1 Reserved on 10.07.2025 Pronounced on 08.10.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 89 of 2005 Santosh Kesharwani S/o Lakhan Lal Kesharwani Aged About 55 Years Revenue Inspector R/o- Khallari, Imlibhata District- Mahasamund (CG) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Anti Corruption Bureau (Lokayukt Officer) Raipur (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Pooja Loniya, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Shailesh Puriya, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) C A V Judgment The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 31.01.2005 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Raipur (for convenience the “trial Court”) in Special Criminal Case No. 27/1998, convicting and sentencing him in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence U/s 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 RI for 2 years plus fine of Rs.1000/- with default clause of 3 months imprisonment U/s 13 (1)(d) r/w, 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 RI for 4 years plus fine of Rs.2000/- with default clause of 6 months imprisonment 2 2. Puneet Ram Sahu (PW-7) is the complainant herein. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that father of the complainant namely Brajlal Sahu (not examined) had ancestral agriculture land situate at village Kashi Bahar. The accused/appellant at the relevant time was posted as Revenue Inspector in Revenue Circle Khallari under which, village Kashi Bahar falls. About 7-8 days before 23.03.1998, the complainant contacted the accused/appellant for making an entry of new number of agricultural land of his father Brijlal in his Bhoo-Adhikar-cum-Rin-Pustika. It is alleged that for preparation of new Rin- Pustika and then obtaining the signature of competent authority thereon, the accused/appellant has demanded Rs.200/- on 23.03.1998. However, as the complainant was not willing to give that amount, he made report to the Superintendent of Police (Lokayukt) Raipur, on the same day. The complainant was given a tape recorder under Panchnama Ex. P-18 to record the conversation between him and the accused/appellant, which he did accordingly. Complainant then submitted the cassette in the Lokayukta office which was played before the Superintendent of Police. Thereafter on 25.03.1998 a trap party was constituted; complainant was given four currency notes of 50 denomination totalling to Rs. 200/- to be given to the accused/appellant on demand; number of the same were noted down; sodium carbonate solution was prepared; fingers of the members of the trap party were dipped into that solution but the same remained colourless; currency notes were coated with phenolphthalein powder, the complainant was also given certain instructions not to shake hand with anyone etc. Before the trap party could proceed, the complainant was given a micro cassette and tape recorder with the instruction to record the conversation going on during the transaction. After the accused/appellant accepted the money, the trap party caught hold of him and gave its introduction to him. The 3 accused/appellant is alleged to have disclosed to the trap party that the money taken by him was kept in the Rin-Pustika. The investigation further moved on and after completion, challan was submitted before the trial Court U/s 7, 13 (1) D r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “PC Act”) followed by framing of charge accordingly. The accused/appellant however denied the charge framed against him and claimed trial. 3. So as to establish its case the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded in which he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. By the judgment impugned, learned trial Court has held the accused/appellant guilty and imposed the sentence as described above, which is under challenge before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings recorded by learned trial Court are not based on due appreciation of the evidence on record and therefore the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused/appellant is liable to be set aside. She submits that learned trial Court has committed an error in not considering the evidence of Dinesh Kadam (PW-1) - the Upper Division Clerk in the Law Department at the relevant time. She further points out the flaw on the approach of the trial Court in assessing the testimony of Assistant Commercial Officer CP Choubey (PW-3) and Additional SP namely N.S. Kanwar (PW-4), who has expressed his ignorance about the procedure of grant of sanction to prosecute. Learned trial Court is also argued to have not appreciated the evidence of complainant (PW-7) in its proper perspective. So is said to be the faulty approach of the trial Court with the evidence of PW-8. Learned counsel 4 for the appellant further submits that though other independent witnesses were also present at the relevant time, the prosecution has fallen in a serious error in not examining the same. She submits that even the shadow witness has not been examined by the prosecution which casts a serious doubt in its case. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029, decisions of this Court in the matter of Human Singh Nishad v. State of CG dated 25.10.2024 rendered in CRA No. 639/2005, in the matter of Ramgopal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh dated 20.09.2024 rendered in CRA No. 1505/2017 and in the matter of Bhawani Shankar Sao v. The State of CG dated 12.02.2020 rendered in CRA No. 430/2003. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the judgment impugned to be strictly in accordance with law and based on due appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses. He submits that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the demand of illegal gratification for making fresh entry of the agriculture land and issuing the new Rin-Pustika, followed by acceptance of the same. He submits that the transliteration of the cassette content, has been duly identified by the complainant (PW-7) to be of his own and the accused/appellant which was in connection with the demand of illegal gratification by the accused/appellant. According to the State counsel, the procedure prescribed for making the trap in the cases falling under the P.C. Act including obtaining sanction to prosecute, has been duly followed, the testimony of the witnesses also speaks volumes in regard to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and therefore, the well reasoned judgment does not call for any view other than the one already taken by the trial court by way of judgment under challenge herein. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence 5 on record cautiously. 8. Punit Ram Sahu (PW-7) is the complainant in this case. He has stated that in the year 1998 he had been to the accused/appellant who was posted as Revenue Inspector at Bagbahra, for updating the Rin-Pustika. On seeing the Rin-Pustika already in possession of this witness, the accused/appellant is said to have told the complainant to have the new one for Rs. 200/-. Since this witness did not want to give money as demanded by the accused/appellant, he went to the Lokayukta office, Raipur and made a written complaint (Ex.P-17). He was given a mini tape recorder with an instruction to record the conversation between him and the accused/appellant during transaction, which he did accordingly and assured the accused/appellant to make payment on the next day i.e. 25.03.1998. Said tape recorder was played before the Superintendent of Police. On transliteration of the cassette content vide Ex. P-4, he identified the voice to be of his own and also that of the accused/appellant. He was then given four currency notes of 50 denomination totalling to Rs. 200/- by applying phenolphthalein powder thereon with the instruction to touch the same only at the time of being given to the accused/appellant on demand. According to this witness, on 25.03.1998 at about 4-4.30 PM he along with the trap party went to Bagbahra; trap party stayed back at some distance; he went to the accused/appellant and told him to have come with Rs. 200/-, and when the accused/appellant asked him to give, he handed over the same to him by taking out from his shirt pocket. On signal being given, the trap party reached the spot and apprehended the accused/appellant. This witness has stated that when he gave money to accused/appellant, no other person than him and the accused was there. Though the accused/appellant denied to have taken the bribe, the sodium carbonate solution in which his fingers were 6 dipped turned pink in colour, and when this happened, he admitted to have taken bribe. Said four currency notes and the Rin-Pustika were then seized under Ex. P-19. This witness is also stated to have recorded the conversation which took place at the time of money being given and this time also he identified as to which was the voice of his own and which was of the accused/appellant. He has reiterated that at the time when he went to the accused/appellant, no other person was there. He has stated that when he entered the office of the accused/appellant, one of the members was following him keeping himself at the distance of about 10-15 ft. 9. Dinesh Kadam (PW-1) is the witness to sanction for prosecution has duly supported the case of the prosecution stating that by order dated 09.10.1998 the sanction to prosecute the accused/appellant was accorded by the Additional Secretary, Law Department, Raipur. C.P. Choubey (PW-3) in whose presence the trap proceedings were conducted, has supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that on receiving the signal from the complainant, the trap party entered the office of the accused/appellant, and on being asked he denied to have taken money. Thereafter, the accused/appellant came to the water tap in the courtyard to wash off his hand, but he was held back. According to this witness, on being asked as to where the bribe money was, he disclosed it to be within the Rin-Pustika lying on the table. He has then stated that on hands of the accused being washed in the sodium carbonate solution, its colour turned pink; four currency notes of 50 denomination were taken out from within the Rin-Pustika by a Panch witness, Bhadoriya by name, number of the same were matched from the one mentioned in preliminary Panchnama and found to be the same. Those currency notes were also dipped into the sodium carbonate solution and the colour of which also turned pink. Cassette was played and the contents 7 thereof were transliterated. In cross examination, he has stated that the Rin Pustika was seized from the table of the accused/appellant and the currency notes within it were taken out by Panch witness, Bhadoria by name. 10. S.S. Kanwar (PW-4) – Additional Superintendent of Police and the investigating officer in the case, has also supported the case of the prosecution by describing the procedure followed while conducting the trap. According to this witness, on being asked, the accused/appellant had disclosed the bribe money kept within the Rin Pustika lying on the table, and that on such disclosure being made, the same were seized and the number of which were found to be the same which were noted down in the preliminary Panchnama. Having those currency notes been dipped in the sodium carbonate solution, its colour had turned pink. Pushpraj Singh (PW-5) – one of the members of the trap party has also supported the case of the prosecution by describing as to the manner in which the trap proceedings were carried out. He has admitted that the Rin-Pustika and the money were kept on the table. Constable Pooran Lal (PW-6) is the witness who had taken the articles seized to FSL Sagar, and obtained the report therefrom (Ex.P-15). R.K. Rai (PW-8) has duly supported the case of the prosecution stating as to the manner in which the trap proceedings were conducted. He has stated that on seeing him, the accused/appellant threw the money on the table and rushed to the water tap to wash his hand but was held back from doing so. He has then stated that on fingers of accused being dipped in the sodium carbonate solution, its colour had turned pink. The colour of the solution in which the currency notes were dipped also turned pink, and the number of those currency notes were matched from the ones mentioned in the preliminary Panchnama and were found to be the same. 11. After thus going through the material available on record, keeping in 8 mind the admission made by the accused/appellant himself in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC that at the time of trap proceedings he was posted as Revenue Inspector, which gets fortified by his service book seized under Ex. P-22, the finding of the trial Court that the accused/appellant was a public servant, appears to be fully justified and is maintained accordingly. Likewise, the finding on the question of sanction accorded under Ex. P-1 to prosecute the accused/appellant recorded by the trial Court also appears to be fully justified and is hereby maintained, particularly when no objection as to the competency of the sanctioning authority has been raised on behalf of the accused/appellant. 12. From the material available on record it is evident that the complainant (PW-7) had approached the accused/appellant who was then posted as Revenue Inspector at Bagbahra within whose jurisdiction the village of the complainant fell, for re-entering the agriculture land in the revenue record which was in the name of his father, consequent to renewed consolidation proceedings. The complainant has categorically stated that he contacted the accused/appellant for that purpose on 3-4 occasions and ultimately he asked him to pay Rs. 200/- for getting the work done. As the record shows, the complainant was not interested in giving money as demanded by the accused/appellant, and for that he approached the Lokayukta office at Raipur and the trap was planned for execution. Trap party was constituted; complainant was given a tape recorder for recording the conversation between him and the accused; pre-trap proceedings were carried out; complainant was given instructions about the dos and don’ts at the time of trap; trap party reached Bagbahra but except the complainant and one shadow witness (not examined), the other members of the trap party stayed back at some distance; complainant just after giving money hurled a signal to 9 the trap party which rushed to the spot and caught the accused/appellant, who on being asked as to where the amount received was, he disclosed it to be on the table. Rin-Pustika and four currency notes of 50 denomination were seized, hands of the accused were washed in the sodium carbonate solution, colour of which had turned pink. So also the seized currency notes were dipped in that solution and this time also its colour turned pink. The number of the currency notes so seized were matched from the ones noted in the preliminary panchnama and were found to be the same. It has also come in the evidence of the witnesses that after seeing the trap party, the accused/appellant rushed to nearby water tap to wash his hands but was held back by the members of the trap party. This also stands as one of the circumstances against the accused/appellant. Further, the complainant has repeatedly stated that when the talks for transaction were going on between him and the accused, no third person was there at that time. Furthermore, when the cassette containing the conversation was played in the office of the Lokayukta in the presence of the complainant, he is stated to have clearly identified the voice of his own and that of the accused/appellant. 13. As regards a case under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) and (ii) the Prevention of Corruption Act, it has been held by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions that the prosecution is required to prove the demand of illegal gratification, subsequent acceptance of the same and then the recovery thereof. This can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence, and also by the circumstantial evidence. 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 (13)(1) and (ii) of the PC Act. 14. As already stated, to constitute the offence of an illegal gratification, 10 there are three essential ingredients (i) demand, (ii) acceptance and (iii) recovery. 15. The Supreme Court in case of P. Satyanarayan Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 observed as under:- “23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)&(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. 26. In reiteration of the golden principle which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases, this Court in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam (2013)12 SCC 406 had held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of “may be” true but has to upgrade it in the domain of “must be” true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It was held, that the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.” 16. In case of Dashrath Singh Chauhan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2019) 17 SCC 509 Supreme Court observed as under:- “29. It is for the reason that in order to prove a case against the appellant, it was necessary for the 11 prosecution to prove the twin requirement of “demand and the acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant”. As mentioned above, it was the case of the prosecution in the charge that the appellant did not accept the bribe money but the money was accepted and recovered from the possession of Rajinder Kumar–co accused (A-1). 32) Since in order to attract the rigors of Sections 7,13(2) read 13(1)(d) of PC Act, the prosecution was under a legal obligation to prove the twin requirements of “demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused”, the proving of one alone but not the other was not sufficient. The appellant is, therefore, entitled for acquittal from the charges framed against him under the PC Act too. (See para 8 of M.K.Harshan vs. State of Kerala, (1996) 11 SCC 720)” 17. If the facts of the present case are set in the legal firmament set out above, the twin requirements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused/appellant for re-entering the name in the revenue record consequent to fresh consolidation proceedings which required issuance of new Rin-Pustika, are clearly established. Since the material available on record clearly goes to show as to how the accused/appellant being a public servant demanded and then accepted illegal gratification from the complainant for discharging the public duty, mere non examination of shadow witness would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, as the contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the witnesses pointed out by the counsel for the appellant do not materially affect the core of the subject matter, they cannot be said to be of much help to the case of the prosecution. The decisions sought to be taken support of by the counsel for the appellant have been gone through, but since the factual 12 scenario involved therein does not fully encompass the fact situation herein, they are not of much help to the accused/appellant. 18. To summarize, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has duly established the fact that the accused/appellant being a public servant had raised a demand of illegal gratification for discharging the public duty which he was otherwise duty-bound to do, accepted the same, and then recovery was also made. So also, the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective while arriving at the conclusion of guilt of the accused, as detailed above. No illegality or infirmity worth interference with the conviction part of the judgment impugned is visible to this Court. Accordingly, The well reasoned finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court is hereby affirmed. 19. However, keeping in mind the the longitude having rolled since the incident which occurred in the year 1998, that by now the accused/appellant must be in his advance age, that he remained on bail for a major chunk of time and is not reported to have misused the said benefit, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be served if the substantive sentence imposed on him is reduced to RI for one year from that of two and four years. Order accordingly. Sentence of fine however to remain as it is. Default sentence is also reduced to two months. 20. Appeal is thus allowed in part to extent as above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi/pawan