1 2025:CGHC:53069 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 505 of 2019 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Chimanlal Sahu S/o Shri Premchand Sahu Aged About 51 Years Sub Engineer, Electricity Distribution Centre, Thankhamhariya, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, R/o Plot No. 39, Zone-2, Street 5/b, New Adarsh Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Satyadhar Bandhe S/o Shri Chaitram Bandhe Assistant Grade Iii, Electricity Distribution Centre Thankhamhariya, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. R/o Village- Baroda, Post- Mana Camp, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent /accused. For Appellant : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. T.K. Jha & Mr. Parth Jha, Advocates. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 30/10/2025 1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 17th September, 2018 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Durg in Special Case No. 022018 whereby respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Section 7 & 13(1) D read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth, “PC Act, 1988”). 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that respondent No. 1 was posted as Sub- Engineer in Electricity Distribution Centre, Thankhamhariya, District Bemetara whereas respondent No. 2 was posted as Assistant Grade -III in the office of respondent No. 1. Complainant – Ghanshyam Singh Rajput (PW-3) is an Agricultruist. His father had taken temporary electric connection for borewell situated in their agricultural field, he wanted it to be permanent. For which, complainant contacted respondent No. 1, who demanded bribe of Rs. 20,000/-, but it was settled on Rs.10,000/-. Complainant did not want to give said bribe amount, therefore, he made written complaint on 27.04.2009 to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur. He was given a micro cassette tape recorder for recording the demand of bribe by respondents, who recorded conversation and a transcript thereof was prepared. Ultimately, on 1.5.2009 trap proceeding was conducted in the office of Electricity Distribution System, Thankhamhariya. On the date of trap proceeding, as per plan made by Anti Corruption Bureau on 01.05.2009 at about 12.30 PM, complainant went to the office of respondents and tried to give bribe money of Rs.5,000/- to respondent No. 1, who told him to give that amount to respondent No. 2. On being paid Rs.5,000/-, respondent No. 2 hold it on his hand, thereafter, he kept it on the ‘Table’. On the signal given by the complainant, the trap party reached in that room, where both the respondents were present, hold the hand of respondent No. 2 and his finger of both the hands were dipped in solution of sodium carbonate, to which colour of water was turned pink, as he had held bribe money, in which powder of phenolphthalein was applied. Bribe money was seized from possession of respondent No. 2. Necessary seizure memo were 3 prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Appellants were arrested. Sanction for prosecution against the respondents was obtained. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) & 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 was filed against the respondents before Special Court (PC Act), Bemetara. 4. Learned Section Judge (PC Act), Bemetara framed charge under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act before Special Judge (PC Act), Bemtara, which was read over and explained to the respondents, who abjured the guilt and claimed trial. 5. In order to establish the charges against the respondents/ accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the respondents under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were also recorded, in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence claiming themselves to be innocent and false implication. Further defence of the respondents/accused was that the father of the complainant had taken a temporary electricity connection to a borewell situated in his agricultural field, from which he used to extract water for his brick kiln. Therefore, they were caught for aforesaid illegal use of electric connection. It is further defence of respondents/accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that alleged Rs.5,000/- was paid by complainant towards the demand raised by the Electric Department, to which receipt was also issued on 02.05.2009. Thus, neither they demanded any bribe nor had taken any bribe money. 4 They have examined one witness namely, Gopal Singh, Retired Executive Engineer in their defence. 6. After considering evidence adduced by both the parties, learned Special Court (PC Act) acquitted the respondents/accused by recording a finding that demand and acceptance of bribe money has not been established by the prosecution, rather the amount given by the complainant to respondent No. 2 was part of payment of total amount of Rs. 24,001/- raised by office of respondents/accused against illegal use of electricity by father of complainant. 7. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the judgment of acquittal, appellant /State has preferred instant appeal questioning the same. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / State would submit that to bring home the charge, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses including two independent witnesses. He further submits that complainant Ghanshyam Singh Rajput (PW-3) and both the independent witnesses have supported the case of prosecution conducting all the proceedings pertaining to the instant case, has been proved by Jerol Lakda (PW-8), who is Investigating Officer of the Case. He further submits that when bribe amount was proposed to be taken by respondent No. 1, who is main accused in the instant case, he did not hold it at his own hand, rather he asked the complainant to give said amount of bribe to respondent No. 2, therefore, complainant gave that amount to respondent No. 2, who hold it in his hand and, thereafter, he kept it in the pocket of his shirt, therefore, when fingers of both the hands of respondent No. 2 were dipped in the sodium carbonate solution, then colour of the water turned pink and 5 pocket of shirt of respondent No. 2 was also dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate, which also turned pink. These facts proved that demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- by respondents from the complainant, but without considering the evidence, learned Special Court has acquitted both the respondents, which is perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record, hence, it is prayed that appeal may be allowed and respondents may be convicted for the said charges. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents / accused would support the impugned judgment and submit that impugned judgment is well reasoned judgment, which does not call for any interference of this Court, hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. As per deposition of complainant (PW-3), Anti Corruption Bureau has given him micro cassette tap recorder for recording of conversation. Ex.P-7 is said to be transcript of conversation made between complainant and respondent No.1, but it has not been proved by prosecution that voice present in the alleged micro cassette tap recorder was voice of any of the respondent /accused. Even, it has not been specifically mentioned in aforesaid transcript (Ex.P-7) that what bribe amount was demanded by the respondents. In this regard, facts mentioned in Transcript is found to be vague. 12. As per deposition of complainant and Investigating Officer (PW-8), a micro cassette tap recorder by inserting it a cassette was given to the complainant for recording of conversation between him and 6 respondents while giving bribe money, but it has not been proved by the prosecution that any conversation held between complainant and respondents were recorded while allegedly paying bribe amount. No transcript in this regard has been filed and proved by the prosecution. 13. As per deposition of complainant – Ghanshyam Singh Rajput (PW-3), Investigating Officer - Jarol Lakda (PW-8) and independent witness – Dr. Vikram Pathak (PW-9), alleged bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- was seized from the pocket of shirt of respondent No. 2 and on being dipped fingers of both the hands and pocket of shirt in solution of sodium carbonate, colour of water turned pink. 14. During course of submission, counsel for the respondents/accused also conceded that the alleged amount was seized from respondent No. 2, which has also been held proved by Special Court, but defence of respondents/accused in instant case is that amount was paid by complainant against the demand of Rs. 24,001/- generated vide Ex.D-2. 15. Respondents have filed demand note (Ex.D-2) issued in the name of Bhagwan Singh, who is father of complainant, which has also accepted by complainant in paragraph 25 of his cross-examination that aforesaid demand letter (Ex.D-6) was issued to his father. According to which, they have deposited Rs.24,001/- till 26.4.2009 whereas written complaint (Ex.P-4) was made by complainant on the next day i.e. 27.4.2009. 16. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., respondents have taken a defence that said amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid as part payment, by complainant against the aforesaid demand 7 letter (Ex.D-2), as since complainant has shown his inability to pay an amount of Rs. 24,001/- in one stroke, therefore, their prayer was accepted by respondents and permitted them to pay aforesaid amount in installment and as per installment of aforesaid amount, said amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid by the complainant. 17. It is also apt to be noted here that if alleged bribe amount would have been demanded by respondent No. 1, who is Sub-Engineer, then on being paid an amount of Rs.5,000/-, it would have been taken by respondent No. 1 himself, he would not have sent the complainant to give aforesaid amount to respondent No. 1, who was Assistant Grade- III in the office of Electricity Distribution Centre, Thankhamhairya and receipt (Ex.D-4) thereof was also prepared by respondent No. 2. 18. It is also apt to be noted here that in Karyawahi Panchnama (Ex.P-20), it has been mentioned by Investigating Officer himself that against payment of aforesaid amount of Rs.5,000/-, respondent No. 2 had prepared receipt on same day i.e. 1.5.2009, but due to inadvertence instead of date of issuance of aforesaid receipt i.e. 01.05.2009, 2.5.2009 was mentioned in it. 19. In the case of Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) 1 , Hon’ble Constitution Bench of Supreme Court while considering the issue to be proved by the prosecution in the cases for simillar charges. It has been held in paragraph 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 1 AIR 2023 SC 330 8 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 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 9 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 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 10 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. (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. 20. Reverting to the facts of the instant case and on a close scrutiny of evidence adduced by the prosecution, particularly, deposition of complainant, it is found that it suffers from various infirmities, his statement of demand of bribe money by respondent No. 1 does not get support from any other witness. Further, on the other hand, it has been proved by the respondents by filing (Ex.D-2) & (Ex.D-4) that demand vide Ex. D-2 in respect of use of unauthorized electricity was raised against father of complainant prior to the date of incident with regard to payment of Rs.5,000/-. Investigating Officer (PW-8) has noted in Karywahi Panchnama (Ex.P-20) that respondent No. 2 had prepared receipt (Ex.P-4), though inadvertently, he noted wrong date i.e. 2.5.2009 instead of 1.5.2009, therefore, defence taken by respondents/ accused that the said amount received by respondent No. 2 was 11 against aforesaid demand notice (Ex. D-2) and was not a bribe money, cannot be disbelieved. Thus, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove demand of bribe money and acceptance of the same, therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the Special Judge acquitted the respondents/accused. 21. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the acquittal appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost (s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.11.13 11:10:43 +0530