did not say any such facts about any person
demanding any amount of illegal gratification from him. He
had taken the decoy after informing him and seeking his
cooperation in the matter and he was known to the decoy.
He had verified the Register that was taken by the decoy
from Room No. 4 to Room No. 14 but he did not test the
Register under the ultraviolet lamp. The witness has
produced the complaint at Exh. 62.
10.4 PW5 – Rameshchandra Chhaganlal Rana examined at
Exh. 63 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the
procedure undertaken by him during the investigation. The
witness has produced the order of sanction for prosecution
at Exh. 60. In the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that during
investigation, no evidence was found that the accused had
demanded any amount of illegal gratification from the decoy
in the presence of the panch witness. He did not seize any
documents regarding the case during his investigation and
Page 27 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
the complainant and Trap Laying Officer – L. P. Solanki did
not produce any note made by him in any Station Diary or
the note regarding the secret information received by him.
The witness has admitted that there is an ACB Police
Station at Godhra but the complainant who was an ACB
Police Inspector at Ahmedabad had arranged for the trap at
RTO Office Godhra.
11. Upon a comprehensive re-appreciation of the entire
evidence on record, this Court finds no infirmity in the
conclusions arrived at by the learned Trial Court
warranting interference in an appeal against acquittal. The
prosecution case originates from alleged “secret
information” received by PW4 – Laxmansinh Parvatsinh
Solanki, Police Inspector, ACB Ahmedabad regarding
purported illegal gratification being demanded at the RTO
Office, Godhra. However, it is an admitted position that
such information was neither recorded in any Station Diary
nor reduced into writing in any contemporaneous record.
No preliminary verification was undertaken prior to laying
the trap. This omission assumes significance, as it strikes
Page 28 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
at the very foundation of the prosecution case and renders
the genesis of the trap doubtful. Further, the evidence
discloses that the decoy – Abdulmajid Ismail Khapa was
well acquainted with the complainant for over two decades.
The decoy himself has admitted that even prior to departure
from Ahmedabad, there was a predetermined intent to
ensure a “successful trap at any cost.” Such an admission
casts a serious shadow on the fairness and impartiality of
the trap proceedings. On the crucial aspect of demand,
which constitutes the sine qua non for offences under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, both the decoy and the panch
witness have unequivocally stated that no demand of illegal
gratification was made by the accused at the spot. On the
contrary, it has come on record that it was the decoy who
initiated the query by asking the accused as to what
amount was to be paid. The alleged amount was thus not
demanded but was elicited at the instance of the decoy
himself. Equally significant is the manner of recovery. The
tainted currency notes were not recovered from the person
of the accused nor from his exclusive possession such as a
Page 29 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
drawer or personal effects, but merely from the table. The
evidence further indicates the possibility of the complainant
having placed the currency notes on the table, even
covering them with a stamp pad. Such a recovery, in the
absence of proof of conscious acceptance, loses evidentiary
value. The conduct of the decoy also assumes importance.
It has emerged that he was well versed with the functioning
of the RTO Office having worked in relation to such
transactions for several years. He independently moved
between rooms, accessed Registers and facilitated entries
relating to the transfer of vehicles. The record further
reveals that the relevant entries in the RC books had
already been made prior to the alleged demand and the
documents pertaining to the transfers forming the
substratum of the prosecution case were not even seized.
Additionally, though the alleged incident occurred in a
public office with several employees and members of the
public present, no independent witness has been examined
by the prosecution. This omission further weakens the
credibility of the prosecution case. The complainant has
Page 30 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
also admitted that had any genuine complaint been made
by the decoy regarding illegal gratification, the same would
have been formally recorded and acted upon in accordance
with law. Significantly, in the present case, the complaint
came to be lodged only after the trap.
12. In view of the settled position of law this Court finds
that there is a complete absence of reliable evidence
establishing demand and acceptance of illegal gratification
by the accused. In such circumstances, the statutory
presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act is not attracted. The view taken by the
learned Trial Court is thus a plausible and reasonable one
based on the evidence on record. It is well settled that in an
appeal against acquittal, unless the findings are perverse or
wholly unsustainable, interference is unwarranted. No such
perversity is demonstrated in the present case. The appeal
therefore, deserves to be dismissed, and the judgment and
order passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby
confirmed.
Page 31 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2001/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
13. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions
Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Godhra in Special Case no.
9/2001 (ACB) on 25.04.2008, is hereby confirmed.
14. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
Page 32 of 32
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:58:26 IST 2026