1 2025:CGHC:60555 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 17.09.2025 12.12.2025 -- 12.12.2025 CRA No. 994 of 2014 1 - Rambahor Singh (Died) through Lrs. S/o as per Hon’ble Court Order Dated 15-03-2022. 1.1 - Smt. Krishna Devi, Wd/o Late Rambahor Singh, aged about 62 years, R/o Ward No. 14, Village Kharamseda, Tahsil Amarpatan, District Satna (M.P). 1.2 - Manish Kumar Dahiya, S/o Late Rambahor Singh, aged about 36 years, R/o Ward No. 14, Village Kharamseda, Tahsil Amarpatan, District Satna (M.P). 1.3 - Smt. Amita Dahiya, D/o Late Rambahor Singh, aged about 39 years, W/o Mahesh Dahiya, R/o Quarter No. 2828, Vikal Estate, Aam Ka Bagicha, Sector - 2 Jabalpur (M.P). ... Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh S/o, through the Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System Software) For Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kaif Ali, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C.A.V. Judgement 1. This appeal has arisen out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.09.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Special Case No. 4/2009. The trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. R.I. for 1 year and fine amount of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 03 months. Under Section 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. R.I. for 02 years and fine amount of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 03 months. (All the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.) 2. Brief facts of the case as unfolded from the impugned judgment is that the complainant Uday Singh Baghel, working as Shiksha Karmi Grade- III at the Primary School, Dogriguda (Alwa), Thana-Darbha, since 1998 and was the Secretary of the Public Participation and Development Committee. In 2006, under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan), an amount of Rs. 4,35,000 was sanctioned for the construction of the building of Primary School, Dogriguda. The construction work for the said building was given to Mr. Mohan Singh Thakur (mason), a resident of Tirathgarh. The said mason worked up to the plinth level from 13.05.2006 to 21.05.2006. The complainant after paying wage of Rs. 4,000/- to the mason Mohan Singh for the said work received a receipt. On 17.08.2007, a letter was received by post from 3 the Labour Officer in the name of the complainant in which the Labour Inspector had written that the payment of applicant Faganu and 17 other workers was pending. Based on the above letter from the Labor Officer, the complainant prepared a written reply on 20.08.2007, stating that the payment of the wages had been paid to mason Mohan Singh Thakur. With the said reply, the complainant, along with his companion Balram, went to the Labour Court, Jagdalpur, at 12:00 pm on 20.08.2007. A clerk arranged for him to meet with R.B. Singh, the Labour Inspector (accused). After reading the complainant's reply, the accused/appellant R.B. Singh declared that the complainant would lose his job. The accused also stated that he would settle the matter outside the Labour Court and by saying so, he wrote 2,000 on the back of the ₹ notice and given the same to the complainant. The accused/appellant retained the complainant's written reply without giving any acknowledgment to him. Consequently, as the complainant does not want to give any bribe to the accused/appellant, he submitted a written application to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jagdalpur, requesting that the action be taken against the accused/appellant. Based on the complainant's application, Investigating Officer L. Khes registered a First Information Report against the accused/appellant, the Panch witnesses Ajay Sharma, District Women and Child Development Officer, Jagdalpur, and Jagdish Prasad, Assistant District Excise Officer, were informed of the complainant's application and a trap team was constituted and subsequently, preliminary panchnama was prepared. The two thousand rupees (Rs. 2,000/-) presented by the complainant was coated with phenolphthalein powder and was kept in the complainant's shirt pocket. 4 The complainant's companion was given a small tape recorder and blank cassette to secretly record a conversation about bribery. After recording the conversation between the complainant and the accused regarding the bribe, a script was prepared. The complainant spoke with R.B. Singh by phone and the accused then called the complainant to his office at 12:45 p.m. The complainant and members of the trap team arrived at the accused's office on 21.08.2007, at 12:40 p.m., carrying other necessary materials for the investigation. When the complainant Uday Singh Baghel went inside the office with his companion Balram, the accused/appellant was sitting in his chamber. The accused asked Uday and Balram to sit on the chair and asked whether they had brought the money? To which the complainant said yes and he took out the bribe amount i.e., two thousand rupees (Rs. 2,000/-) from his pocket and gave it to the accused/appellant R.B. Singh. The accused/appellant has then received the tainted currency note from his hand and kept it in his right pant pocket. As per the pre-decided programme, the complainant came out of the Labour Officer's office and then signalled the trap team by making a gesture about giving the tainted amount to the accused/appellant. The complainant, his companion and the accused/appellant had arrived on the main road in front of the office. M.L. Negi, one of the members of the trap team, introduced himself, grabbed the accused's hand, and brought him back to his office room. Thereafter, all the members of the trap team, complainant and his companion Balram’s hands were washed in an aqueous solution of sodium carbonate and the colour of the solution did not change. But when the accused's fingers were dipped in the sodium carbonate solution, the colour of the solution turned light pink. When 5 the numbers of the bribed money notes kept in the back right pocket of the accused's full pant were matched with the initial panchnama, only the notes with the numbers mentioned in the panchnama were recovered from the accused's pocket. Again, when Ajay Sharma dipped the bribe notes and panch witness Jagdish Prasad dipped Rs. 510 obtained from the accused's pant pocket in addition to the bribe amount, the colour of the solution turned pink. When the fingers of Ajay Sharma and Jagdish Sharma were dipped separately in the aqueous solution, the colour of the solutions turned pink. When the fingers of the right side pocket of the accused's full pants and the fingers of both hands of the complainant Uday Singh Baghel were dipped in the solution and washed, the colour of the solution also turned light pink. All the above solutions were sealed, marked and seized. When the fingers of the hands of other members of the trap team were dipped in the aqueous solution, the colourless solution came and the same was also seized. 3. During the subsequent course of investigation, the original copy of the reply of the complainant was submitted on 20.08.2007, the note sheet related to the complainant's case, the official copy of letter No. 1628 dated 03.08.2007 and the complainant’s reply were duly seized. A panchnama was prepared of the transcripts of conversations between the complainant Uday Singh Baghel and his companion Balram Nag with the accused/appellant. The STD bills from the conversations with the accused/appellant were seized. 4. After completion of the usual investigation and after obtaining the 6 necessary sanction from the concerned Department i.e., Ministry of Law and Legislative Affairs, The exhibits mentioned in Ex. P/28 were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur through Ex. P/27. The charge-sheet was led before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 7, 13 (1) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant having abjured his guilt, subjected to trial. 5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. In his defence, the appellant adduced 01 witness. 6. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary on record, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellant. 7. Assailing correctness and validity of the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is contrary to law and facts available on record. The learned trial Court committed gross error by convicting the present appellant without any material available on record against him. The learned trial Court committed gross error by not considering 7 the fact that there is no sufficient material available to connect the accused/appellant with the crime-in-question. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate the defence witness in its true perspective and has not dealt with the impugned judgment regarding the statement of the defence witness. Learned trial Court has failed to see that in criminal cases, the accused has right to maintain silence and also the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the alleged chain of circumstances has not been completed to connect the appellant with the crime-in-question. The appellant has not committed any offence and has no relation with the crime-in-question. There is no conclusive proof of motive that has ever been proved by the prosecution. The appellant has no criminal background and the learned trial Court has committed gross error by convicting the appellant despite the fact that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. So, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 8. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of B. Jayaraj v. State of A. P reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55, K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana reported in (2022) 4 SCC 574. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment submits that learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. So, learned trial Court rightly convicted the 8 appellant. Hence, this appeal is well merited and no interference is called for. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 11. It is clear from record of learned trial Court that it framed charges against the accused/appellant Rambahor Singh under Sections 7 and 13(1) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 12. PW-01 Uday Singh Baghel, the complainant has stated that some labours have filed complaint against him before the Labour Officer. On 13.08.2007, a letter was received from the Labour Officer. Based on the above letter from the Labour Officer, the complainant prepared a written reply on 20.08.2007, stating that the payment of the wages had been paid to mason Mohan Singh Thakur. With the said reply, the complainant, along with his companion Balram, went to the Labour Court, Jagdalpur, at 12:00 pm on 20.08.2007. A clerk arranged for him to meet with R.B. Singh, the Labour Inspector/accused and there, the accused/appellant wrote Rs. 2,000/- in the back side of his notice and given the same to the complainant by saying that if he does not pay wages, he will lose his job, thereafter, he asked him to come on 21.08.2007. Consequently, as the complainant does not want to give any bribe to the accused/appellant, he submitted a written application vide Ex. P/01 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, (ACB) Jagdalpur, requesting that the action be taken against 9 the accused/appellant. Thereafter, the trap team was constituted, and one of its members, Mr. M.L. Negi, asked him to arrange the amount and come back to the ACB office the next day at 10 a.m and on the next day, when he reached the ACB office, M.L. Negi asked him whether he brought the said money, to which the complainant presented the said amount i.e., two thousand rupees (Rs. 2,000/-) as one currency note of Rs. 1,000/-, one currency note of Rs. 500/- and five currency notes of 500 denomination and after noting the numbers of the currency notes, the same was coated with phenolphthalein powder and was kept in the complainant's shirt left pocket. Thereafter, the complainant took out the bribe amount i.e., two thousand rupees (Rs. 2,000/-) from his pocket and gave it to the accused/appellant R.B. Singh. The accused/appellant has then received the tainted currency note from his hand and kept it in his right pant pocket and then the accused/appellant gave acknowledgment to the complainant by signing over it. Thereafter, his companion Balram asked the accused/appellant by saying that let's go out and have tea, after that the accused/appellant, complainant and Balram went outside the office of the accused/appellant to have tea. As per the pre-decided programme, after coming out from the office, the complainant signalled the trap team by making a gesture about giving the tainted amount to the accused/appellant. Soon then, M.L. Negi, one of the members of the trap team, introduced himself, grabbed the accused's hand when the complainant, his companion and the accused/appellant had arrived on the main road and brought him back to his office room. In para 14 of his cross-examination, He denied the suggestion that he had to pay Rs. 9730/-, and he also denied informing the accused/appellant of the 10 same. Para 15 of his cross-examination is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- “15. यह कहना सही है क, आर०बी० सग ने मुझसे कहा था क, दो हजार पये लेकर आओगे तब तुहे आ स से पावती मलेगी। यह कहना सही है क, म!ने आरोपी से कहा था क, इस दो हजार पये को कु छ कम कर दी$जये तो आरोपी ने मुझसे कहा था क, कम %यादा नही होगा कम से कम दो हजार पये तुमको लेकर आना होगा। यह कहना गलत है क, आरोपी ने मुझसे कहा था क, दो हजार पये पटाकर रसीद ले जाना और शेष रा*श पटाने के +लए म! तुमको समय दे दूंगा। यह कहना सही है क, म!ने आरोपी /दारा घूस मांगे जाने की बात समझकर ए०सी. ०बी० काया2लय जगदलपुर म3 उसके व5 *शकायत दज2 करा दी थी। यह कहना गलत है क, आरोपी ने मुझसे यह कहा था क, दो हजार पये लेकर आओगे तो उसकी रसीद काया2लय से दे देगे और शेष रा*श के +लए समय देग3। 6वत: कहा क, आरोपी ने मुझसे दो हजार पेय की मांग की थी परनतू उसकी पावती रसीद देने की बात नही की थी।" He further admitted this suggestion that the accused/appellant wrote Rs. 2,000/- in the back side of his notice and given the same to the complainant by saying that if he does not pay wages, he will lose his job. In para 27 of his cross-examination he admitted that when a person does a good deed, he demands acknowledgment. He denied it by saying that on 20.08.2007, the accused told him that he will give the acknowledgment receipt to the amount which he pays. As they gave the accused/appellant Rs. 2,000/-, his companion Balram asked the acknowledgment of the same from the accused/appellant. 11 13. Panch witness (PW-03) Ajay Sharma is the shadow witness has admitted in para 11 and para 12 of his cross-examinations that he prepared the preliminary memorandum vide Ex. P/11 and admitted his signature on B to B part in each page and also prepared transcript of a tape recorder vide Ex. P/08 and admitted his signature on B to B part in each page. 14. PW-05 Bhanwar Singh Bariha stated that The Anti Corruption Bureau has asked him information regarding the work of the accused/appellant and the said information was given by him vide letter Ex. P/21 and he admitted his signature on A to A part. He admitted that he also verified the notification and given copy to the ACB vide Ex. P/22 and he admitted his signature on A to A part on each page and the same was published on 10.07.2022 in the C.G. State newspaper. 15. (PW-07) Jagdish Nishad, Assistant District Excise Officer stated in para 1 of his examination-in-chief that on 21.08.2007, he reached to the office of ACB, Jagdalpur on being directed by the Collector, Bastar (C.G.) and there he met with Negi and Khes and thereafter, he was introduced to the complainant Uday Singh Baghel and then he was shown the complainant's written reply and, after examining it thoroughly, he admitted his signature on the C to C part. 16. In this case, the accused/appellant accepted that he received Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant, but in his statement recorded under Section 313 he explained in question No. 331 as under:- “izkFkhZ }kjk mls nh xbZ etnwjh Hkqxrku dh jkf'k vf/kd gksus ds dkj.k 12 2000@& nsdj le; pkgrk Fkk mlds fuosnu ij eSaus le; fnyk;s tkus dk vk'oklu fn;k FkkA fj'or dh ekax ugh fd;k FkkA" 17. It is evident that all the trap proceeding was accepted by the accused/appellant in his statement of accused, but defence of the accused/appellant is that he received his money as wages which was due on the complainant and the complainant also admitted the suggestion of the defence in para 14 of his cross-examination by saying that he came to know regarding payment of Rs. 9,730/- to the workers is due on him after he received notice vide Ex. P/04. He further admits that before receiving the said notice, he was not familiar with the accused/appellant. In para 15 of his cross-examination he admitted that the accused/appellant told him that he will get the acknowledgment of office when he brings the said bribe amount of Rs. 2,000/-. 18. Prosecution has filed transcript vide Ex. P/08 and in the said transcript “नो टस" and “पावती" were stated and other communications were not clear. The complainant in his cross-examination has admitted that after giving the said bribe amount to the accused/appellant, he received the acknowledgment and then his companion Balram asked him for having tea with them, then the accused/appellant along with complainant and Balram came outside of the office of Labour Inspector to have a tea. 19. DW-01 R. K. Gupta, Labour Inspector has supported the defence of the accused/appellant and stated that the complainant Uday Singh Baghel gave Rs. 2,000/- to the accused/appellant R. B. Singh as Labour Payment and while giving the same he prayed for some time to pay the 13 remaining amount as he was unable to pay at that time. 20. Learned trial Court also finds in para 39 that in transcript Ex. P/08, there is no mention of demand of bribe, but the learned trial Court held as under:- “LdzhIV dh varZoLrq dk voyksdu djus ij ;g rks Li"V :i ls izdV gksrk gS fd cyjke ukx dh ckrksa dks vfHk;qDr }kjk tks tokc fn;k x;k gS mlesa fj'or dh ekax dk mYys[k rks ugh vk;k gS fdarq ;g vo'; iwNk gS fd ÞiSlk gks x;kßA cyjke ukx }kjk iwNs x;s iz'u ds mRrj esa vfHk;qDr }kjk ;g tokc fn;k x;k gS fd dsl jQk nQk gks tk;sxkA” 21. So, it is clear that the learned trial Court also finds that in transcript Ex. P/08 there is no mention of demand of bribe amount. 22. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of K. Shanthamma (supra) held in paras 11 and 20 which reads as under:- “11. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P.1, this Court has summarised the well-settled law on the subject in para 23 which reads thus: (SCC p. 159) “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 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 1 (2015) 10 SCC 152 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 11 14 amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.”. (emphasis supplied) 20. Thus, this is a case where the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant was not proved by the prosecution. Thus, the demand which is sine qua non for establishing the offence under Section 7 was not established.” 23. In the light of above cited judgment, in the present case also it is clear that the acceptance of money was admitted by the accused/appellant, but the defence of the appellant is that he received this money as labour wages and he gave time to the complainant for the payment of remaining amount. 24. In the case of B. Jayaraj (supra) it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 7 which reads as under:- “7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. ((2010) 15 SCC 1) and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI {(2009) 3 SCC 779).” 25. From the aforesaid judgment, in the present case also, the whole story of the prosecution, from the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, it is quite vivid that there is lack of clinching evidence with respect to the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant which makes the entire story of the prosecution doubtful. The evidence 15 adduced by the prosecution, in my considered opinion, the demand of the illegal gratification by the appellant is not established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the learned trial Court is not sustainable and the appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt. 26. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed and the appellant late Rambahor Singh is acquitted of all charges levelled against him. 27. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE U.K. Raju