1 CGHC010138402006 2026:CGHC:29753 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 424 of 2006 Reserved on 03/07/2026 Pronounced on 14/07/2026 1 - (Deleted) Rekh Ram Patanwar As Par Honble Court Order Dated 04-04- 2019. A. Smt. Chanda Devi Patanwar, Aged about 55 years, Wd/o Late Rekh Ram Patanwar. B. Harendra Patanwar, aged about 35 years, S/o Late Rekh Ram Patanwar. C. Gyanchandra Patanwar, about 30 years, S/o Late Rekh Ram Patanwar. No. “A” to “C” R/o Village Bitkula, Police Station Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) D. Smt. Bindulata Patanwar, aged about 33 years, D/o late Rekh Ram Patanwar, W/o Ram Narayan Patanwar, R/o Village Dhaniya, Tahsil – Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Yogendra Kumar Patnwar S/o Rekhram Patnwar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Bitkula, Police Station - Sipat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellants : Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate appears along with Shri Sourav Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Krishna Gopal Yadav, Dy. G.A. NIKITA JAIN Digitally signed by NIKITA JAIN Date: 2026.07.14 15:23:33 +0530 2 Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J CAV Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.04.2006 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.3/04, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Appellant No.1 Under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of fine, RI 6 months separately Under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 RI for 1 year with fine of Rs,.500/-, in default of fine, RI 2 months separately Appellant No.2 Under Section 201 of IPC Fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment, 6 months imprisonment separately 2. The facts, which are essential for adjudication of this appeal, are that the complainant – Fekuram Patel son of Kejuram Patel after purchasing the land bearing Khasra No.156/4 admeasuring 7.20 acres situated at Mauja-Lawar, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) under a registered deed of sale dated 25.02.2002 from one Ramkishun for a consideration of Rs.1,86,200/-, approached the appellant No.1 – Rekhram, the Patwari (since deceased, now represented by his legal representatives) and has given the same for correction of the revenue papers, but he demanded bribe of Rs.3,500/- for doing the said work, which compelled him to lodge a complaint (Ex.P.-7) on 17.02.2003 3 before the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt, Bilaspur. Based upon the alleged complaint, a trap team was constituted on 18.02.2003, and a raid was conducted and during the conversation made between them, which was recorded with the aid of a tape recorder, it was revealed that the alleged bribe amount was taken by him. During the course of further investigation, it was revealed that he handed over the alleged bribe amount to his son – Yogendra Kumar, the appellant No.2 herein and, after completion of usual investigation, a charge sheet was submitted on 29.03.2003 against them for the offence mentioned herein above, which was denied by them and, claimed to be tried. 3. The trial Court after considering the evidence led by the prosecution arrived at a conclusion that the alleged bribe was taken by the deceased appellant No.1 – Rekhram Patanwar, who has handed over the same to his son- Yogendra Kumar and, in consequence, they have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 4. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No.1 – Rekhram died on 17.01.2019 and in view of the application made by his legal representatives, the abatement of appeal so made against him vide order dated 04.04.2019 was set aside, while allowing their application made under Section 394 of Cr.P.C. and, they are permitted to continue the appeal vide order dated 02.07.2019. 5. Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, while inviting attention to the statement of the complainant – Fekuram (PW-4) and, the transcript Panchnama (Ex.P.-9) prepared based upon the audio cassette seized vide Ex.P.-8, submits that no 4 demand as such was, in fact, made by the deceased appellant No.1 – Rekhram, yet he and his son have been held to be guilty for the commission of the alleged crime. Further of his contention is that the statement of the complainant (PW-4) and the conversation of him with the said deceased appellant reduced into writing vide transcript Panchnama (Ex.P.-9) has not been scanned in its proper manner, as a bare perusal of it would show that neither the alleged demand of bribe of Rs.3,500/- is depicted from it, nor its attesting witnesses has stated so that the alleged demand was made, nor even the alleged audio cassette is accompanied by a certificate required to be made under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and, the trial Court has, therefore, committed a serious illegality in convicting them for the commission of the alleged crime. In support, he placed his reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anvar P. V. vs. P. K. Basheer and others reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55 and (2014) 10 SCC 473, respectively. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as passed by the trial Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8. The question which arises for determination in this appeal is “whether the trial Court was justified in holding that the alleged bribe to the tune of Rs.3,500/- was taken illegally by the deceased appellant – Rekhram Patanwar from the complainant for correction of the revenue papers in 5 his favour based upon the registered deed of sale dated 25.02.2002 and, then handed over to his son - Yogendra?” 9. According to the alleged complaint (Ex.P.-7) lodged by the complainant – Fekuram, the deceased appellant – Rekhram, the Patwari, has demanded bribe to the tune of Rs.3,500/- from him for correction of the revenue papers in his name based upon the registered deed of sale dated 25.02.2002, whereby he purchased the land bearing Khasra No.156/4 admeasuring 7.20 acres situated at Mauja-Lawar, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur from one Ramkishun. 10. Although, it was alleged as such, but from perusal of paragraph 11 of his (PW-4) testimony would, however, show that no demand as such of Rs.3,500/- was made by him (deceased - Rekhram) for correction of the revenue papers, as it would reveal from his said version made therein, that the complainant was, in fact, informed by him (deceased - Rekhram) that he would get his name recorded in revenue papers only after the Panchayat meeting was over and, the conversation so made between them was recorded in the tape recorder. The said portion of his evidence made at para 11 is relevant for the purpose, which reads as under:- “11. …….. iVokjh us crk;k fd iapk;r dh cSBd gksus ds ckn uke p<+k;sxk rc eSaus dgk fd tYnh uke p<+ok nks] mDr lHkh ckrphr Vsi dh okrkZyki esa vk xbZ FkhA“…….. 11. Pertinently to be noted here further that though it was alleged by the complainant in his alleged complaint (Ex.P.-7), made on 17.02.2003, that a sum of Rs.3,500/- was demanded by him towards illegal gratification for correction of revenue papers based upon the alleged 6 registered deed of sale (Ex.P.-19) and the conversation so made between them in this regard was reduced into writing vide transcript Panchnama (Ex.P.-9) in presence of two witnesses, namely, Harikrishna Sharma (PW-6) and Leeladhar Sahu (PW-8), but, it is to be noted here at this juncture that the alleged transcript Panchnama was prepared with the aid of audio cassette seized vide Ex.P.-8, which is, however, not found to be accompanied with a certificate though required to be made mandatorily under sub-section (4) of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in order to determine its admissibility, in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Anvar P. V. vs. P. K. Basheer and others (supra), wherein, while interpreting the said provision, it was held that the genuineness of an electronic record would arise for determination only if it is duly produced in terms of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. The relevant observation made to this effect at paragraphs 16 to 18 read as under:- “16. It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, compact disc (CD), video compact disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice. 17. Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, would the question arise as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45-A – opinion of Examiner of Electronic 7 Evidence. 18. The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India.” 12. In view of the aforesaid settled principles of law, no reliance, therefore, could be placed upon the alleged transcript Panchnama (Ex.P.-9) prepared on the basis of the said electronic record, i.e., audio cassette, in absence of the certificate required to be made under sub-section (4) of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 13. Apart from the aforesaid settled principles of law, even upon a bare perusal of the alleged transcript Panchnama (Ex.P.-9) would, however, suggest nowhere that the alleged illegal gratification of Rs.3,500/- was made by the deceased appellant – Rekhram from the complainant and in order to ascertain the said fact, it is necessary to examine the alleged transcript Panchnama, which reads in its vernacular language Chhattisgarhi, as under:- VªkalfØIV iapukek Fkkuk& fo’ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk yksdvk;qDr Hkksiky bZdkbZ fo-iq-LFkk- fcykliqj vijk/k Øekad& 0@03 /kkjk 7 PC Act. fnukad LFkku o le; tgka VªkalfØIV rS;kj fd;k x;k 18@3@03 dks 16%00 cts ?kVuk LFky njhZ?kkV vkjksih dk fuokl vf/kdkjh ftlus VªkalfØIV rS;kj fd;k ';kenkl] miiqfyl v/kh{kd fo-iq-LFkk- fcykliqj uke lk{kh x.k ¼1½ Jh ,y- Mh- lkgw] mi oueaMy vf/kdkjh] fcykliqj ¼2½ Jh gfjd`".k 'kekZ] v/kh{kd] Hkw&vfHkys[k] fcykliqj vkjksih js[kjke ikVuokj] iVokjh gYdk ua- 25 jk-fu-ea- eLrqjh fooj.k vkosnd Qsdqjke ejkj us vkjksih js[kjke ikVuokj iVokjh dks fj’or nsrs le; nksuksa ds chp tks okrkZ gqbZ mls vkosnd us Vsi fd;k gSA okrkZ ds va’k fuEukuqlkj 8 gSA izkjaHk esa vaxzsth ds 'kCn gSa fip dqN ?kj?kjkgV gSA vkosnd& vkokt vLi"V vkjksih& gqa ek; vka ikVhZ dks pktZ nsuk gS izpkj esa cSBr gsA vkosnd& dc cukcs HkbZ tYnh cuk ns u vc vkjksih& cgqr tYnh pktZ nsuk gs ns[kr gl ekSle y dkys rks ?kj ys vka; gSaA vkosnd& gka] tYnh cuk ns u HkbZ VkbZe er djA T.V. dh vkokt] E;wftd vkosnd& dc vkoao r vkjksih& ns[k u >Ddj y dksuks Mkgj ugha tk ldaoA vkosnd& gka vkjksih& >Ddj esa----------- lulukgV vLi"V vkosnd& nsyk j[k ys j[k ysoksA vkjksih& drsd gs vkosnd& tsrdk cksys jsgs oksrdk yk; gaoA vkjksih& ns ns gksxs rksj dke vkosnd& vLi"V vkjksih& go] go----- T.V. dh vkokt foospd ------------ xokg% ¼1½------------ ¼2½------------ 14. A bare perusal of the recitals made in the aforesaid transcript Panchnama, it is, thus, evident that the alleged demand of Rs.3,500/- was, in fact, not made by the deceased appellant from the complainant and, even the attesting witnesses of it, namely, Harikrishna Sharma (PW-6) and Leeladhar Sahu (PW-8) have stated so that during the course of reducing of the said conversation made between them, i.e., the complainant with the deceased appellant – Rekhram, the Patwari, the alleged demand of Rs.3,500/- was made by him (Rekhram) towards illegal gratification, else the same would have been reflected from their testimonies as well as from the alleged transcript Panchnama (Ex.P.-9). Pertinently to be noted here further that even the recovery of the alleged demand was neither found to be made from deceased 9 appellant – Rekhram, nor from his son Yogendra Kumar, appellant No.2 herein. 15. What is, therefore, reflected from the above mentioned testimony of the complainant (PW-6), vis-a-vis, the conversation of him with the deceased appellant Rekhram, the Patwari, reduced into the transcript Panchnama (Ex.P.-9), the alleged allegation of demand of illegal gratification of Rs.3,500/- made by him for correction of the revenue papers was, thus, not found to be established. In absence thereof, no offence as such could be made as, it is the settled principles of law that for constituting the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the demand of illegal gratification is to be established by the prosecution beyond its reasonable doubts in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), wherein it has been observed categorically to this effect at paragraphs 7 to 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 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 89 and C.M. Girish Babu v. C.B.I. (2009) 3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1. 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 10 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)(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 presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i)(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.” 16. Applying the aforesaid principles to the case in hand, where the alleged demand of illegal gratification was not found to be established, as observed herein-above based upon the testimony of the complainant – Fekuram (PW-4) and the conversation of him made with the said deceased appellant – Rekhram reduced into transcript Panchnama 11 (Ex.P.-9), the conviction of the appellants for the commission of the alleged crime, therefore, cannot be held to be sustainable in the eye of law. 17. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.04.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge under the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.3/04 is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The appellants, who are on bail, they need not surrender. However, their bail bond shall remain in operation for a further period of six months in view of the provisions prescribed under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Nikita