1 2026:CGHC:8966 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1461 of 2018 Satyendra Singh Verma S/o Shri Hemsingh Verma Aged About 27 Years ( Sub Inspector, Police Station- Abhanpur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh) R/o Near Water Tank, Pandariya Road, Mungeli, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant. versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- Anti- Corruption Bureau, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. VR Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 19.02.2026. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant against the judgment dated 14.09.2018, (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act), Raipur, (CG) in Special Session Trial No.84/2017, whereby appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under: - 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). R.I. for 04 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 01 month. U/s 13 (1) (D) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act. R.I. for 04 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 01 month. Both sentences run concurrently 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that the accused/appellant, who was posted as ‘Sub-Inspector at police station -Abhanpur’ was investigating the dispute which arose out of agreement for sale of land between P.W- 4 to PW-6 and P.W- 7 & PW-8. It is alleged that complainant Nakul Sahu (PW-4), his brothers Arun Sahu (P.W.5) and Gopal Sahu (P.W. 6); Chhannu, Dageshwar and their mother Pannabai alongwith their uncle Thanuram have their land situated at village -Abhanpur area 4.16 acre. Nakul Sahu, his brothers alongwith their mother made an agreement to sale their share of land to one Swatantra Agrawal, however, his uncle (Thanuram) made an agreement to sale his share of land to Shailendra Sinha (P.W-8). Since the land was recorded under a joint holding, their signatures would also be required, therefore, Nakul 3 Sahu alongwith his brothers also made their thumb impression in the said agreement. Shailendra Sinha made a complaint before police station- Abhanpur that Nakul Sahu and his brothers are refusing to sell their land even after the agreement. 3. The allegation against the present appellant is that he demanded sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (four lakhs rupees) from PW-4/Nakul Sahu to settle the dispute and not to take any criminal action against PW-4 and his mother and brothers and he (appellant) has also received Rs.50,000/- as bribe in shape of illegal gratification. 4. PW-4/Nakul Sahu made a complaint on 03.12.2015 before the concerned Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, against the appellant for demanding money as illegal gratification to save them from any criminal action. After verification and translating voice recorded by P.W-4 on 04.12.2015 the trap party/team was constituted and, thereafter, on 05.12.2015 the trap party/team sent the PW-4 to the house of appellant alongwith new tape recorder and amount of Rs.50,000/-. When the appellant was sat in the unknown car of his friend, the trap team arrested him and seized Rs.50,000/- from the bottle hole of the car on the information/instruction of appellant. Based upon seizure, 4 FIR was registered against the appellant for the alleged offence/crime. 5. On completion of necessary formalities, challan/charge sheet was filed and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against the appellant for the aforementioned offence/crime. 6. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 13 witnesses, however, appellant has not examined any defence witness. Statement of appellant (accused) was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record. Trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant without there being specific evidence available on record against him. The prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients of the offence 5 alleged against the appellant. The prosecution has not been able to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant. In the present case, neither any demand is proved nor acceptance is proved and in fact recovery of tainted amount was done by one Mr. Abhay Akolekar from an unnumbered car. Neither Mr. Abhay Akolekar has been examined nor the owner of the car was examined. It is settled position that mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the appellant. Complainant has specifically stated in his deposition that he forgot to start the tape recorder so there is no recording and demand has not been proved. Prosecution has failed to prove the chain connecting demand, acceptance and thereafter recovery from the appellant-accused. Since, the prosecution has failed to prove that appellant/accused has demanded or accepted any bribe from the complainant, therefore, conviction of the appellant is not sustainable and this appeal deserves to be allowed. 9. On the contrary, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/State supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and submitted that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant based on the evidence/material available on record. 6 10. I have heard the rival contentions put-forth on behalf of the parties and perused the entire material available including the statements of the witnesses with utmost circumspection. 11. The question arose before this Court, whether the appellant has demanded illegal gratification from the Complainant or there was any acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant?. 12. Before analyzing the evidence, led by the prosecution as well as by the appellant, it would be appropriate to first refer to some of the relevant judgments of the Supreme Court relating to the cases under Section2s 7, 13 (1) (डी) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act. 13. In case of Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1191., the Supreme Court observed thus:- "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 Indian Penal Code making the person who offers bribe guilty of abetment bribery, the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the 7 accused with the crime has to be insisted upon."...... The status of person offering bribe and the caution required while assessing his evidence implicating a Govt. servant was examined by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in the case of M.O.Shamsudhin v. State of Kerla, 1995 SCC (3) 351, wherein, it was held as under: “12. Now confining ourselves to the case of bribery it is generally accepted that the person offering a bribe to a public officer is in the nature of an accomplice in the offence of accepting illegal gratification but the nature of corroboration required in such a case should not be subjected to the same rigorous test which are generally applied to a case of an approver. Though bribe givers are generally treated to be in the nature of accomplices but among them there are various types and gradation. In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act the complainant is the person who gives the bribe in a technical and legal sense because in every trap case wherever the complaint is filed there must be -a person who has to give money to the accused which in fact is the bribe money which is demanded and without such a giving die trap cannot succeed. When there is such a demand by the public servant from person who is unwilling and if to do public good approaches the authorities and lodges complaint then in order that the trap succeeds he has to 8 give the money. There could be another type of bribe giver who is always willing to give money in order to get his work done and having got the work done he may send a complaint. Here he is a particeps criminis in respect of the crime committed and thus is an accomplice. Thus there are grades and grades of accomplices and therefore a distinction could as well be drawn between cases where a person offers a bribe to achieve his own purpose and where one is forced to offer bribe under a threat of loss or harm that is to say under coercion. A person who falls in this category and who becomes a party for laying a trap stands on a different footing because he is only a victim of threat or coercion to which he was subjected to. Where such witnesses fall under the category of "accomplices" by reason of their being bribe givers, in the first instance the court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration if necessary as a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case may vary having regard to the facts and circumstances." What therefore emerges from the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court is that the complainant's evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and the Court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration, if necessary, as a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case, may vary, having regard to the facts and circumstances. 9 14. In the matter of M. R. Purshotham v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 3 SCC 247, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when demand of bribe is not proved by the prosecution, mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 13(1) (d) of the Act. 15. In case of B. Jaiyaraj v. State of Andra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 5, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that 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 of the Act unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. Presumption against public servant under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only if demand for acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. 16. Similar view has been taken in the matter of A. Subair v. State of Kerala, 2010 AIR SCC 1115 and Subhash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 2169. 17. In the light of the above view taken by the Supreme Court, I shall examine the facts and statements of witnesses of the 10 present case. 18. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was working as ‘Sub- Inspector’ and posted as police station -Abhanpur’, therefore, at the relevant point of time, he was working as Public Officer. Thus, it is established, the appellant is public servant as defined in Section 21 (a) of the IPC. 19. PW-4/complainant Nakul Sahu in his evidence has stated that he identified the accused person present before the Court. He further stated that police officials of Police Station Abhanpur called them (PW-4 and his brothers) to the police station and informed us that we had entered into an agreement to sell the land and now they refusing to sell the same, thereby, committing cheating, thus, a report had been lodged by Shailendra Sinha against them to which we explained to the police officials that we had not agreed to sell our respective shares of land and we had only signed the agreement as a token of consent since the land was under a joint holding and our uncle Thanuram Sahu was selling his share. Subsequently, a phone call was received from Police Station Abhanpur stating that if we wished to avoid being implicated in a case of cheating, we would have to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The caller introduced himself as present appellant/Satyendra Verma, Sub-Inspector. 11 Similar calls were received on 4–5 occasions and, thereafter, he lodged a complaint before the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB); said complaint is marked as Exhibit P-22. The officials of the ACB provided him with a voice recorder and instructed him to visit the accused and record any conversation that might take place regarding the demand of money and, thereafter, produce the same before them. He went to Police Station Abhanpur on 04.12.2015 carrying the said recorder. Prior to 04.12.2015, he did not have any recorder with him. He deposited the said recorder in the Bureau on 05.12.2015 and after depositing the recorder, it was not examined in his presence. He further stated that the person who called him on the phone was demanding money in the name of appellant/Satyendra Verma and he was not certain as to who the person making the said phone call actually was. When the witness was asked that no conversation had taken place between him and the accused on 05.12.2015, he stated that he used to receive phone calls wherein he was told to bring the said amount and leave it there. He further stated that when he went to the house of the accused on 05.12.2015, the accused was not present there, he arrived there approximately half an hour after our arrival and four persons were also came alongwith appellant. He met with the accused when he was returning 12 after going to his house and one of the four persons accompanying the accused told us that he was the appellant- Satyendra Verma . He further stated that it is correct that the accused was seated in the front seat of the car next to the driver and it is also correct that when he attempted to hand over the money from the driver’s side, the officials of the Anti-Corruption Bureau arrived, however, voluntarily he stated that while giving the money, it fell inside the car. It is correct that the said money was picked up by the accused on being asked to do so. It is incorrect to say that when he reached the house of the accused on 05.12.2015, he had switched on the tape recorder and conversation was recorded in the tape. It is correct that no conversation regarding the exchange of money took place with the accused on that day. It is correct that the accused neither directly demanded money from him nor he received any money from him. He further stated that it is correct to state that prior to 05.12.2015, he had never met with the accused. It is correct to state that the complaints (marked as Ex. P-22 and Ex. P-23) were written by him as per the instructions given by the officials of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. It is correct to state that he had signed all the documents (from Ex. P-6 to Ex. P-24) on the same day while sitting in the office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau 13 without reading them. It is correct to state that he do not remember the mobile number of the accused. He further admitted that the voice recorder given to him for recording the conversation at the time of giving the bribe could not be switched on by him during the said conversation. When the said recorder was recovered from him, switched on and played, no sound was found to have been recorded therein. He further admitted that he informed the officials of the Anti- Corruption Bureau that he had forgotten to switch on the recorder. 20. PW-3/Brajbhushan Singh Gautam (Panchnama/Seizure Witness) in his evidence has stated that transcription of the conversation alleged to have been taken place at the time of handing over the bribe amount could not be prepared, as during the trap proceedings the complainant forgot to switch on the voice tape recorder , and therefore no conversation was recorded . In this regard, a panchnama was prepared, which is Ex. P-19, bearing his signatures at portion ‘A’ to ‘A’. He further admitted that when the panch witness Akolekar has recovered the money from the car, accused/appellant was not sitting inside the car . He also admitted that he had signed the documents marked as Ex. P-6 to Ex. P-19 without reading them. Voluntarily stated that some of the documents were read by him while others were not. 14 21. Section 65 (B) of the Evidence Act reads as under;- “65B. Admissibility of electronic records.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any records, information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. (2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:- (a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer; (b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities; 15 (c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and (d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities. (3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether- (a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or (b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or (c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or (d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly. (4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is 16 to say,- (a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer; (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate,and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it. (5) For the purposes of this section,- (a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment; (b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied 17 to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities; (c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment.” 22. From the evidence of PW-4 (complainant Nakul Sahu) and PW-3 (panch witness Brajbhushan Singh Gautam), it clearly emerges that the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are not established. The complainant has categorically admitted that he was not certain as to who had made the alleged phone calls; no conversation regarding the demand or payment of money took place with the accused on the date of the trap; the voice recorder supplied by the Anti-Corruption Bureau was never switched on, resulting in no recorded evidence of any demand. He (PW-4) further admitted that the accused neither directly demanded any money from him nor received any money from him. The complainant also admitted that he had never met the accused prior to the date of the incident, the complaints were written at the instance of the ACB officials, he had signed several documents without reading them. Significantly, the prosecution witness has further 18 admitted that the alleged bribe money fell inside the car and was picked up by the accused only upon being asked to do so. The testimony of PW-3, the panch witness, further weakens the prosecution case, as he admitted that no transcription of the alleged conversation could be prepared because no conversation was recorded, when the alleged bribe money was recovered from the car, the accused was not sitting inside the vehicle. 23. Mere possession and recovery of the tented/currency notes from the accused cannot constitute the offence as alleged against the accused, unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. 24. Considering facts of the case, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly evidence of PW-4/complainant Nakul Sahu, PW-3 (panch witness Brajbhushan Singh Gautam), evidence/material available on record including other prosecution witnesses, further considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforementioned cases/decisions, this Court is of the considered view, the prosecution has totally failed to prove the foundational facts of demand of bribe and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification by present appellant, which are sine qua non 19 for establishing the offence of bribery. 25. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.09.2018 (Annexure A- 1) is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. 26. The Appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months under Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the said bonds shall stand discharged. 27. Record of the Trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for necessary compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-