1 2026:CGHC:23096 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.1785 of 2017 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 23.04.2026 15.05.2026 -- 15.05.2026 1 - Ramnarayan Pathak S/o Shri Umed Lal Pathak Aged About 48 Years Gram Kotni, Tah Arang Office Gram Nakatabhata, Mandir Hasod, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through State Economic Offencr Investigation Bureau Anti Corrupation Bureau , Raipur Dist Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.11.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) and 8th Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 Additional Session Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Session Case No.04/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Sr.No. Conviction Sentence 1. u/S 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 1 month. 2. u/S 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 1 month. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Devlal Bande made a complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur alleging that the Appellant, who at that point, was Patwari of Halka no-20, Village Kotmi, Tah-Arang, Raipur had demanded by way of illegal gratification Rs 3,000/- for mutation and preparation of 'Rin Pustika' of the land which was purchased by the complainant in the name of his wife Smt. Urmila Bande. The allegation was that out of Rs 3,000/- as demanded by the Appellant Rs.1,500/- was given to him but he further was demanding Rs1,000/-. As per prosecution case, written complaint Ex-P/8 was given to Anti Corruption Bureau Raipur by the Complainant and consequently as per the Prosecution digital 3 voice recorder was given to the Complainant for recording conversation with the present Appellant after preparing the preliminary panchnama (Ex-P/14). The verification of said report was carried out as Ex-P/9. On the basis of the said complaint, the tram team proceeded which laid to trap on Patwari and Rs1,000/- tainted note was recovered in the process thereof from the pocket of shirt wearing by the Appellant. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the Appellant. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The prosecution has failed to prove demand of illegal gratification by the accused/appellant. It is settled legal proposition of the criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and this proposition is equally applicable to the case falling under Section 7 and 13 of PC Act, 1988. It is also settled law that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence under Section 7 and 13 of the Act 1988 and proved facts of both ingredients are indispensable essentiality and permeating mandate to bring home the charges of the offences. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of 4 demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charges under the said two sections. The proof of demand of illegal gratification which, thus, vitally essential ingredient and sine qua non for both the offences for which the Appellant has been charged are apparently missing and lacking in the present case. The Complainant categorically stated at para 2 of examination-in-chief that demand was made by the Appellant for 'Pramanikaran' and the Appellant had only said that it will take some time in process. He further states at para 6 that he and no other officers had reached at Patwari Office Nakata and as per the advise of the officer he had entered in the office and called the Appellant but when he offered Rs 1,000/- to the Appellant for issuing no objection certificate he refused to accept the amount. The Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 65-A and 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, governing the field of acceptance of the electronic evidence, while considering the said conversation. No FSL or any forensic report was obtained to prove the matching of the voice of the Appellant to the voice available in the stated tape recorder alleged to be the voice of Appellant. The voice recorder was also not subjected to analysis. Source and authenticity are the two key factors for an electronic evidence and both are apparently missing in the present case and, therefore, since there is no authenticity of the tape recorder, there is no point in placing reliance on the translated version. The electronic record i.e. tape recorder and its transcript (Ex-P/16) 5 are also not admissible in evidence since it does not satisfy the requirement of Section 65-A and 65-B of the Evidence Act. The Electronic record is documentary evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act 1872. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Section 59 and 65-A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B. The Evidence Act does not contemplates or permit of an electronic record to be proved by oral evidence without following the requirements under Section 65-B of record. It is the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence that if in the facts and circumstances two views are possible then the benefits of doubt must be given to the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by this Court in Lavan Singh Churendra vs State of Chhattisgarh, passed in CRA No.52/2018, decided on 01.07.2025 and Pradeep Kumar Dewangan vs State of Chhattisgarh, passed in CRA No.469/2017, decided on 02.07.2024. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 7 & 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act against the appellant. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the appellant was convicted and sentenced, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. The complainant (PW-5) Devlal Bandhe stated that he purchased land in name of his wife and he went to Revenue Office for mutation and met the appellant, who was patwari, about mutation of his land and he told him that mutation will take time, then a man sitting there told him that If I approach ACB office, then the mutation will happen quickly, upon which he went to ACB Office, Raipur. The complainant stated that the appellant did not demand anything instead he told that procedure would take time. In para 3, he stated that a man was sitting outside the ACB Office and told that an application is required to be given in the office and according to him, he wrote an letter against the appellant. The said letter/application is Ex-P/8 and he admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same. ACB team gave him tape recorder and told him to take Rs.1000/- after 2-3 days. He further stated in paras 6 & 7 as under:- “6. हम लोग ቏ኔप का ्቟वा ह हतु ቇኋ म नकाटा पटावा री का ्቟ लो्቟ ग्቟, म मटारी सा ्቟कालो म ग्቟ औरी मरी पछे- पछे एसाबी वा लो शा साका्቟ वा हन सा ग्቟। ቇኋ म नकाटा पुሻ चकारी एसाबी वा लो ग डी सा उतुरी ग्቟ औरी का ्቟ लो्቟ का आसाप सा ख़ቨ ह ग्቟ औरी मझे पटावा री का ्቟ लो्቟ का अं दरी जा न का लिलोए काह ग्቟ । का ्቟ लो्቟ म ग्቟ तु वाह का छे लोग पटावा री का ्቟ लो्቟ म बीठे थे तुबी म. पटावा री का बी हरी आन का लिलोए इशा री किका्቟ औरी उसा जामन का एनओसा बीन न का सा बी ध म बी तु किका्቟ औरी म उक्तु हतु पसा दन का लिलोए बीलो तु आरीप न इ का री कारी दिद्቟ । तुबी मरी सा थे आ्቟ एसाबी का एका 7 लिसाप ह का मन बीतु ्቟ किका पटावा री पसा नह5 लो रीह ह तुबी वाह बीलो किका आ ग्቟ ह. तु पसा तु दन प़ቨग । पटावा री अंपन का ्቟ लो्቟ म जा कारी बीठे ग्቟ , म का ्቟ लो्቟ का अं दरी जा कारी पटावा री का जाबी म रिरी्ቫतु रीकाम का डी लो दिद्቟ औरी उतुन म एसाबी वा लो आकारी आरीप का ह थे8 का पकाडी लिलो्቟। एसाबी वा लो आरीप का अंपन परिरीच्቟ दकारी उसासा उसाका परिरीच्቟ प9छे तुबी उसान अंपन न म री मन री ्቟ण प ठेका हन बीतु ्቟ थे । 7. एसाबी वा लो एका का च का सा फ किगलो सा म साकिडी्቟म का बी<नटा का घोलो ्቟ री किका्቟ उसा घोलो म ቚኋ थे? औरी आरीप का छेडीकारी टाप दलो का साभी सादस््቟8 का ह थे8 का उ गलिलो्቟8 का बी री- बी री सा डीबी कारी धलो ्቟ ग्቟ तु घोलो का री ग नह5 बीदलो जिजासा का च का शाशा म सालोबी द कारी रीख ग्቟ । पनC अंन््቟ का च का सा फ किगलो सा म साकिडी्቟म का बी<नटा का घोलो तु्቟ री किका्቟ उसा घोलो म आरीप का ह थे8 का उगलिलो्቟8 का डीबी कारी धलो ्቟ ग्቟ तु घोलो का री ग नह बीदलो जिजासा का च का शाशा म सालोबी द कारी रीख ग्቟ । किफरी पटावा री सा प चसा ቌኍ का जा म तुलो शा लिलोवा ्቟ ग्቟ औरी पचसा ቌኍ का प सा काई सा म न नह रीहन दिद्቟ ग्቟ किफरी प चसा ቌኍ का ቛኋ री पटावा री का तुलो शा लिलो्቟ ग्቟ तुबी पचसा ቌኍ का ቛኋ री उसाका पहन ुሻए शाटा का जाबी सा रिरी्ቫतु रीकाम का किनका लो औरी उसा किगन ग्቟ , जिजासाम प च साH एका नटा औरी साH-साH प च नटा का लो एका हजा री रूप्቟ मिमलो जिजानका नबीरी8 का प9वा म लिलोख नबीरी8 सा मिमलो न किका्቟ ग्቟ वाह न बीरी हन प ्቟ ग्቟ । The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him. He also denied his police statement (Ex-P/19). He also denied his police statement (Ex-P/19). In para 19, he stated that " मझे पतु नह5 किका मरी ቛኋ री दिद्቟ ग्቟ टाप औरी का साटा का खरी बी हन औरी उसाम आवा जा नह5 आन का सा बी ध म एसा. बी वा लो8 न काई लिलोख पढीL का थे, ्቟ नह5। ्቟ह काहन साह ह किका पहलो बी री वा लो टाप म काई आवा जा नह5 आ्቟ थे औरी दूसारी बी री वा लो टाप म आवा जा आ्቟ थे।" 8. PW-6 K. B. Ashwani Kumar went with trap party. In para 6 he stated that before reaching Patwari Office, he got out of the car and the complainant and shadow witness Chamanlal were sent to Patwari Office and others were hidden outside the Patwari office. When Chamanlal gave signal, ACB team went inside and caught the wrist of the appellant and asked his name then he told his name but he denied accepting any bribe money. In para 7, he stated that a solution was prepared in a glass and the persons present there dipped there hand into glass but the colour of solution remained unchanged. Thereafter one more solution was 8 prepared in another glass, in which the appellant got dipped his hand but the colour of his hands also remained unchanged. He admitted his signatures on seizure memo (Ex-P/23). Transcription (Ex-P/16) and seizure of CD (Ex-P/17) and seizure of register from accused office vide Ex-P/24. 9. PW-1 Onkar Prasad Sahu stated that on the date of incident, he went to Patwari Office at that time the complainant came there and dropped something in the pocket of the appellant, thereafter 4-5 persons came there and caught the appellant saying that he has taken bribe. 10. The Investigating Officer D. S. Negi (PW-7) stated about preliminary trap proceeding. In the cross-examination, he denied his police statement on B to B part vide Ex-D/1. He denied this suggestion that the accused denied to accept bribe money and told that the complainant kept money in his pocket forcefully. 11. B. S. Rathore (PW-8) stated that he prepared complaint verification memo (Ex-P/9). The complaint of complainant is Ex- P/8 and he gave tape recorder to complainant to record voice conversation of the appellant and sent letter to Collector, Raipur vide Ex-P/26 on 10.04.2012 in this regard. Tape recorder was listened by punch witnesses and transcription of the same was done by constable Ghanshyam and transcription is Ex-P/11 and with the help of laptop, CD was prepared and seizure of CD is Ex-P/12. In para 12, he stated that they caught red handed the accused and when his hands were dipped in the solution but the 9 colour of solution remained unchanged. In the cross-examination, in para 24 he admitted that prior to 10.04.2012, he never listed the voice of the appellant. He self stated that whether the voice recorded in the tape recorder is of appellant or not he did not get the same checked. 12. Close scrutiny of statement of all the witnesses clearly shows that the complainant himself has not supported demand and recovery of bribe money from the accused. The trap witnesses and Investigating Officer clearly admitted that colour of solution/mixture was unchanged after trap proceeding. The Investigating Officer also admitted that he was not familiar to the voice of the accused. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar vs State of Maharastra, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 143, held in para 33 as under:- “33. In Ram Singh & Ors. v. Col. Ram Singh, again this Court stated some of the conditions necessary for admissibility of tape recorded statements as follows:- (1) The voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognize 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. (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 statement out of context 10 and, therefore, inadmissible. (4) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of 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.” 14. In B. Jayaraj vs State of A.P., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2080, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 8 as under:- “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 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 (Exbt. 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 Exhibit 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 Section 13(1)(d)(i)(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.” 15. This Court in CRA No.52/2018 (supra) held in paras 28 & 29 as under:- 11 “28. Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant for offence of bribery. In order to prove 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. 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. 29. In order to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, it has to be borne in mind that: (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. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) 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 gratification emanates from the public servant. This constitutes offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(1) and (ii). (iii) In both cases, 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.” 16. In light of the above, in the present case it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove demand and recovery. The complainant (PW-5) has not supported the prosecution case. The trap witness (PW-6) and Investigating Officer admitted that colour of mixture did not change and even one trap witness was not examined before the learned Trial Court and certificate under 12 Section 65 (b) of the Evidence Act was also not produced by the prosecution. It is also admitted by the Investigating Officer that the original tap recorder was not seized. He prepared CD and CD was filed with the charge sheet so authenticity of CD is also not proved without certificate of Section 65 (b) of the Evidence Act so the prosecution has failed to prove demand and recovery both in the present case, but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate these aspects of the matter and wrongly recorded a finding, as such the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable. 17. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 18. The appellant is reported to be on bail. 19. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 20. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be 13 sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala