1 2025:CGHC:50983 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1421 of 2023 Deepak Singh Namdeo, Son of Shivkumar Namdeo Aged About 40 years (now aged about 47 Years) Working As Field Officer, Zila Antyavsayee, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Inspector, Economic Offence Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 13/10/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.07.2023 passed in Special Criminal Case under the P.C. Act No. 01/2019 by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, District Kabirdham, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 {for short, the PC Act} and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine 2 of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo further 3 months additional rigorous imprisonment. 2. Today, the matter is listed for hearing on IA No. 3/2025, which is an application for urgent hearing. The same is allowed and with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. The appellant/accused was charged under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act alleging that on 18.01.2019, while being a public servant posted as Area Officer in the District Antyavasayi Sahkari Vikas Samiti, Kabirdham, in connection with his official duties, he demanded Rs.20,000/- from the complainant - Kamu Baiga as gratification other than legal remuneration in lieu of providing the second installment of loan for opening a general store under the Shaheed Veer Narayan Swavalamban Yojana (for short, the Yojna) and obtained undue benefit by receiving the said amount illegally as bribe. 4. The prosecution case, in brief is that the complainant Kamu Baiga (PW- 4), a resident of village Kesada, post Khairbanakala, Tehsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, applied for a loan of Rs. 2 Lacs under the Yojna for opening a general store. He received Rs.1,00,000 as the first installment of the loan amount. The appellant, a public servant posted as District Area Officer, demanded Rs.50,000/- for releasing the second installment. The complainant submitted a written complaint (Exhibit P/11) to the Anti- Corruption Bureau, Raipur, on 09.01.2019. Inspector Lambodar Patel was appointed to process the complaint who gave the digital voice recorder to the complainant to record the pre-bribe conversation as per Exhibit P/13 for verification of the complaint and explained how to operate it and directed him to record the conversation with the accused regarding bribe and bring it back. On 11.01.2019, the complainant went to the appellant’s office and recorded the conversation regarding the 3 bribery transaction. The appellant agreed to accept the first installment of Rs.20,000 from the complainant as a bribe. The appellant informed the Investigating Officer who directed him to appear at the Rest House, Bemetara, on 18.01.2019 at 9:30 a.m. with the recorder. As per the prosecution story, a letter (Exhibit P/30) was sent to Collector Raipur to summon Panch witnesses for trap proceedings, on which order for appointment of Panch witnesses was issued. On 17.01.2019 at 6 p.m., the Panch witnesses appeared in the ACB office and were directed to appear in the ACB office on 18.01.2019 in the morning. On 18.01.2019, when the panch witnesses appeared in the morning, they were introduced to other members of the trap team and the members of the trap team left for Bemetara rest house where the complainant was found present. The complainant was introduced to the members of the trap team and panch witnesses, and the preliminary panchnama proceedings commenced. The complainant submitted a written complaint (Exhibit P- 12) along with a voice recording of the bribery conversation, which was transcribed into panchnama (Exhibit P/14), and a CD was prepared of it, and a seizure panchnama (Exhibit P/20) was prepared in the presence of panch witnesses. The second complaint was read by both panchnama witnesses, noting the action taken, and signed. Based on the complainant’s application, a Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P/19) was registered. The complainant presented 40 currency notes of denomination 500 totaling Rs. 20,000, as bribe money. These notes were counted and their serial numbers were noted. Upon a personal search of the complainant by Panch witness, Puneshvar Verma (PW-5) found no objectionable items, and a personal search panchnama (Exhibit P/15) was prepared. On being directed, Constable Shivprasad (PW/7) applied phenolphthalein powder to the bribe amount and kept the said notes in 4 the complainant’s right pocket. The complainant was counselled. On being directed to take the solution action as per the prosecution story, Constable Rajkaran Pandey (PW-03) prepared an aqueous solution of sodium carbonate and got the fingers of both the hands of all the members of the trap team, except Constable Shivprasad, washed one by one with it, on which the colour of the solution did not change, i.e. it remained colourless. Again an aqueous solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in which the fingers of both the hands of constable Shiv Prasad were washed one by one, on which the colour of the solution turned pink. 5. Constable Shiv Prasad Sahu was then left at the Rest House in Bemetara and the trap team was reconstituted. Panch witness Puneshvar Verma (PW-5) was designated as the shadow witness. A voice recorder was provided to record the exchange of bribe money during the trap, as per Exhibit P/16. Proceedings Panchnama (Exhibit P/17) was prepared regarding the proceedings at the Rest House in Bemetara, after which the trap team departed for Kawardha for the trap operation. Upon reaching the Collectorate in Kawardha, the complainant and the shadow witness were sent to the appellant’s office to hand over the bribe money. Other members of the trap team stood nearby, keeping an eye on each other. After the complainant gave the bribe, upon signaling, the trap team members proceeded to the appellant’s office, where they introduced themselves. Constable Rajkaran Pandey (PW-3) prepared an aqueous solution of sodium carbonate in a disposable glass. When the fingers of both hands of all members of the trap team, except the complainant and the appellant were dipped, the solution remained colorless. An aqueous solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a disposable glass and the appellant’s fingers were dipped in it. The 5 solution turned pink and was then filled in a glass bottle and sealed. On being asked, the appellant admitted of receiving the bribe amount and keeping it in the pocket of his shirt and thereafter in a envelope which was recovered and the number of the currency notes were matched and recovery panchnama (Exhibit P/27) was prepared. 6. The shirt worn by the appellant alongwith the bribe money recovered from him, was also washed separately in an aqueous sodium carbonate solution, which turned the solution into pink. Dipping the fingers of both hands in the solution also turned the solution pink. After the solution proceedings, the notes were dried and sealed in an envelope. The cash amount was placed in a white envelope and the appellant’s clothing was seized as per Exhibit P/24 and a panchnama was prepared. The entire solution was seized in glass jars in the presence of witnesses, and a panchnama (Exhibit P/10) was prepared. A transcription of the conversation during the bribe transaction was prepared as per Exhibit P/18. CD of the conversation was prepared and seized as per Exhibit P/25. A letter was sent to the Tehsildar, Kawardha, as per Exhibit P/31, to prepare a spot map. A notice under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. was issued to the appellant as per Exhibit P/32 requiring him to produce documents related to the loan sanctioned to the complainant. Upon production of the documents by the appellant, seizure panchnama (Exhibit P/26) was prepared. The appellant was arrested vide arrest warrant, Exhibit P/27. Accordingly, he was arrested and his family members were informed of the arrest. A panchnama (Exhibit P/28) was prepared on the spot with respect to the entire proceedings. 7. Based on the Dehatinalishi lodged in the case, the original crime number 03/2019 was registered in ACB, Raipur by Station House Officer Jai Prakash Kujur as per Exhibit P/36. The articles seized in the case were 6 sent for chemical examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory through Superintendent of Police, ACB Raipur as per Exhibit P/38 and the laboratory report was obtained as per Exhibit P/40. During the investigation in the case, the service related information of the appellant was obtained as per Exhibit P/42. Upon completion of the investigation, prosecution sanction was obtained from the Department of the appellant as per Exhibit P/43. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was presented against the appellant before the learned trial Court. 8. Charges were framed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The appellant denied the charges against him and demanded a trial in the case. 9. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses namely the Patwari Shiv Kumar Pali (PW-01), Deputy General Manager S. Toppo (PW-02), Constable Rajkaran Pandey (PW- 03), Kamu Baiga (PW-04), Assistant Engineer Puneshvar Prasad Verma (PW-05), Head Constable A.C.B. Rampravesh Mishra (PW-06), Head Constable ACB Shivprasad Sahu (PW-07), Deputy Superintendent of Police Lambodar Patel (PW-08) and S.K.Lal (PW-09) and exhibited as many as 45 exhibits. 10. When the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant pleaded innocence and stated that he had been falsely implicated due to a personal grudge. The appellant stated that the last installment of the loan had already been released to the complainant and there was no occasion for him to demand any illegal gratification from the complainant. Prior to the incident, the complainant had approached him for getting a tractor loan sanctioned for his father and the complainant was advised to deposit the margin money first. On the 7 date of the incident, the complainant spoke about the tractor and left after sitting for a while. The appellant did not examine any defense witnesses. 11. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 12. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has erred by convicting the appellant as the entire amount of loan sanctioned to the complainant was already disbursed and there was no occasion for the appellant to demand any illegal gratification for release of any balance amount. Further, most important thing is that the complainant himself has turned hostile before the learned trial Court and not supported the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had ever demanded any illegal gratification from the complainant which is an indispensable essentiality and an inflexible statutory mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. 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. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent submits that the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at a finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant and the learned trial Court was fully justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences in question. The judgment is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, the same does not warrant any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 15. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the currency notes were seized from the possession of the appellant and on dipping the hands of the appellant in the solution, the solution turned pink. However, the most important fact in this case is that the complainant himself has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution story. 16. The complainant (PW-4) in his deposition before the trial Court stated that the currency notes which he was having was kept by him in an envelope lying in the office of the appellant and had put that envelope in the drawer of the table of the appellant where the appellant was doing some work on his computer. Thereafter, he shook hands with the appellant. When he left the office and went downstairs, he informed the ACB members that he had placed the money in the drawer of the table of the appellant, meaning thereby that there was no demand and the money was given by the complainant himself. He further stated that the ACB members had specifically asked him that he should shake hands with the appellant after giving money and if the appellant denies to take money in his own hands, he should place it on the table. 17. In the cross examination, two of the panch witnesses namely Puneshwar Prasad Verma (PW-5) and S.K.Lal (PW-9) have stated that they did not enter the room of the appellant and that they did not hear what discussions took place between the complainant and the appellant during the trap proceedings. They further did not see any exchange of money between the complainant and the appellant. Hence, the prosecution has not produced any direct evidence proving either the demand or voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification both being 9 essential ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. 18. Another important factor is that the trap proceedings were conducted on 18.01.2019 and the second installment of the loan amount was already disbursed to the complainant on 11.01.2019 i.e. on the very first date of the complaint meaning thereby that when the loan amount was already disbursed to the complainant, there was no occasion for the appellant to make any demand and neither would have the complainant given any money to the appellant unnecessarily when his work was already got done. The transcription of the discussions held between the appellant and the complainant (Exhibit P/18) also does not suggest that there was any specific demand by the appellant from the complainant. 19. It is well settled law that mere recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused cannot, by itself, form the basis of conviction unless the prosecution proves the demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. In B. Jayaraj State of Andhra Pradesh {(2014) 13 SCC 55}, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that proof of demand is a sine qua non for establishing an offence under the PC Act. The absence of proof of demand vitiates the entice prosecution case, regardless of recovery. It is further observed that the tainted money was not recovered from the exclusive possession of the appellant but from the table and it is admitted position that the complainant himself had put the money in the drawer of the table. So far as drawing of presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act is concerned, the same can only be drawn when the demand for illegal gratification and acceptance is proved which is totally missing in this case. 20. From the above analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial 10 Court needs to be interfered with by this Court. 21. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.07.2023 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the appellant/accused-Deepak Singh Namdeo is acquitted of the charges. Consequently, the appeal stands allowed. 22. The appellant is stated to be on bail. He need not surrender, however, his bail bonds shall remain effective for a period of six months from today in view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.{Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023}. 23. Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Abhishek / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.10.15 13:43:01 +0530