1 2026:CGHC:463 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 245 of 2019 Manoj Kumar Diwakar S/o Kirtan Lal Aged About 38 Years R/o Village And Post Kataud, Ward No. 11, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Complainant ) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Prosecution) 2 - Gunesh Vaishnav S/o Shri S.D. Vaishnav Aged About 42 Years Sub Auditor Office At Deputy Registrar Sahakari Society, Baloda Bazar, Permanent Resident Of House No. 269, Shikshak Colony, Tilda, Police Station Tilda, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Accused ) ... Respondents For appellant : Mr. Mallic Sudip Ravi, Adv. For Respondent : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Dy. Govt. Adv. For respondent No. 2 : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Adv. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 5-1-2026 1. This acquittal appeal under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the appellant / complainant challenging the judgment dated 18-1-2019 passed by the Spacial Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Balodabajar, Distt. Balodabajar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (Prevention of Corruption Act) No. 01/2018, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth, referred to as ‘PC Act’). Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.01.09 10:50:25 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, appellant/complainant was posted as Manager, Cooperative Societies, Khaira Distt. Balodabajar. Audit of account of the said society for the year 2016-17 was to be carried out by the respondent/accused, who was posted as Sub Auditor in the office of Sub Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Balodabajar. It is alleged that, the respondent/accused demanded bribe of Rs. 12,000/- from the appellant complainant for not making any negative remark in the audit report. On said demand made by the accused, the complainant paid Rs. 5,000/- on 27-9-2017 as bribe money and remaining Rs. 7,000/- was to be paid by him within 4-5 days. The complainant made written report (Ex. P-45) on 29-9-2017. For verification of the complaint, a Digital Voice Recorder was given to him for recording of conversation for demand of bribe. The conversation between the complainant and accused was recorded by complainant on 3-10-2017, to which, he informed Investigating Officer Satyaprakash Tiwari (P.W. 8) of the Anti Corruption Bureau over phone on 7-10-2017. Second complaint (Ex. P- 24) was made by the complainant on 9-10-2017. On same day, the conversation present in the Digital Voice Recorder was transcribed and trap was laid on the same day. On 9-10-2017, the complainant went to the office of accused and gave phenolphthalein powder applied notes of Rs. 7,000/- to him which he received and kept in pocket of his jeans trouser. He was caught by the Anti Corruption Bureau and on being dipped his fingers in the liquid of Sodium Corrobonate, the colour of the same turned pink. Alleged bribed money Rs. 7,000/- was seized from the possession of the accused. He was arrested. After completion of other procedures, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the 3 offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act before the Special Court, who conducted trial. 3. Learned Special Judge framed charge against the accused under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act, who abjured the guilt and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish the charge against the accused, the prosecution has exhibited following 63 documents and examined following witnesses:- WITNESSES PW 1 Parasram Devangan P.W. 7 J.L. Sahu PW 2 Lakhanlal Dhruv P.W. 8 Satyaprakash Tiwari PW 3 Smt. Manju Mahendra Pandey P.W. 9 Nakulram Sahu PW 4 Mukesh Kumar P.W. 10 Shiv Shcaran Sahu PW 5 Lorens Khes PW 11 Manoj Kumar Diwakar PW 6 A.K. Prasad PW 12 Ram Pravesh Mishra Statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. He has not examined any witness in his defence. 5. After appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Special Court has acquitted the accused of all the offences holding therein that the prosecution has failed to prove demand and acceptance of said amount as bribe money and it has also observed that, though phenolphthalein applied Rs. 7,000/- was seized from the accused, but the prosecution has failed to prove that it was bribe money as the appellant/complainant himself has endorsed Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 7,000/- as requisite fee paid by the complainant for audit of the account book of the society. Hence, this acquittal appeal. 4 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant submits that, it has been proved by the complainant as well as other witnesses that, the accused had demanded Rs. 12,000/- as bribe money for audit of account book of the society, out of which, Rs. 5,000/- was paid to him on 27-9-2017 and remaining Rs. 7,000/- was paid to him by the complainant on 9-10-2017. It has also been proved by the prosecution witnesses that Rs. 7,000/- in which phenolphthalein powder was applied, was recovered from the possession of the accused. Thus, demand as well as acceptance has been proved, despite that, respondent/accused has been acquitted by learned Special Court, which is perverse to the evidence available on record. Hence, he prays that, the instant acquittal appeal may be allowed and the respondent/accused may be convicted for the said charges. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/ accused would submit that, demand and acceptance of bribe money has not been proved by the prosecution. Though said amount of Rs. 7,000/- was recovered from the possession of the accused but it was not the bribe money, rather it was a part of requisite fee payable by the complainant for audit of account book of the said cooperative society and Rs. 5,000/- was already paid by the complainant and entry of aforesaid amount was also made by him in his cash book Ex. D-1. These facts have also been admitted by the complainant in his deposition. He further submits that, after considering the evidence available on record in detail, learned Special Court has rightly acquitted the accused vide impugned judgment, therefore, the instant acquittal appeal is liable to be rejected. 5 8. Learned Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the State would submit that, the State has not filed any appeal against the impugned judgment. She would further submit that, appropriate order may be passed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and went through the record of the case including the record of the Special Court with utmost circumspection. 10. As per case of the prosecution, the first complaint was submitted by the complainant (Ex. P-45) before the Anti Corruption Bureau on 29-9-2017. On that date, a Digital Voice Recorder was given to him for verification of the complaint. Conversation with regard to alleged demand of bribe by the accused was recorded by complainant on 3-10-2017, but the Digital Voice Recorder was not submitted by the complainant before the Anti Corruption Bureau immediately after recording of conversation, rather it was submitted by him on 9-10-2017. It is also the case of the prosecution that, the conversation while giving bribe was also recorded. 1st conversation between the complainant and the accused was recorded on 3-10-2017, transcribed copy of which is Ex. P-25. Second conversation between them was recorded on 9-10-2017, transcribed copy of which is Ex. P-37. On perusal of these transcribed copies of conversation, no specific fact is transpired that demand of alleged bribe amount of Rs. 12,000/- was made by the accused. The facts mentioned in those transcriptions in this regard are very vague. 11. Perusal of evidence of J.L. Sahu (P.W. 7), who himself is Sub Inspector and Satyaprakash Tiwari, Inspector (P.W. 8), who is the Investigating Officer shows that, no independent witness accompanied with the complainant as shadow witness, rather alleged shadow witness J.L. 6 Sahu (P.W. 7) was Sub Inspector. Even from his deposition, it is not revealed that he had listened to the alleged conversation of demand of bribe by accused from the complainant. Manoj Kumar Diwakar (P.W. 11), who is complainant, has stated in his deposition that, in the first conversation, the accused pressurized him to give alleged bribe money, but no such conversation is found in the transcription (Ex. P-37) of second time i.e. on the date of trap. 12. From perusal of evidence, it is found that both the transcriptions have also not been proved by proving the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 has observed and held in para 15 that :- “15. Under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied: (a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement; (b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced; (c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record; (d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65-B(2) of the Evidence Act; and (e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.” 14. In the instant case, no such certificate as provided in Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act and as has been observed by Hon’ble Apex Court in above referred case, has been exhibited by the prosecution. 7 15. In the instant case, there is no corroborative evidence to support the statement of complainant (P.W. 11), that the accused has made demand of alleged bribe amount. In the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, [(1979) 4 SCC 526], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, ‘8. There could be no doubt that the evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particulars. After introduction of Section 165-A of the Penal Code, 1860 making the person who offers bribe guilty of abetment of bribery, the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon.” In the instant case, deposition of the complainant with regard to demand of alleged bribe amount has not been corroborated by any reliable evidence adduced by the prosecution. Since, demand of alleged bribe by the accused is not found to be proved, therefore, it is found that learned Special Court has not committed any mistake in holding that, the prosecution has failed to prove demand of alleged bribe amount by accused from the complainant. 16. Recovery of Rs. 7,000/- from the accused in which phenolphthalein powder was applied, has been proved but, complainant Manoj Kumar Diwakar (P.W. 11) has not only admitted in his deposition, rather it also gets support from the cash book of the Society (Ex. D-1) that, earlier he had paid Rs. 5,000/- to the accused on 27-9-2017 for audit work and Rs. 7,000/- was paid by him on 9-10-2017 for said work. If it would have been given by him as bribe money, then he would not have made aforesaid entry denoting it to be the amount of audit work, in the cash book register (Ex. D-1). The accused has also taken defence that, said amount of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 7,000/- given by the complainant to him, 8 was paid by him for audit work, therefore, it was mentioned in account book by the complainant himself. In the case of Punjabrao Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2002) 10 SCC 371], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 3 as under :- “3. We have examined the judgment of the learned Special Judge as well as that of the High Court. It is too well settled that in a case where the accused offers an explanation for receipt of the alleged amount, the question that arises for consideration is whether that explanation can be said to have been established. It is further clear that the accused is not required to establish his defence by proving beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, but can establish the same by preponderance of probability. It is undisputed that from 24th to 26th the Patwari was collecting loans in a collection campaign. It is, of course, true as observed by the High Court that when the investigating officer seized the amount from the accused Patwari, he did not offer the explanation that it was in relation to a collection of loan, but that by itself would not be sufficient to throw away the explanation offered by the accused in his statement under Section 313 when such explanation could be held to be reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case, as indicated by the learned Special Judge while acquitting the accused. It also transpires that the High Court, while setting aside an order of acquittal recorded by the Special Judge, has not focused its attention on the reasoning advanced by the Special Judge, and by mere re-appreciation has come to the conclusion, and in our view the conclusion is based upon a misreading of the relevant evidence including the evidence of PW 2. In the aforesaid circumstances, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court erred in interfering with the well-reasoned judgment of the Special Judge in an order of acquittal. We, therefore, 9 set aside the impugned conviction and sentence passed by the High Court. The appeal is allowed. The accused- appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The bail bond stands discharged.” 17. In the case of C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, [(2009) 3 SCC 779] held in para 22 as under :- 22. It is equally well settled that the burden of proof placed upon the accused person against whom the presumption is made under Section 20 of the Act is not akin to that of burden placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. “4. … It is well established that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused, he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, of course, the test prescribed in deciding whether the prosecution has discharged its onus to prove the guilt of the accused; but the same test cannot be applied to an accused person who seeks to discharge the burden placed upon him under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is sufficient if the accused person succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability in favour of his case. It is not necessary for the accused person to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt or in default to incur a verdict of guilty. The onus of proof lying upon the accused person is to prove his case by a preponderance of probability. As soon as he succeeds in doing so, the burden is shifted to the prosecution which still has to discharge its original onus that never shifts i.e. that of establishing on the whole case the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.” (emphasis supplied) 10 18. If the evidence of instant case is seen in the light of the above referred case laws, then it is found that the prosecution has failed to prove acceptance of bribe money by the accused, as he has satisfactorily explained that the amount received by him was not bribe money. 19. From overall perusal of evidence available on record in the light of the above referred case laws, neither the demand nor acceptance of bribe money, as alleged, has been proved by the prosecution against the accused. Hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment, therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Court is upheld. 20. In the result, instant acquittal appeal being devoid of merit, fails and is dismissed. 21. Record of the Special Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak/-