1 2025:CGHC:55858 NAFR 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 04.08.2025 17.11.2025 -- 17.11.2025 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on: 04.08.2025 Judgment delivered on: 17.11.2025 CRA No. 548 of 2007 1 - Ajit Singh Chhabra, S/o Shri Hari Singh Chhabra, Aged about 59 years, Sub-Divisional Engineer, Telecom Project, R/o Qtr. No. 5, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, C.G. Present Address- Indore, M.P. --- Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta Office, Bhopal, Unit- Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Samarth Singh Marhas with Ms. Shriya Jaiswal, Advocates For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. N.K. Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey CAV Judgment 1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2007 passed by learned Special Judge & First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, C.G. in Special Criminal Case No. 06/2003 whereby, the trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one year U/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one year 3 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Ravi Kumar, was working as a contractor in the Telecom Project, Raipur, on the basis of a Power of Attorney executed by M/s Krishna Construction, Jabalpur, as their General Power of Attorney holder. He was entrusted with the MW Exchange work pursuant to a work order issued on 02.02.1999, and the execution commenced on 16.02.1999. The stipulated period for completion of the work was 12 weeks; however, due to the department’s failure to supply materials as per the terms of the contract, the work could not be completed. Further, as the Telecom Project had not obtained necessary sanction from the National Highway Authority, objections were raised by the said authority, resulting in stoppage of work on 05.10.1999. In December 1999, the appellant, who was then posted as Site In-charge of Sector–13, called the complainant, demanded a bribe of Rs.70,000/-, and threatened termination of the contract. He assured the complainant that upon payment of the said amount his earnest money deposit and security deposit would be protected. Upon the complainant’s refusal to pay the bribe, a show-cause notice was issued to him, which he received on 27.01.2000. Without affording the complainant an opportunity of hearing, the Divisional Engineer (Telecom Project) terminated the contract on the same day. When the complainant thereafter met the Divisional Engineer and the appellant, the appellant informed 4 him that the termination was a consequence of non-payment of the demanded bribe. The appellant further stated that payment was due for 100 metres of completed work and demanded an additional bribe of Rs.3,000/- for expeditious processing of the same. Unwilling to yield to the illegal demand, the complainant submitted a written report to the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Raipur, on 04.02.2000. A preliminary panchnama was prepared to verify the allegations, and a micro-tape recorder was provided to the complainant. On 05.02.2000, the complainant met the appellant and recorded his demand for Rs.3,000/-. The complainant then submitted another written report on the same day along with the tape, and a transcript was prepared. On 06.02.2000, the complainant produced Rs.3,000/- in Rs.100 denomination notes, the numbers of which were noted in the preliminary panchnama. Phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes, which were kept in the right pocket of the complainant’s trousers. He was instructed to hand over the tainted currency to the appellant only upon demand and to avoid shaking hands before or after handing over the money. Subsequently, after completing the requisite preparations and tests, a trap team was constituted. The complainant, accompanied by panch witness Bhaskar Rao, proceeded to the appellant’s residence. After a brief interaction, they signalled the 5 trap party, which then entered the appellant’s house and seized the tainted currency of Rs.3,000/-. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act were framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and sought trial. 3. In order to establish the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence, asserting that he had been falsely implicated. In defence, the appellant examined one witness, namely Jiwan Lal Gouridas, as D.W.-1. 4. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial Court, by its judgment dated 30.06.2007, found the evidence adduced by the prosecution to be trustworthy and accordingly convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him as indicated in paragraph 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned 6 judgment of conviction and sentence is perverse, contrary to the evidence on record, and unsustainable in law, and therefore the appellant deserves to be acquitted. It is contended that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and has based the conviction on conjectures and surmises. The prosecution, according to the appellant, has utterly failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court did not consider the fact that there was neither any demand nor acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant, apart from the legal remuneration due. The contract awarded to M/s Krishna Construction had already been terminated by the department, and the complainant, being aggrieved by such termination, was motivated to falsely implicate the appellant out of vengeance. The learned trial Court ought to have considered that the amount of Rs.3,000/– allegedly recovered from the appellant was, in fact, handed over by the complainant towards labour payment at the work site, as the appellant was scheduled to proceed to the site. This fact has been supported by the testimony of K.R.K. Bhaskar Rao (P.W.-7), who accompanied the complainant to the appellant’s house. It is further argued that Ravi Kumar Nathan (P.W.-1) lodged a false report as the appellant was instrumental in getting the 7 work order of M/s Krishna Construction terminated. The learned trial Court also failed to appreciate that the transcript of the tape recorded by the complainant does not disclose any demand of bribe by the appellant. In the absence of proof of demand, the essential ingredients of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act remain unfulfilled, and therefore the conviction cannot be sustained. It is thus contended that the conviction is bad in law as well as on facts and is liable to be set aside. The sentence imposed upon the appellant is also stated to be unduly harsh and unwarranted. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Ashok Kumar Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & another connected matter reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 3964, Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 4 SCC 143, Rajesh Gupta Vs. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 20 SCC 793, State of Kerala Vs. C.P. Rao reported in (2011) 6 SCC 450, Subhas Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 5 SCC 86. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned judgment is well-reasoned and based on cogent appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The prosecution has successfully proved the essential ingredients of demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification from the 8 appellant. The taped conversation, the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings, the recovery of tainted currency from the appellant’s possession, and the corroborative testimonies of official witnesses clearly establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court has passed a lawful judgment, and no ground exists to interfere with the conviction or sentence. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is evident from the record that the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and upon due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the appellant for the said offences and sentenced him as detailed in paragraph 1 of this judgment. 9. Complainant R.K. Natham (P.W.-1) stated in his examination-in- chief that the accused had demanded a bribe amount of Rs.3,000/-. He further deposed that in the presence of the panch witness, he handed over the said amount to the appellant. In para 12 of his cross-examination, he admitted that although the accused, was initially in charge of the assigned work, he was subsequently replaced. The witness further deposed that Chhabraji was not in charge at the time the witness commenced the work. He affirmed that all the work performed by 9 him was duly recorded in the Measurement Book (MB), and that his payments were made on the basis of the entries contained therein. He also stated that accused neither inspected nor measured the entries in his Measurement Book, nor did he make any entries in it. The witness admitted that the work assigned to him on 23.01.2000 had been cancelled. However, he expressed ignorance regarding whether the same work was subsequently allotted to another individual on 29.01.2000. He further denied the suggestion that he kept in touch with the accused due to prior acquaintance. Further in para 13, he denied this suggestion that he had given Rs.3,000/- to the accused with the instruction that the accused should meet his associate in Dhamtari and hand over the said amount to him. He stated that he had paid Rs. 3,000/- for the purpose of obtaining the bill for 100 meters after the completion of the contract. 10. K.R.K. Bhaskar Rai (P.W.-7), who is a panch witness, admitted in paragraphs 17 and 18 of his cross-examination that, " यह कहना सह ह किक रकि क मार नाथमा माझे अकिय्ሹ क घर अपना रिरश्तेदार बतेकर ले गय थ यह कहना सह ह किक ቚኋथ रकि नाथमा ना यह कह थ किक मा चं!परण अपना रिरश्तेदार क सथ जा रह ह$। इसलिलेए 3 हजार रूपए क* रकमा उनाक, दा दाना। यह कहना सह ह किक 3 हज़ार रूपए 50 - 50 क ना,ट मा/ थ। माझे यदा नाह0 ह किक माना अपना माख्य पर्ቌण मा/ लिजास रमाश, सरश उቤኔख किकय ह ह सष ह, सकते ह य नाह0। यह कहना सह ह किक ቚኋकरण स सम्ब!लि8ते लिजातेना दास्तेजा: पर हस्ते्ቌर किकय ह स दास्तेखते ले,कय्ሹ कय;लेय मा/ किकय ह। यह कहना सह ह किक लिजास समाय अकिय्ሹ छाबड़ा स रकमा क* जाब्ते क* गय उस समाय अकिय्ሹ छाबड़ा कह रह थ किक रकिनाथमा क माझेस क,ई कमा नाह0 ह ते, मा रकमा क्य: लेA!ग. 10 यह कहना गलेते ह किक जाब्तेशदा अकिलेख मा/ उቤኔलिखते बते अकिय्ሹ क किरु्ቍ नाह0 जाते थ। स्तेD कहते ह किक मा यह कहना मा/ असमाथ; हEF किक माना अकिलेख क* अ!ते;स्ते नाह0 दाख थ।" In para 19, he stated that, " यह सह ह किक टप रिरकG्ቑ;र (ቚኋ.प. 05 ) जाब्तेशदा टप रिरकG्ቑ;र मा/ आजा स्प्ቖ नाह0 आ रह थ। अकिय्ሹ क, टKप करना क बदा क ले एक ऑकि्ቑओ क सट जाब्ते क* गय थ। यह कहना सह ह किक टKप क पश्चंतेN जाब्ते इस ऑकि्ቑय, क सट मा/ रिरकGकि्ቑOग आजा स्प्ቖ नाह0 आ रह थ। माझे यदा नाह0 ह किक अकिय्ሹ क, टKप करना क पA; ले,कय्ሹ अलि8करिरय,/ कमा;चंरिरय: ቛኋर क,ई क सट क* जाब्ते क* गय थ अथ नाह0। मार समा्ቌ अकिय्ሹ क टKप करना क पA; किकस ऑकि्ቑय, क* आजा सनाकर उस किकस कगजा मा/ लेखब्ቍ किकय जाना क* कय;ह नाह0 ह$ई थ. अकिय्ሹ क, टKप किकय जाना क पश्चंतेN क,ई ऑकि्ቑय, क सट मार समा्ቌ सना जाकर उसक* आजा क अनारूप ते;लेप क, किकस कगजा पर लेखब्ቍ नाह0 किकय गय थ। " 11. The conversation between the complainant and the accused regarding the bribe amount was duly recorded and transcribed vide Ex.P/4. 12. In para 19 of his cross-examination, Shri Mukesh Khare (P.W.– 13) stated that the conversation between the accused and the complainant had been recorded on a cassette, and that he had prepared its transcription. He further stated that the sealed cassette was played in the Court on that day, and the same cassette was thereafter replayed along with the tape, but the audio recorded therein was not clearly audible. Further in para 24, It was stated that the transcript of the conversation recorded during the alleged bribery transaction did not contain any reference to the demand for bribe, nor did it disclose that the accused had accepted the amount allegedly offered. 11 13. Defence also examined one witness Jeewan Lal Gauridas as D.W.-1 and in para 5 of his deposition, he stated that the contractor to whom the work had been allotted had failed to complete it within the stipulated time, as a result of which his contract was terminated and the agreement with the Department of Telecommunications stood cancelled. It was further stated that, at that relevant time, the accused was not posted at that place. 14. In the matter of B. Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014 (13) SCC 55, Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paras 7, 8 and 9 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]. 8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly 12 handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext. P-11) before LW 9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW 1 and the contents of Ext. P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. 9. Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such 13 presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(1) and (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.” 15. In the matter of Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar (supra), Hon’ble Supreme held in para 33 as under:- 33. In Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh [1985 Supp SCC 61], again this Court stated some of the conditions necessary for admissibility of tape-recorded statements, as follows: (SCC p. 623, para 32) "(1) The voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker of e the record or by others who recognise his voice. In other words, it manifestly follows as a logical corollary that the first condition for the admissibility of such a statement is to identify the voice of the speaker Where the voice has been denied by the maker it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker. 14 (2) The accuracy of the tape-recorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence-direct or circumstantial. (3) Every possibility of tampering with or erasure of a part of a tape-recorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render the said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible. (4) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of the 9 Evidence Act. (5) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody. (6) The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances.” 16. Further, in the matter of Rajesh Vs. State (supra), it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 13 and 14 as under:- “13. On the issue of evidentiary value and credibility of the recording in the cases of trap, the law is well-settled in Ram Singh v. Ram Singh [1985 Supp SCC 611], wherein this Court held that tape-recorded statement is admissible in evidence if the voice of the speaker is identified by the maker of the record and other persons recognising his voice. In case, the maker is unable to identify the voice, strict proof would be required to determine whether or not, 15 the said voice is of alleged speaker The accuracy of the tape-recorded statement must be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial The possibility of tampering with, or erasure of any part of the tape-recorded statement must be totally excluded. The voice of the particular speaker must be clearly audible and must not be lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances, otherwise, the transcript as prepared, is inadmissible in evidence. 14. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the pre- trap recording made in the office of CBI and produced as Ext. P-2 and stated by PW-3 Madhu Bala in her statement with the clue of transcript is not testified with the touchstone of the law laid down in Ram Singh². As apparent from the record, the finding recorded by the High Court that the said cassette is inaudible, PW 3 Madhu Bala, during playing of the cassette in the court, stated about some of the portion of the recording looking to the transcript. Once the preparation of the transcript itself is in question, as discussed above, clue cannot be taken from the same and the inaudible cassette cannot be relied upon. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the pre-trap recording for demand in the office of CBI vide Ext. P-2 on 9-3-2000 has not been proved.” 17. The statements of the complainant, the panch witnesses, and 16 the investigating officer clearly demonstrate that the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational requirement of demand of illegal gratification. The learned trial Court itself observed that the cassette played during trial was not clearly audible, and in para 19 of the deposition of Shri Mukesh Khare (P.W.–13), it was specifically noted that the sound of the audio tape recorder was indistinct. The complainant also admitted that the accused was posted at Raipur, whereas the contract work pertained to Dhamtari. 18. P.W.–7, K.R.K. Bhaskar Rai, admitted the defence suggestion that the trap money was not bribe money. The defence witness also stated that the complainant had no work pending with the accused. The appellant, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explained that the amount recovered from him had been given by the complainant for being delivered to one Subhash Gupta at Dhamtari, which explanation has not been effectively rebutted by the prosecution. 19. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments is unequivocal that mere recovery of tainted money, unaccompanied by reliable and cogent evidence of demand and voluntary acceptance as bribe, is insufficient to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the present case, there is a complete absence of credible evidence proving demand or acceptance of illegal gratification. The prosecution 17 evidence, being unreliable and inconsistent, fails to satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence. 20. Consequently, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are unsustainable in law, having been arrived at without adequate proof of the core elements constituting the offence. 21. In view of the above discussion, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be upheld. The impugned judgment dated 30.06.2007 is hereby set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the appellant is acquitted of all charges. 22. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months as provided under Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 23. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV