1 2025:CGHC:54453 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved on 03.11.2025 Delivered on 07.11.2025 ACQA No. 907 of 2024 State of Chhattisgarh through - EOW / ACB Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Anil Kumar Pandey S/o Late Ambika Prasad Pandey, Aged About 54 Years, R/o - House No. 204, Basant Vihar Colony, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant-State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Govt. Advocate with Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent : Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate with Ms. Gurprit Kaur Bhatia, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) C A V Judgment 1. This criminal appeal filed under Section 378(1) of the CrPC is directed against the judgment dated 29.06.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.11.07 15:42:50 +0530 2 Act), District Kabirdham (C.G) in Anti Corruption Case under the PC Act No. 02/2018, whereby the accused- respondent has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. As per the prosecution case, the respondent/accused was working as Assistant Agriculture Engineer at Kabirdham and was a public servant as defined under law. On 08.05.2018, complainant Balram Singh Thakur made a written complaint to the S.P., ACB, Raipur (Ex.P-2) against the respondent alleging that he had got some work done in the construction of stop-dam in village Manpur in respect whereof the accused being the Assistant Agriculture Engineer was demanding bribe of Rs.10,000/- as a commission to clear the dues of the complainant. It was also alleged that the complainant had already given Rs.25,000/- to the respondent for clearing his dues/bills. On 08.05.2018, the complainant was given a digital voice recorder (DVR) by Police vide Ex.P-3 to record the voice of accused. On next date i.e. 09.05.2018, the complainant met the accused and recorded the conversation of demand. On 15.05.2018 the complainant informed the Investigating Officer on phone about recording of conversation regarding demand of 3 bribe made by the accused. The IO informed the Superintendent of Police, ACB in this regard whereupon the trap proceeding was initiated. A letter was written to the Collector to provide two gazetted officers for the trap proceedings, after which Pancha witnesses Rakesh Soni (PW-6) and T. R. Nayak (PW-5) were appointed for the said task. The complainant presented a second complaint Ex.P-4 and produced 20 notes of 500/- with noted ₹ numbers on which phenolphthalein powder was applied. The complainant was instructed to record the conversation while handing over the money and then give a signal by placing his hand on his head. On 16.05.2018, the trap team proceeded with the complainant and Pancha witnesses to the accused's office in Kawardha. The complainant was asked to reach the office separately on a motorcycle with the shadow witness Rampravesh Mishra. The complainant went to the accused's office and gave him the said amount, which the accused kept in his shirt pocket. As per instructions, the complainant Balram Singh gave a signal, on which the trap team and witnesses reached the office of the accused and on enquiry, he told about the bribe amount kept in his shirt pocket. According to Ex.P-18 dated 16.05.2018, the alleged bribe amount of 10,000/- was recovered from the ₹ 4 respondent. The numbers recorded earlier were matched with the numbers of the bribe amount, which were found to be correct. When the respondent's fingers and his shirt pocket were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, they turned pink. The case was investigated and sanction for prosecution was obtained against the respondent. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent for the aforesaid offence. 3. To bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 37 documents. Statement of the respondent was also recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he denied the guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication. However, 3 witnesses have been examined by the respondent in his defence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence in true perspective and acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt which is improper. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact of recording of conversation between the complainant and the respondent/accused. The trial Court has also failed to appreciate the fact of recovery of currency notes from the possession of the respondent and those notes were the same as were given by the ACB for giving bribe to the 5 accused/respondent. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove the demand of bribe allegedly made by the respondent. He submits that the government tenders/work orders are issued only to the registered contractors and according to the court statement of the complainant himself, he is not a contractor nor is he the owner of Akash Traders. The complainant was working as a labourer and he was paid full wages for his work and there were no outstanding dues. Therefore, the question of demand of bribe does not arise and the written complaint made by the complainant to the ACB, Raipur is false and based on untruth. He submits that there is no evidence at all against the respondent, therefore, the trial Court after appreciating the evidence in proper perspective has rightly acquitted the respondent, which does not require any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the trial Court. 7. Learned trial Court has formulated six issues for 6 adjudication of the case, which reads as under : 01. Whether on the relevant date the accused was discharging his duties as a public servant? 02. Whether sanction for prosecution of accused is valid? 03. Whether the accused had the motive to demand bribe from the complainant? 04. Whether the accused demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant? 05. Whether the accused being a public servant received any illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from complainant? 06. Whether accused abused his position as public servant to obtain pecuniary advantage for himself and thereby committed criminal misconduct? 8. After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial Court considered issues Nos. 1 and 2 separately answering both in the affirmative. As regards issues Nos. 3 to 6, the trial Court considered these issues jointly and answered them in the negative. 9. In the matter of K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana reported in (2022) 4 SCC 574, the Hon’ble Supreme Court applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal held that mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge 7 under these two sections of the PC Act and in paragraphs 10 & 11 observed as under:- 10. have given careful consideration to the submissions. We have perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. The offence under Section 7 of the PC Act relating to public servants taking bribe requires a demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof. The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine qua non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. 11. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152, this Court has summarised the well-settled law on the subject in para 23 which reads thus: “23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.” 8 10. In 2023 SCC OnLine SC 424 (Soundarajan v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police Vigilance Anticorruption Dindigul), the Supreme Court observed and held as under: “9. We have considered the submissions. It is well settled that for establishing the commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, proof of demand of gratification and acceptance of the gratification is a sine qua non. Moreover, the Constitution Bench in the case of Neeraj Dutta 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724 has reiterated that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can be invoked only on proof of facts in issue, namely, the demand of gratification by the accused and the acceptance thereof.” 11. The complainant Balram Singh Thakur (PW-2) in his examination-in-chief has stated that he has a building materials supplier shop in the name of Akash Traders in village Baniya. He had completed the stop dam work in village Manpur before 31st March, 2018. The Agriculture Department deposited some amount in his account but for the remaining amount of Rs. 1,98,000/-, the respondent was demanding bribe. He gave Rs.25,000 to the respondent as a bribe but the outstanding amount was not deposited in his account. The respondent was demanding additional Rs.10,000/- to clear the outstanding amount which he did not want to pay and hence he made a written complaint to the ACB, Raipur. 9 12. However, the complainant himself in paragraphs 12 to 17 of his cross-examination has admitted that he had previously registered as a contractor with the State Government 10-11 years ago, which was cancelled in 2005 and thereafter, he did not re-register as a contractor with the State Government. He has stated that a written agreement is made between the government and the contractor whose tender is accepted and no work or contract of the government takes place without a written agreement. However, there is no written agreement by the State Government with him regarding the construction of the stop dam that he mentioned. He has not been given any work order in writing to construct the stop dam. The work of stop dam construction is carried out by the Watershed Committee. No agreement was made with him by the Watershed Committee Manpur for construction of the stop dam, nor was any work order issued. 13. The complainant also admits that he is not a contractor; his wife, son and he worked as labourers in the construction of the stop dam carried out by the Watershed Committee, Manpur. The laborers engaged in the construction of the stop dam received their wages based on the muster roll, but not in cash. The name of the laborer, his/her attendance, the number of days he/she 10 worked, the amount of payment to be made and the signature or thumb impression of the laborer receiving the payment are all recorded. In paragraphs 18 & 19, he has stated that Muster Roll Exhibits D-1, 3, 5, 7, 9 & 11 contain my signature from 'A' to 'A' part, my wife's signature from 'B' to 'B' part, and my son’s signature from 'C' to 'C' part. He admits that as of 08.05.18, he had been paid according to the muster roll for the wages earned on the stop dam work, and no amount was outstanding. 14. In paragraphs - 22 to 27 of his cross-examination, the complainant admits that he had not registered as a contractor with the government under the name of Akash Traders. There was no agreement between him and the government regarding the supply of building materials. Neither he nor Akash Traders received any written work order from the Watershed Committee, Manpur regarding the supply of building materials. He has not attached any document in this case to prove that he was the owner of Akash Traders. He did not provide any proof to the ACB regarding his ownership of Akash Traders. Since he is not the owner of Akash Traders, he has not presented any proof before the ACB or the Court. 15. He does not know where the Watershed Mission office is located. He has stated that the bills submitted to the 11 Watershed Mission are signed and passed only by the Chairman and Secretary of the Watershed Development Committee, Manpur. The payment is not made until the Chairman and Secretary of the Watershed Committee sign the bills. The account he presented to the ACB was after the full payment was made, according to which, he had no outstanding amount. In para-68 of his cross-examination, the complainant has clearly stated that he is not a contractor. He did not construct the stop dam at Manpur and it was constructed by the Manpur Watershet Committee. He worked as a laborer in its construction. 16. The Investigating Officer B. K. Tiwari (PW-11) has stated that he had not obtained any certificate of working as a contractor and his registration from the complainant Balram Singh Thakur in village Dullapur and later during the investigation. He did not conduct any investigation by visiting village Baniya, Gram Panchayat Pailpar of Balram Singh Thakur. He did not seize any documents related to his business from Balram Singh Thakur during the investigation. He states that the complainant had given a photocopy of his passbook and he did not conduct any investigation based on it. 17. Molas Kumar (PW-4), an employee of the department has clearly stated that as per the department’s record, the 12 complainant had never been granted any contract for construction of stop dam. He falsifies the assertion of the complainant that as of 16.05.2018, his department owed Rs.1,98,000/- to the complainant. He states that the complainant had never made any complaint to the department about delay in payment or the accused having demanded any money from him for releasing the payment. 18. According to the statement of the complainant himself, he is not a contractor, he did not construct the stop dam at Manpur, he is not the owner of Akash Traders, no work order was issued to the complainant or in the name of Akash Traders by the Watershed Committee, Manpur regarding the supply of building materials, the Stop Dam was constructed by the Manpur Water Conservation Committee and he worked as a laborer in its construction, the wages earned on the stop dam work were paid to him as per the muster roll and no amount was outstanding. Considering all these facts, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the credibility of the complainant is found to be totally doubtful and untrustworthy and the allegation of demand of bribe and acceptance thereof by the accused is not established. Hence, the trial Court held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused and accordingly, recorded a finding of 13 acquittal. 19. In the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgment, it is clear that the proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine qua non for establishing the offence under these Sections of the PC Act. If demand is not proved, conviction cannot be made only on the basis of acceptance. After re-appreciating the entire evidence, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, no interference is required. 20. Accordingly, the present appeal against acquittal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai